Farm bill

[sw363535]

there should be a movement among farmers to kill the farm bill.
Is there a chance to gut it since it was taken over by social services ?

[clayton58]

Sw. I don’t disagree with you but try telling that to Farm Bureau, NAWG, and similar groups. “Representing “ us in DC is their livelihood. No farm bill means they are out of business and out of (lucrative) jobs

[sw363535]

If the department goes under social services then they should not loose positions..   

But it is not our fault and I remember the promotion by our congressmen an senators that we need to accept SNaP and embrace it to save the farm bill when reality was they gave our farm bill away... And no one negotiated on behalf of agriculture.

If they had been worth their salt we would have gotten a guarantee that it would not becvome more than 25% of the budget.  

What is a farm bill worth if 70+ % of its budget is Welfare CASH handout.  It did not even require commodity purchases.  

I have to say it was just congressmen goving away the farm bill and "Farm Bureau, NAWG, and similar groups" accepted the premice that agriculture was not important enough to the country to have a budget position.

If that was true then at some point we have to accept reality.

[JimMeade]

It still makes sense to me to delink the Farm Bill and SNAP.  Let each stand on it's merits.  

[elcheapo]

A rather known little round AG econ/AG policy
Originally from PA, tackled this idea a few
Years ago. It's more of a practical reason than
A policy.
Most of America (except for the few on this forum)
Believe that basic food assistance is America.
When we think food, we think USDA.
We need to come to grips with the fact AG is
Less than 2%....that is no political clut.
The best we can do is to link USDA with food
Program.
If you would devoriced food programs from
Usda....you would see big cuts
I know many here don't like ""farm programs""
I have read few stories of people sending
Programs back

[Blacksandfarmer]

Cheapo, so what you are saying is that 98% of Americans believe that food stamps are the norm? I doubt it.

[elcheapo]

Re-read post.  Most Americans do not believe

Hunger is an acceptable situation in the u.s.,

Not that food stamps are the norm.

[sw363535]

Well cheapo you obviously favor welfare over agriculture's department goals. ...... or cannot tell the difference.  Or you just bought the party line that buys votes with cash...

You might be right about one thing... people have changed...  

The usda/government assistance of the 1930's was vital to the welfare of the country.  By the 1950's the population was greatful and anxious to never return to those times.

Today we redefine hunger annually because we can't figure out which kid is starving.  And we demand perpetual government assistance ( compare the unemployment numbers with the snap/welfare numbers)  

People  have changed   

Most Americans do not believe

Hunger is an acceptable situation in the u.s.,   This is how blind we have become.  There are more drug deaths in the US than starvation deaths.   I do not think you know what most americans think.  The ratings aren't that good on those channels.  Obviously the folks who say they know what americans think have been wrong.  

Most americans do not believe hunger is in the US.   Check the statistics   How many Starvation deaths happen in the US annually?  Unless obesity is included in the numbers there are very few.  

It is the problem..... no one questions what is said......so I ask...

What changed in the US between the 1950's and 2000.......   

Charity became an expectation and not an gift.

Government should promote agriculture and with providing some surplus products to those who cannot feed themselves.

Not cash.... or the equivalent.  And not on demand.....   

The snap numbers are unacceptable and embarrassing, especially in the US.

It is just another case of bureaucratic fraud.

[BA Deere]

60% of people getting food stamps are employed, plus many children are counted on the food stamp rolls.  Which tells me, many cases are people aren't paid a living wage.  Oh I know "I`m buying into the liberal argument" but when the liberal argument makes sense, I will of course buy into it, as rare as that is.  

My point is food stamps and other welfare type programs are a subsidy to employers that get by no paying what they should and passing on the cost of their workers to the taxpayers....Well, it`s like this crazy outdated rule of tipping our waitpersons +20%...why not pay the help 20% more??????? and do away the ridiculous tipping!   But there you go, restaurants say "we can`t pay our help 20% more!  No one will come into the restaurant if we raise menu prices that much!"   Oh really??? well us customers are paying your damned high prices plus the 20% tip so we get soaked one way or another.

And that`s the way with employers no paying what they should, they claim the prices of their goods and services will be priced out of the marketplace....Anyone look at their income tax bill lately???? You`re paying it, whether it`s in the price of the good and services or in your tax bill.

Where I part company very quickly with the liberal argument is, I don`t want to open up the borders to undocumented Democrat voters and bring them in and put them on food stamps.  But yes, truly needy American poor and children should have a nutritional safety net.

[sw363535]

Every argument makes sense....... as long as the presenter is allowed to redefine the terms.  And there is some logic to every position.

But not every argument should become public policy just because it "makes sense".

I have understood your leaning toward a "living wage".  But it is not logical....... and you will agree(I hope) that if you randomly pick 10 individuals & employ them at whatever wage.   Lets say $90K per year without taxes withheld, by April of the next year a few of them will need assistance paying their income tax.  It is human nature, some prepare for tomorrow and some don't, no matter what you pay.  And I think the % goes up in those without higher education.  Less education means more dependency is 

Even if you pay more and take out taxes  some of those 10 will want federal assistance within days of the job ending.  That does not change when the wages go up.

Federal assistance creates a disincentive to save or trim spending (change lifestyle)  and even look for a job.  At least on a percentage basis.  And I think raises the % of those 10 who need help, even when the job is ongoing because they spend above their income level, no matter what level that is.  The west coast should teach us that.

Federal programs tend to create their own wind.  I know two employees who will not take the company paid health insurance because their common law wives and children get snap and federal child care benefits....--regardless of the live in fathers income-- and in both cases the "spouse" works.  snap is just a third job without hours.  

They are two of many locally where unmarried live ins are common among the child bearing age group.

If the federal laws gave an advantage to married status there would be an epidemic of marriages..