|
Posted on 06/20/2013 11:24:27 AM PDT by ConservativeMan55
Edited on 06/20/2013 11:53:29 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
In a defeat for Republican leadership, the House on Thursday rejected a sweeping farm bill, amid opposition from both sides of the aisle.
More than 60 House Republicans defected and voted against the half-trillion-dollar bill, which sets funding for farm subsidies and other assistance as well as food stamps.
The vote was 234-195 against the bill.
Indeed.
<i>But the Senate bill cut the food stamp program, too!
The House bill, that the Tea Party caucus rejected, cut the food stamp program by $2 billion/yr over the next five years. But the Senate bill -- that's already passed -- cut food stamps by $400 million/year.
How very, very interesting...
Exactly.
It’s for the chilren you know.
Or is that “chillin”...I always forget...
Whoa! LBJ wasn't "hiding" it. He was simply putting something in the Ag budget that urban Congressmen and Senators would vote for. If the Farm Bill had to rely solely on rural Congressmen and Senators for passage, there would never have been any subsidies.
How’s that gonna workout at the Tattoo Salons?
Good plan but are we out of cheez?
Whoa!
The Farm Bill is one of the biggest pieces of pork in Washington, too.
Foodstamp fraud and Ethanol Fraud both defeated in one go?
Can we hope it sticks?
|
>Why did dems vote against it?
Because the handouts to their voters were too small. If our government truly only helped those that need it (seniors, crippled, unable to work), the democrat party would die.
I remember that from the 1960's. The govt paid farmers TO grow food for the poor. It worked very well to inspire people to get to work to eat better and be the safety net for those that lost work.
It, at least, had the effect of encouraging overproduction of these commodities and making products which used them less expensive.
Now, when you see premium food like choice cuts of meat, shrimp and the like purchased in your local supermarket, the chances are pretty good that they are puchased mostly by people with EBT cards.
This doesn't help bring down the price of other commodities which we mere taxpaying peasants can afford.
“They call it the farm bill but it’s the Department of Agriculture appropriations bill. That will still need to be funded.”
No it doesn’t. The Department of Agriculture should be eliminated along with the Department of Commerce, Department of Labor, Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Transporation and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The missions of all of these departments belong to the states under the Constitution. Eliminate them completely and in two years the majority of the American people will be unaffected demonstrating the bureaucracy is unnecessary. The only way to fix Washington is to defund large chunks which means eliminating entire departments.
Half the Republicans thought it was too much and half the DemocRats didn’t think it was enough.
The recent combination of low yields, low support prices and no new farm bill for a number of years has resulted in essentially no direct commodity related payments to farmers for quite a while. The commodity price now has to be really low for those payments to kick in. In some, if not all, of the proposed bills, the support prices are based on the recent prices received by the producers. If there is an average or above average yield this year or any year, the commodity price will go way down & the taxpayer will be stuck with a large increase in the 20% non-SNAP part of the farm bill.
The support prices need to be lower than those proposed and the “Farm Bill” needs to divest the SNAP program.
This was championed by a Congressman Mike Conaway, apparently from Midland, Texas.
Is there a Bush connection?
I thought this area was very conservative.
Just to add a point: Of that 20% of the farm bill that is non-SNAP, 75% of that goes to a handful of large corporations.
“This shouldn’t have been called a “farm” bill...”
How about “the pig, pork and bacon bill”
The urban cretins are farming away taxpayers dollars.
Agricultural interests play a role here with the “conservative” Steve King of Iowa a YES, Bachmann was a NO and she calls herself the same “conservative” that King does.
The most conservative voting members of the PA delegation voted NO (Pitts, Perry, Rothfus) on this pork for the ag industry bill (my guess)?????
Republicans voted for this Food Stamp Bill on Steroids 171-62.
Glad it was beaten back, only if temporarily and only if the rest of the No votes came from hardcore commies who want to give away even more money.
About 25% of the Republicans voted against it, more than we have seen on many bloated funding bills in the past. Maybe the growing numbers will give some of the others a bit of backbone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
