Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   Giant step toward Socialism passed in the dark of night by those Commies in the Senate   ( usatoday.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, Giant Steps, Senate, World Food Programme, farm subsidies, House Agriculture Committee, farm bills, Amy Klobuchar, crop insurance  
•       •       •

3368 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Jun 2013 at 12:19 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



48 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-06-11 12:23:54 PM  
From the Headline: Food stamps would be cut under the Senate bill, but the House wants to cut deeper

Good.  Those damn freeloaders getting all that tasty government food are costing us a fortune.  Let's get back to hiring 200k a year contractors with a high school diploma now.
 
2013-06-11 12:25:57 PM  
Yes, take food out of peoples' mouths so that we can keep paying for tanks we don't need. That makes sense.
 
2013-06-11 12:26:18 PM  
Oh, how I wish every word of that headline were literally true.

/commie socialist
 
2013-06-11 12:28:20 PM  
socialism for corporate agribusiness. paid for by the food out of the mouths of the needy. just like Jesus would have wanted it.
 
2013-06-11 12:28:30 PM  
Taking food from children so that agribusiness can have it's profits guaranteed.

We should be ashamed as a nation.
 
2013-06-11 12:28:47 PM  
Citizens, the choice is between everybody eating and spying on everybody.  The Senate has chosen.
 
2013-06-11 12:29:03 PM  
Congress moved a step closer Monday toward completing a sweeping five-year, $500 billion farm law, with the Senate approving legislation that would cut farm subsidies while expanding crop insurance.


Because "Government run insurance" is Socialism IF it is to help poor people, if it's there to help business it's super super awesome capitalism x 100.
 
2013-06-11 12:32:53 PM  
Thank the gods people will now need to buy their own food and really boost the economy...by...making some rich guy's taxes lower.
 
2013-06-11 12:33:23 PM  
Fark farmers. Why can't they just buy their produce at the store like normal people?
 
2013-06-11 12:36:29 PM  

amyldoanitrite: Oh, how I wish every word of that headline were literally true.

/commie socialist


you probably could start a cooperative farm and live the dream.
 
2013-06-11 12:40:00 PM  
i1.ytimg.com
 
2013-06-11 12:40:11 PM  
Meh, not too bad. Outside the political food stamp issue:

Reduced subsides for large corporations - Good
Eliminated loopholes for non-ag buisinesses - Good
Consolidation of conservation programs - Good
Continuation of Ethanol subsidies - Bad
 
2013-06-11 12:42:35 PM  

HeadLever: Reduced subsides for large corporations - Good


However that was balanced by increasing "insurance" to maintain profits for large corporations.
 
2013-06-11 12:42:41 PM  

GoodyearPimp: Thank the gods people will now need to buy their own food and really boost the economy...by...making some rich guy's taxes lower.


Want to know how I know that you didn't read TFA?  This bill does a fair job at limiting some subsides to 'big ag'.
 
2013-06-11 12:43:24 PM  

Corvus: Congress moved a step closer Monday toward completing a sweeping five-year, $500 billion farm law, with the Senate approving legislation that would cut farm subsidies while expanding crop insurance.


Because "Government run insurance" is Socialism IF it is to help poor people, if it's there to help business it's super super awesome capitalism x 100.


I couldn't have said it any better myself.
 
2013-06-11 12:43:37 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Taking food from children so that agribusiness can have it's profits guaranteed.

We should be ashamed as a nation.


It's farking ridiculous that the HFCS in your coke subsidized by the government yet we're cutting aid to impoverished people. I'd ask if Congress felt any shame, but we all know the answer to that.
 
2013-06-11 12:43:53 PM  
I love the part tying subsidies and crop insurance to conservation compliance.  That's a smart compromise
 
2013-06-11 12:44:17 PM  
Can't be sure where img1.fark.net stands in the Class War -- assume it's just below Forbes and way over right from the Guardian, the Christian Science Monitor or the Catholic Worker.
 
2013-06-11 12:44:24 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: However that was balanced by increasing "insurance" to maintain profits for large corporations.


Nope.  From TFA:  Currently, the government pays 62% of every $1 in crop insurance premiums. The legislation cuts that total to 47% for about 20,000 of America's wealthiest farmers.
 
2013-06-11 12:46:00 PM  

HeadLever: Meh, not too bad. Outside the political food stamp issue:

Reduced subsides for large corporations - Good
Eliminated loopholes for non-ag buisinesses - Good
Consolidation of conservation programs - Good
Continuation of Ethanol subsidies - Bad


I tend to agree.  As an engineer, I'm a big fan of finding alternatives for fossil fuels and fission nuclear, but I remain unconvinced that ethanol is a viable option.
 
2013-06-11 12:47:06 PM  

HeadLever: Philip Francis Queeg: However that was balanced by increasing "insurance" to maintain profits for large corporations.

Nope.  From TFA:  Currently, the government pays 62% of every $1 in crop insurance premiums. The legislation cuts that total to 47% for about 20,000 of America's wealthiest farmers.


Yep.

From TFA:

The bill would invest savings in new revenue insurance programs backed by Midwest corn and soybean farmers that protect them against "shallow losses" caused by low prices or poor yields. Crop insurance would kick in to cover larger losses. In a bid to appease Southern lawmakers concerned their farmers would be hurt by the end of direct payments, the Senate farm bill also would set higher support prices for rice and peanut farmers, meaning growers would see subsidy payments kick in sooner.
 
2013-06-11 12:49:51 PM  

HeadLever: Philip Francis Queeg: However that was balanced by increasing "insurance" to maintain profits for large corporations.

Nope.  From TFA:  Currently, the government pays 62% of every $1 in crop insurance premiums. The legislation cuts that total to 47% for about 20,000 of America's wealthiest farmers.


Shouldn't it be cut to zero for those with revenues over $10,000,000? Just a thought. No problem giving small agriculture insurance subs but when most farming is done by large corporations who reap the benefits of other subsidies then there is a slight problem with the welfare system. The corporate welfare system.
 
2013-06-11 12:54:31 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: HeadLever: Philip Francis Queeg: However that was balanced by increasing "insurance" to maintain profits for large corporations.

Nope.  From TFA:  Currently, the government pays 62% of every $1 in crop insurance premiums. The legislation cuts that total to 47% for about 20,000 of America's wealthiest farmers.

Yep.

From TFA:

The bill would invest savings in new revenue insurance programs backed by Midwest corn and soybean farmers that protect them against "shallow losses" caused by low prices or poor yields. Crop insurance would kick in to cover larger losses. In a bid to appease Southern lawmakers concerned their farmers would be hurt by the end of direct payments, the Senate farm bill also would set higher support prices for rice and peanut farmers, meaning growers would see subsidy payments kick in sooner.


Yep, they have higher premiums on said insurance (only the wealthy farmers) but higher support prices during bad years (all farmers).  Since one is an across the board subsidy rollback and the other only kicks in during bad years, I can live with that.  Ultimatly, the article represents this change as a net savings to the taxpayer.
 
2013-06-11 12:59:50 PM  

HeadLever: Philip Francis Queeg: HeadLever: Philip Francis Queeg: However that was balanced by increasing "insurance" to maintain profits for large corporations.

Nope.  From TFA:  Currently, the government pays 62% of every $1 in crop insurance premiums. The legislation cuts that total to 47% for about 20,000 of America's wealthiest farmers.

Yep.

From TFA:

The bill would invest savings in new revenue insurance programs backed by Midwest corn and soybean farmers that protect them against "shallow losses" caused by low prices or poor yields. Crop insurance would kick in to cover larger losses. In a bid to appease Southern lawmakers concerned their farmers would be hurt by the end of direct payments, the Senate farm bill also would set higher support prices for rice and peanut farmers, meaning growers would see subsidy payments kick in sooner.

Yep, they have higher premiums on said insurance (only the wealthy farmers) but higher support prices during bad years (all farmers).  Since one is an across the board subsidy rollback and the other only kicks in during bad years, I can live with that.  Ultimatly, the article represents this change as a net savings to the taxpayer.


Oh I am certain you can live with "investing" the savings, achieved by taking food from children, in large businesses.  That's the American Way. Profit above people, now and forever.
 
2013-06-11 01:01:41 PM  

wotthefark: Shouldn't it be cut to zero for those with revenues over $10,000,000? Just a thought.


Revenue?  no.  Gross Profit or AGI?  I'd be up for that.

The problem with basing it off of revenue is that this may be a large company that also has significant costs.  If thier revenue is that high but thier costs are that high or higher on the account of things they cannot control, then I would rather have some support there as well.  Just becaust they are 'big' I don't necessarily want them out of buisness.
 
2013-06-11 01:03:57 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Oh I am certain you can live with "investing" the savings, achieved by taking food from children, in large businesses.


The 'investment' here is independent of the spending on food stamps.  You don't take one to pay for the other as they are two independent items.  I know you can't help the partisan hack from coming out most the time, but this is pretty dumb from even your standards.
 
2013-06-11 01:08:55 PM  

HeadLever: Philip Francis Queeg: Oh I am certain you can live with "investing" the savings, achieved by taking food from children, in large businesses.

The 'investment' here is independent of the spending on food stamps.  You don't take one to pay for the other as they are two independent items.  I know you can't help the partisan hack from coming out most the time, but this is pretty dumb from even your standards.


No, it isn't independent of it. The congress has chosen to radically slash spending on feeding the poor while still finding money in the same appropriation to "invest" in guaranteeing the profits of large businesses.

You are apparently fine with that trade off. I am not. I'd much rather see us "invest" in our fellow citizens.
 
2013-06-11 01:15:43 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: No, it isn't independent of it.


Yes it it.  There is no law that says that money for both these items need to be constrained in any manner. They can do what ever they want with one without placing additional constraints on the other.  Aka, there is no tradeoff.  Your insinuation that I am fine with a 'tradeoff' is a blatent strawman concoted with a partisan hack.'s agenda.
 
2013-06-11 01:18:55 PM  

HeadLever: Philip Francis Queeg: No, it isn't independent of it.

Yes it it.  There is no law that says that money for both these items need to be constrained in any manner. They can do what ever they want with one without placing additional constraints on the other.  Aka, there is no tradeoff.  Your insinuation that I am fine with a 'tradeoff' is a blatent strawman concoted with a partisan hack.'s agenda.


So you believe that the government is a bottomless cash well and that spending in one place doesn't impact spending anywhere else? Then why cut SNAP at all?
 
2013-06-11 01:26:37 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: So you believe that the government is a bottomless cash well and that spending in one place doesn't impact spending anywhere else?


Ultimatly, goverment is not cash restrained.  However, that is not to say that there aren't implications to spending outside our means.

However, my point was that there was no interdependency between these two spending items, per the retarded notion that there was somehow a tradeoff between the two.
 
2013-06-11 01:27:26 PM  

HeadLever: Philip Francis Queeg: No, it isn't independent of it.

Yes it it.  There is no law that says that money for both these items need to be constrained in any manner. They can do what ever they want with one without placing additional constraints on the other.  Aka, there is no tradeoff.  Your insinuation that I am fine with a 'tradeoff' is a blatent strawman concoted with a partisan hack.'s agenda.


They didn't have to "invest" in the profits of large corporations either. They could have chosen to invest in feeding children. That wasn't Congresses priority. Tell us, do you support that show of priority? Would you rather see that money insuring ADM's profits, or feeding children?
 
2013-06-11 01:32:08 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: They didn't have to "invest" in the profits of large corporations either. They could have chosen to invest in feeding children.


Which were two independent decisions and not one tradoff.

Ultimatly, I like providing food stamps to those that really need it and I don't want to subsidize those that don't need it.  This farm bill is an improvement over the last with respect to one of these items.
 
2013-06-11 01:36:04 PM  

HeadLever: Philip Francis Queeg: They didn't have to "invest" in the profits of large corporations either. They could have chosen to invest in feeding children.

Which were two independent decisions and not one tradoff.

Ultimatly, I like providing food stamps to those that really need it and I don't want to subsidize those that don't need it.  This farm bill is an improvement over the last with respect to one of these items.

 
Yep, we are subsidizing those who really need it. ADM and the other agribusiness giants. We've all made an "Investment" in their profits. Let's ignore the hungry and take comfort in the knowledge that ADMs profits aren't at risk.

U! S! A! U! S! A!
 
2013-06-11 01:37:59 PM  

dragonfire77: I tend to agree. As an engineer, I'm a big fan of finding alternatives for fossil fuels and fission nuclear, but I remain unconvinced that ethanol is a viable option.


Given that we use petroleum-derived fertilizer on the corn we turn into ethanol.... well, I'll let you work that one out.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-06-11 01:46:42 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Yes, take food out of peoples' mouths so that we can keep paying for tanks we don't need. That makes sense.


The odd thing is that is literally true in this case.
 
2013-06-11 01:50:26 PM  

vpb: A Dark Evil Omen: Yes, take food out of peoples' mouths so that we can keep paying for tanks we don't need. That makes sense.

The odd thing is that is literally true in this case.


Did you think I was kidding or being facetious?
 
2013-06-11 01:58:05 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Yep, we are subsidizing those who really need it. ADM and the other agribusiness giants


To a lesser extent than we were before.  That I can approve of and was my point.

I do appreciate how you try to twist it for your own political hackery.  Wouldn't expect anything more from you, though.
 
2013-06-11 02:01:39 PM  

HeadLever: Philip Francis Queeg: Yep, we are subsidizing those who really need it. ADM and the other agribusiness giants

To a lesser extent than we were before.  That I can approve of and was my point.

I do appreciate how you try to twist it for your own political hackery.  Wouldn't expect anything more from you, though.


Gee I do do apologize for taking a political stance about government spending priorities in the Politics tab.

Incidentally, champ, I am outraged at the Democrats who supported this travesty.
 
2013-06-11 02:16:57 PM  

dragonfire77: I tend to agree. As an engineer, I'm a big fan of finding alternatives for fossil fuels and fission nuclear, but I remain unconvinced that ethanol is a viable option.


Using our planet's finite (and shrinking) food-growing real estate to grow gasoline is one of the stupidest ideas ever to come from the environmental movement....and I'm pro environment.  It also artificailly inflates the price of corn, affecting food prices and feed prices for other agri-business.

Ethanol needs to go away.  Fast.
 
2013-06-11 02:20:38 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Gee I do do apologize for taking a political stance about government spending priorities in the Politics tab.


That I don't mind.  I do mind when you try to twist my point into something it was not just in order to satisfy your partisan hackery.  One is an opinion while the other is a blatent disregard for intellectual honesty.
 
2013-06-11 02:23:18 PM  

HeadLever: Philip Francis Queeg: Gee I do do apologize for taking a political stance about government spending priorities in the Politics tab.

That I don't mind.  I do mind when you try to twist my point into something it was not just in order to satisfy your partisan hackery.  One is an opinion while the other is a blatent disregard for intellectual honesty.


Partisan? Where have I brought either party into this, other that to express my disgust with the party I generally support?

The prime twisting of the discussion is your attempt to artificially and hermetically isolate the spending elements of this appropriation bill.
 
2013-06-11 02:31:44 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Partisan?


If you reallyl want, I can just leve it at hackery.  Just for you.
 
2013-06-11 02:33:55 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: The prime twisting of the discussion is your attempt to artificially and hermetically isolate the spending elements of this appropriation bill.


Is that the straw you grasp after your dumb trade-off comment?  lol.  Weaksauce ,dude.
 
2013-06-11 03:56:38 PM  
I wish they would have kept the provision that would allow the foreign food aid programs to purchase food locally.

Too bad.  It could have actually helped a region receiving food rebuild the local economy, rather than destroying the local prices for agricultural products by dumping food on them, and I dunno, maybe end the need for foreign food aid?
 
2013-06-11 04:14:01 PM  

HeadLever: Philip Francis Queeg: The prime twisting of the discussion is your attempt to artificially and hermetically isolate the spending elements of this appropriation bill.

Is that the straw you grasp after your dumb trade-off comment?  lol.  Weaksauce ,dude.


 Yeah, every individual spending item in the government budget are wholly and completely unrelated to each other. Each is evaluated solely on it's merits with no reference what so ever to other items within the same departmental appropriation. You got me there Boss. You really have how our government functions down pat.
 
2013-06-11 05:17:58 PM  
Of course they want to cut food stamps, it's been proven that the most bang for the buck to stimulate the economy is food stamp spending. Idiots.
 
2013-06-11 06:25:19 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Yeah, every individual spending item in the government budget are wholly and completely unrelated to each other.


img142.imageshack.us
 
2013-06-11 10:07:32 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Yes, take food out of peoples' mouths so that we can keep paying for tanks we don't need. That makes sense.


Oh I have a feeling that if you keep taking food out peoples mouths, youll find a use for those tanks after all...
 
Displayed 48 of 48 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report