Farm Subsidy Recipient Backs Food Stamp Cuts

[awouk]

May 22, 2013

Farm Subsidy Recipient Backs Food Stamp Cuts

By RON NIXON

WASHINGTON - A Tennessee congressman who supports billion of
dollars in cuts to the food stamp program is one of the largest
recipients of federal farm subsides, according to new annual data
released by a Washington environmental group.

Using Agriculture Department data, researchers at the
Environmental Working Group found that Representative Stephen
Fincher, a Republican and a farmer from Frog Jump, Tenn.,
collected nearly $3.5 million in subsidies from 1999 to 2012. The
data is part of the research group's online farm subsidy database
from which the group issues a report each year.

In 2012 alone, the data shows, Mr. Fincher received about $70,000
in direct payments, money that is given to farmers and farmland
owners, even if they do not grow crops. It is unclear how much
Mr. Fincher received in crop insurance subsidies because the
names of people receiving the subsidies are not public. The group
said most of the agriculture subsidies go to the largest, most
profitable farm operations in the country. These farmers have
received $265 billion in direct payments and farm insurance
subsidies since 1995, federal records show.

During debate on the farm bill in the House Agriculture Committee
last week, Mr. Fincher was one of the biggest proponents of $20
billion in cuts to food stamps in the legislation. At times he
quoted passages from the Bible in defending the cuts.

...

--
`The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to
be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks.' -Lord Acton
"to email me, delete blackhole from my return address

[Werner]

The country is bankrupt. Triage is in our future.

[BIG BIRD]

"awouk" <aw...@blackhole.nyx.net> wrote in message
news:knoaun$s2q$7...@dont-email.me...
:
: May 22, 2013

:
: Farm Subsidy Recipient Backs Food Stamp Cuts
:
: By RON NIXON
:
: WASHINGTON - A Tennessee congressman who supports billion of
: dollars in cuts to the food stamp program is one of the largest
: recipients of federal farm subsides, according to new annual data
: released by a Washington environmental group.

let's lynch that dick suckin, mother fuckin hillbilly bitch
over a roaring fire,stuff his pants with fire ants

[Planet Visitor II]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 11:39:24 -0700 (PDT), Werner <whet...@mac.com> wrote:

>The country is bankrupt. Triage is in our future.

"Future"???? You're rather optimistic.


Planet Visitor II

[chatnoir]

On May 24, 12:39 pm, Werner <whetz...@mac.com> wrote:
> The country is bankrupt. Triage is in our future.

Mindlessly putting that in response to every article hardly represents
a position!

[Werner]

It's not supposed to be a position. It's fact.

[forbi...@gmail.com]

On Friday, May 24, 2013 12:34:56 PM UTC-7, Lonesome Dove wrote:
> The environmental group is dead wrong. We farmers do not get ag
> subsidies. The man that sells us the tractor, the seed, the fuel,
> the grain bins, the fertilizer, the labor and the pesticide get
> the subsidies. It just makes a very brief visit to our bank
> account. If you want to pay about 260% more for everything you
> eat, drink or wear and put thousands out of work, cut out the
> subsidies.
>
> Lonesome Dove

Subsidies skew markets. Paying more for food, if that's the
outcome, would only set markets right by providing the proper
price signals to consumers. Now people are paying more for
stuff they don't know is actually funding food.

Interestingly, the food subsidized isn't the most healthy for us.
It leads to fat, malnourished poor folks.

[chatnoir]

On May 26, 9:18 am, Lonesome Dove <lonesomed...@texnet.org> wrote:

> I would love a return to the free market economic model.
> we would make more money, keep more money (farm equipment lasts
> decades) but you would then simply have to increase the subsidies
> to poor people because they couldn't afford food or clothing.
> What would you do about that?
>
> Lonesome Dove- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Farmers can't survive without subsidies

[chatnoir]

On May 26, 3:56 pm, Lonesome Dove <lonesomed...@texnet.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 26 May 2013 09:47:50 -0700 (PDT), chatnoir

> You're full of shit. I've been a farmer for 61 years and now have
> sons and daughters that are farmers and ranchers. We could
> survive very nicely without subsidies. YOU couldn't survive
> without farm subsidies.

>
> Lonesome Dove- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Hard to say. My Sister and their Husband run a farm in South-Eastern
Colorado. South East of Eads Colorado. The drought has really
effected the area. It looks like the moon. None of the crops came
up. The ag inspector will come out and determine the amount of money
they can get for the failed crops! Indeed farmers who grow corn have
to sell to 3 big processors who only pay below costs for the growth of
the corn. Makes the Farmers grow more corn the next year and the next
so that they are always in debt. Many have to have jobs in the town -
you don't know this?

[brian]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 16:56:04 -0500, Lonesome Dove
<loneso...@texnet.org> wrote:

>On Sun, 26 May 2013 09:47:50 -0700 (PDT), chatnoir

>You're full of shit. I've been a farmer for 61 years and now have
>sons and daughters that are farmers and ranchers. We could
>survive very nicely without subsidies. YOU couldn't survive
>without farm subsidies.

Who would you sell to?

[forbi...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, May 26, 2013 8:18:25 AM UTC-7, Lonesome Dove wrote:
> On Sat, 25 May 2013 07:43:52 -0700 (PDT), forbi...@gmail.com

> I would love a return to the free market economic model.
>
> we would make more money, keep more money (farm equipment lasts
>
> decades) but you would then simply have to increase the subsidies
>
> to poor people because they couldn't afford food or clothing.
>
> What would you do about that?
>
>
>
> Lonesome Dove

Subsidize the poor, if that is the desire, not food or clothing.
The advantage of food stamps over farm subsidies is that we only
need to subsidize the neutritional needs of the poor not the population
at large. Less skewing of the markets.

Here's how it works:
We subsidize farmers. That money comes from somewhere and could
be doing other stuff. Some of the subsidized food is consumed by
people who would have made other choices had the price reflected
the real market.

Now my preference is to subsidize delivery systems such as second
harvest. Let people who are charged with feeding feeding the poor
find the most effecient way to do so. My concern is that any time
money is involved there will be those who look to make money over
performing their chartered task.

[forbi...@gmail.com]

On Monday, May 27, 2013 11:34:58 AM UTC-7, Lonesome Dove wrote:

> On Mon, 27 May 2013 11:09:59 -0700 (PDT), forbi...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> >On Sunday, May 26, 2013 8:18:25 AM UTC-7, Lonesome Dove wrote:
> >> I would love a return to the free market economic model.
> >> we would make more money, keep more money (farm equipment lasts
> >> decades) but you would then simply have to increase the subsidies
> >> to poor people because they couldn't afford food or clothing.
> >>
> >> What would you do about that?
> >

> >Subsidize the poor, if that is the desire, not food or clothing.
> >The advantage of food stamps over farm subsidies is that we only
> >need to subsidize the neutritional needs of the poor not the population
> >at large. Less skewing of the markets.
> >
> >Here's how it works:
> >We subsidize farmers. That money comes from somewhere and could
> >be doing other stuff. Some of the subsidized food is consumed by
> >people who would have made other choices had the price reflected
> >the real market.
> >
> >Now my preference is to subsidize delivery systems such as second
> >harvest. Let people who are charged with feeding feeding the poor
> >find the most effecient way to do so. My concern is that any time
> >money is involved there will be those who look to make money over
> >performing their chartered task.
>

> I favor no subsidies at all.

You're the one who proposed increasing the subsidies to the
poor. Are you backing away from "you would then simply have

to increase the subsidies to poor people because they couldn't

afford food or clothing."? Since even charities are a form of
subsidy do you now think the poor should go hungry and nude?

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Tue, 28 May 2013 07:25:21 -0500, Lonesome Dove
<snip>
>You've misconstrued what I said. I'm not proposing anything, just
>stating the facts. I'll make it more plain for you. I AM AGAINST
>SUBSIDIES PERIOD! No one should get favorable tax treatment
>because they donate to charities. If we do not have enough people
>to donate to the poor without some incentive other than just
>wanting to help, we're not much of a country.
>
>Lonesome Dove



Does that include joint tax returns? My bet is that
you don't think that's a subsidy, but I'll be pleasantly
surprised if I'm wrong.

[forbi...@gmail.com]

While a bit messy, I believe Lonesome Dove is asserting a desire
for a consumption tax. While I support a consumption tax I also
support a per head negative tax sufficient to cover the tax on some
minimal standard of living. Those who don't spend that much to live
come out ahead but so what.

I don't get how religious organizations are exempt from taxes based
upon the first amendment when I read it it says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, ..." It seems to me that taxes don't prohibit the free exercise
of religion and not taxing is making a law respecting an establishment of
religion. You'll notice that many, including some on the USSC, assert that
affirmative action laws are by their very nature descriminatory and the only
way to redress this "wrong" is to stop looking at race and racial distributions
altogether. Why they don't hold this position relative to the first amendment
is beyond me.

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Tue, 28 May 2013 16:50:01 -0500, Lonesome Dove
<loneso...@texnet.org> wrote:

>On Tue, 28 May 2013 10:45:24 -0700, rumpelstiltskin
><rumpels...@x.com> wrote:
>
>> I AM AGAINST
>>>SUBSIDIES PERIOD!

You didn't answer the question.

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Tue, 28 May 2013 20:25:41 -0700 (PDT), forbi...@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>

>While a bit messy, I believe Lonesome Dove is asserting a desire
>for a consumption tax. While I support a consumption tax I also
>support a per head negative tax sufficient to cover the tax on some
>minimal standard of living. Those who don't spend that much to live
>come out ahead but so what.

Chatnoir posted today about how things are in Denmark.
When discussions of an "ideal", or at least a "better" and
"more humane" social setup come up, I always bring up
Scandinavia as the enviable example of "social democracy".

>
>I don't get how religious organizations are exempt from taxes based
>upon the first amendment when I read it it says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, ..." It seems to me that taxes don't prohibit the free exercise
>of religion and not taxing is making a law respecting an establishment of
>religion. You'll notice that many, including some on the USSC, assert that
>affirmative action laws are by their very nature descriminatory and the only
>way to redress this "wrong" is to stop looking at race and racial distributions
>altogether. Why they don't hold this position relative to the first amendment
>is beyond me.

It's because they really believed it. I don't see how
anyone can believe it, but it's a powerful influence on
many people's minds even today. I have to chalk my
incredulity up to my lack of appreciation for the power
of meme. I really shouldn't be surprised, since I have
exactly the same kinds of thing in my mind, such as
the conviction that social democracy is the way to go.