REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Obama using food-stamp cash to fund Michelle’s ‘Let’s Move’

POSTED BY: JONGSSTRAW
UPDATED: Thursday, November 14, 2013 13:37
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1849
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, November 12, 2013 3:48 PM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:


Obama using food-stamp cash to fund Michelle’s ‘Let’s Move’
By Andrea Peyser
New York Post
November 11, 2013

As you dig into your Butterball with all the trimmings this Thanksgiving, remember that millions of famished schoolkids around America may be forced to forgo classic turkey — and chow down instead on vegan black-bean patties and organic locavore quinoa salad.

On Nov. 1, sizable cuts were gouged into the federal food-stamp program (or, as it’s now called, SNAP, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), which feeds 47.6 million people, or nearly one in six Americans. In the city, 1.9 million folks get the bulk of their Jell-O and Campbell’s Soup from stamps.

But news has spread among the poor, like leafy green vegetables, that it wasn’t heartless Republicans who triggered the cuts.

Rather, some of the food-stamp cash was snatched to pay for Michelle Obama’s pet project, Let’s Move. What?

It’s come to this. Some 76 million meals a year will vanish from this city — poof! — partly because the president diverted money from SNAP to the first lady’s signature program, part of her Let’s Move anti-obesity initiative — the bean-sprout-heavy, $4.5 billion Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act.

The rest of the $5 billion annual food-stamp cuts was taken when 2009 stimulus funds dried up. But with ObamaCare woes stealing the oxygen in Washington, there’s little urgency to replace dandelion greens served on recyclable trays with family-friendly buttered mashed potatoes.

Right now, the country’s poorest families of four are seeing food-stamp allotments cut from $668 a month to $632. It may not sound like much, but understand that $36 is enough to buy a truckload of Kool-Aid and ramen noodles. (Lose the noodles if the Food and Drug Administration succeeds in banning trans fats.)

How did this happen?

Hunger activists are livid. In fact, the cuts will bring on no less than civil unrest, according to the head of the Food Bank for New York City.

“If you look across the world, riots always begin typically the same way: when people can’t afford to eat food,” Margarette Purvis, Food Bank president and CEO, told Salon.com.

“We were told, you know, by the president .?.?. these cuts will not happen,” she said.

“Well, guess what. No one has restored that money.”

“It is bad policy to take away a child’s dinner and put it in his lunch,” Triada Stampas, director of government relations for the Food Bank, told me.

An administration source told me that the president wants to fund SNAP and healthy lunches in the latest budget, both of which he finds important. But getting it past Congress seems unlikely.

The great food grab began in 2010, when President Obama, with Michelle and US Department of Agriculture honchos at his side, signed the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act. At the time, he admitted taking cash from one pocket to feed the other.

“Some of the funding [for the lunch program] comes from rolling back temporary increases in food-stamp benefits,” he said, starting in the fall of 2013.

“I’m committed to working with [Congress] to restore these funds in the future.”

It proved to be magical thinking.

Part of the problem is that the food-stamp program has grown like wildfire under Obama — to $80 billion last year, with a more than 70 percent increase in recipients just since 2008. Do they all need the help?

Hunger activists have lately rolled out hard-luck cases to the media, like grandmother Katherine McKinnon, who became a single mom of three after her daughter died.

McKinnon was last seen on CNN, walking the streets of New York hunting for cans to sell for a nickel apiece.

“No matter how people look at you, keep your head up,” she said.

Things will get even tighter. The Republican-controlled House wants to cut $39.9 billion over the next ten years from stamps under the farm bill now being negotiated, by eliminating fraud and asking able-bodied recipients to work or join jobs programs.

The Democrat-controlled Senate, which has asked for no such provisions, wants to cut $4.5 billion.

Maybe a good source for food money is the school-lunch program, as kids around the nation rise up against government-approved grub.

One school district’s kids said it “tastes like vomit.”

Ending obesity is a laudable goal. But cardboard lunches should never replace Christmas ham or Hanukkah chicken soup. Stop moving — and sit down.

http://nypost.com/2013/11/11/obama-takes-from-kids-dinners-to-fund-mic
helles-project
/

Can't blame the kids for wanting pizza and cheeseburgers.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 12, 2013 3:51 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


This can't be true. Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh must be behind this silly story.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 12, 2013 5:00 PM

JONGSSTRAW


^^ It's not silly to Mrs. Obama. Her husband has a legacy called Obamacare, and she will have one too .... trying to get kids to eat healthy stuff that they don't like. Same thing, different targets.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 12, 2013 7:21 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Amazing...you'll post this and crack wise and point fingers, but totally ignore that the Republicans are demanding to cut SNAP by $40 BILLION. I certainly don't think money should be diverted from SNAP to something else, but what about the $40 Billion that House Republicans want to CUT, period, end of story, all gone. That doesn't count, obviously, that's not interesting enough to you.

It's only bad if Obama does it...DIVERTS the money, which is wrong, but isn't the same as CUTTING the funding completely. Hypocrisy, anyone?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 12, 2013 10:28 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


How much did Obama and the Dims inflate SNAP over the past 5 years ?

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 12, 2013 10:46 PM

JONGSSTRAW


$80 billion last year, up 70% since Obama became President.

Republicans want to cut 39.9 billion, but that's over ten years.

Since they don't control the Senate or the White House, their 10-year goal is only a negotiating point for future budget deals.

But Obama has grabbed $4.5 billion from the SNAP program all by himself. He's the only one who has taken millions of meals away from the needy.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 12, 2013 10:52 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
$80 billion last year, up 70% since Obama became President.

Republicans want to cut 39.9 billion, but that's over ten years.

Since they don't control the Senate or the White House, their 10-year goal is only a negotiating point for future budget deals.

But Obama has grabbed 4.5 billion from the SNAP program all by himself. He's the only one who has taken millions of meals away from the needy.



Devil's always in the details, huh Jongs ? Dims cry that the GOP want to GUT SNAP of 40 billion, while ignoring 2 key points... it's over 10 YEARS , and that Obama and the Dims have raised it almost twice that much in 5 years.


Reminds me of the REDUCTION in increases the GOP wanted for the school lunch programs, back in the 90's. They were still going to give schools MORE money, but the Dims and extremely biased MSM kept using terms like 'Draconian cuts! '. There WERE no cuts. More than you got last year is an increase, not a cut. Again... details, details.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 13, 2013 3:40 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Hey Jongs, what was it before that, and the year before, hell go back 10 years. What was the SNAP program budget back in 2001? Could you tell me that?

Did you guys know that 900,000 vets depend upon food stamps, or SNAP, for their sustenance? What happens to those who fought for this country? Yeah, that's right it's Obama's fault.


SGG

Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
$80 billion last year, up 70% since Obama became President.

Republicans want to cut 39.9 billion, but that's over ten years.

Since they don't control the Senate or the White House, their 10-year goal is only a negotiating point for future budget deals.

But Obama has grabbed $4.5 billion from the SNAP program all by himself. He's the only one who has taken millions of meals away from the needy.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 13, 2013 3:50 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Oh, by the way, that Farm Bill that Congress is looking to pass has some interesting little asides. Seems that there are some in Congress who will benefit greatly on the passing of the Farm subsidies bill, because quite a few of them own these "farms" -

Does that seem like a conflict of interest to you?

"Well, looky there. What do you know, I own that little bit of land on that farm. Seems like I'll be getting a windfall on this one fellas, who knew!?


SGG

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 13, 2013 3:58 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


The Farm Bill Billionaires:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/11/farm-bill-billionaires_n_4256
365.html


Read it and then talk to me about cutting food stamps.


SGG

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 13, 2013 4:05 AM

AGENTROUKA


It would be easier to take this article more seriously if the author didn't express this strangely hostile relationship toward certain kinds of food. Makes him sound ridiculously preoccupied - and sorta hungry, like he skipped lunch while trying to write a thought-provoking article about food funding. When else are people so intensely focused on junk food?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 13, 2013 5:01 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
$80 billion last year, up 70% since Obama became President.

Republicans want to cut 39.9 billion, but that's over ten years.

Since they don't control the Senate or the White House, their 10-year goal is only a negotiating point for future budget deals.

But Obama has grabbed 4.5 billion from the SNAP program all by himself. He's the only one who has taken millions of meals away from the needy.



Devil's always in the details, huh Jongs ? Dims cry that the GOP want to GUT SNAP of 40 billion, while ignoring 2 key points... it's over 10 YEARS , and that Obama and the Dims have raised it almost twice that much in 5 years.


Reminds me of the REDUCTION in increases the GOP wanted for the school lunch programs, back in the 90's. They were still going to give schools MORE money, but the Dims and extremely biased MSM kept using terms like 'Draconian cuts! '. There WERE no cuts. More than you got last year is an increase, not a cut. Again... details, details.



Such ignorance.

Programs like the food stamps and the school lunch program are guarunteed funded programs. Meaning that each person enrolled get X benifits. So if more people enroll the over cost is higher. That means that you can cut benifits and still spend more the next year. It also means that Dems have not raised benifits, and yet the GOP cuts are real cuts.



I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 13, 2013 5:26 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


@ issue isn't those getting MORE benefits, it's how much is being SPENT!

You know, bottom line, real world numbers ?


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 13, 2013 5:53 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


The upshot of that is when economic times are tough, more people lose their jobs and fall onto foodstamps, and if the foodstamp budget doesn't go up to accommodate them then their benefits will be cut at a time when the people in the program are actually genuine, deserving families who have fallen on hard times.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 13, 2013 9:24 PM

REAVERFAN


1. Some reichwing nut posts a BS article.

2. People debunk the very premise.

3. Reichwing nut posts some more BS later.

4. Repeat.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 13, 2013 9:45 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
@ issue isn't those getting MORE benefits, it's how much is being SPENT!

You know, bottom line, real world numbers ?




Those in need who would see less benefits and less food are very real. Plus $80 billion is not a lot in a $3+ trillion budget.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 14, 2013 6:13 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Anytime you offer free stuff, and it gets used, some are gonna claim that proves it's needed. There's a flaw in the logic.

$80 billion isn't a lot, huh?

Well, add it up, from all areas of govt, and pretty soon you're talking real money.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 14, 2013 7:48 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by reaverfan:
1. Some reichwing nut posts a BS article.

2. People debunk the very premise.

3. Reichwing nut posts some more BS later.

4. Repeat.


Or the SAME EXACT BS, in different words, yeah.
Would that these fuckers had to see it from point blank range like I do - thanks to the SNAP cuts and the three nearest apartment complexes being bought out by some hoity-toity rightwing management company who decided to punt all the Section Eight residents, I now have to deal with a whole fekkload of hungry, angry, homeless people who are very desperate in close proximity (like ACROSS THE GODDAMN STREET!) to the Apartment Complex I am charged to protect....

It's a whole different fucking STORY when one has to deal with the CONSEQUENCES of their actions, which these dipshits in their gated communities mostly do not, and yanno, I have zero problem what-so-ever with rectifyin that, in fact I am temped to pass out maps to those hungry, angry, desperate people, pointing out not only who is most responsible, but the fact that they have plenty of goodies, and WHERE THEY ARE.

That's something you fuckers oughta consider.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 14, 2013 8:53 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Anytime you offer free stuff, and it gets used, some are gonna claim that proves it's needed. There's a flaw in the logic.

$80 billion isn't a lot, huh?

Well, add it up, from all areas of govt, and pretty soon you're talking real money.



People do tend to get use to eating. There is no flaw since to get food stamps in the first place people has to show need.

Yes, money adds up. One of the reason money was taken from the SNAP program to fund the school lunch program to not add to costs. In the end it still helps children eat.

The largest drivers of increase spending are Medicare, Medicaid and Defense. The ACA is the first step to bring down overall health costs and help stem Medicare and Medicaid increases. Defense, well that is another story.

Right now we don't have a budget or deficit problem. Projections for the next 10 year show a shrinking deficit and our total debt to GDP is not that high. So there is zero need to cut a program like food stamps while the economy is still weak.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 14, 2013 9:19 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


In a nutshell and thank you very much, Nick.

Our righties have no problem at all cutting live-saving programs in bad times, and have equal interest in cutting taxes to the rich in those same times, despite the gigantic inequality that's been MANIPULATED in this country by taking from those suffering in those bad times and giving it to those living high on the hog. That's about the sum total of it.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 14, 2013 10:05 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:

In a nutshell and thank you very much, Nick.

Our righties have no problem at all cutting live-saving programs in bad times, and have equal interest in cutting taxes to the rich in those same times, despite the gigantic inequality that's been MANIPULATED in this country by taking from those suffering in those bad times and giving it to those living high on the hog. That's about the sum total of it.




The lie is that it's " life saving " , Niki. There's so much fraud and waste in the program, and so many are getting help that really have no business doing so, to ignore that is the real crime. This is nothing but programming of the dumb masses by the govt to let big daddy take care of you, fret not over actually trying to take care of yourself.

You didn't build that anyways, right ?

But of course, you'll try to distort the issue by suggesting it's all or nothing as for offering assistance, and drag out the most heart tugging, tragic stories as being the 'standard' user of the SNAP program, and then lie that it's the GOP who wants to toss EVERYONE out into the gutter to starve. Complete bunk.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 14, 2013 12:22 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
The lie is that it's " life saving " , Niki. There's so much fraud and waste in the program, and so many are getting help that really have no business doing so, to ignore that is the real crime. This is nothing but programming of the dumb masses by the govt to let big daddy take care of you, fret not over actually trying to take care of yourself.

You didn't build that anyways, right ?

But of course, you'll try to distort the issue by suggesting it's all or nothing as for offering assistance, and drag out the most heart tugging, tragic stories as being the 'standard' user of the SNAP program, and then lie that it's the GOP who wants to toss EVERYONE out into the gutter to starve. Complete bunk.



I'm sure you have clear citation showing exactly how many of the people on food stamps don't need them.

I'll wait...

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 14, 2013 1:09 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Someone asked for facts and figures? "There's so much fraud and waste in the program...."
Quote:

Some House Republican leaders have sought to portray SNAP as rife with fraud and abuse to help justify their proposals to cut millions of people from the program and slash $40 billion from SNAP. The facts are not on their side. A history of bipartisan congressional oversight and strong attention to SNAP program integrity from the Agriculture Department (USDA) and states have made SNAP one of the most efficient and effective programs we have.

The SNAP overpayment rate — that is, the share of benefits either issued to ineligible households or overpaid to eligible households — was just 2.77 percent last year (see graph). The large majority of overpayments reflect inadvertent mistakes by recipients, eligibility workers, data entry clerks, or computer programmers, not fraud.



In addition, when you subtract SNAP underpayments — benefits that should have gone to eligible participating households but didn’t because of errors — the net loss to the government last year was about 2 percent of benefits. By contrast, the IRS estimates that about 15 percent of income taxes go unpaid.

It’s also important to understand that fighting SNAP fraud isn’t a partisan issue. Under Congressional oversight, the USDA, in both Republican and Democratic administrations, has worked to root out fraud in SNAP. As a result, SNAP fraud is low. Nonetheless, USDA and Congress are working together to continue that progress and address new issues as they arise.

USDA has intensified these efforts in recent years. It has expanded its fraud investigations: in fiscal year 2012, for example, USDA reviewed over 15,000 retail stores to ensure that they aren’t illegally converting SNAP benefits into cash (known as “trafficking”) and conducted nearly 4,400 undercover investigations. USDA has also proposed new rules to combat fraud, increased penalties on stores for committing fraud, and given states new resources to prevent fraud.

States fight fraud as well, completing several hundred thousand fraud investigations and disqualifying 46,000 people in fiscal year 2011.

Additional common-sense measures are in the works. The Senate and the House Agriculture Committee have passed separate bills that would end SNAP benefits for lottery winners and give states new tools to identify recipients who sell their benefits for cash. Both bills also include more resources to help detect retailer fraud, such as “data mining” technology to help identify stores that could be trafficking SNAP benefits.

While SNAP fraud is very low, any amount of fraud is unacceptable, and policymakers should continue to do all they can to fight it. But they should not use highly inflated rhetoric about SNAP fraud and abuse as a cover for deep benefit cuts that would take food away from honest, needy American families, children, and seniors. http://www.offthechartsblog.org/setting-the-record-straight-on-snap-pa
rt-3-waiving-the-fraud-waste-and-abuse-flag/
]


To respond directly, hell, no I won't say "it's all or nothing as for offering assistance"--I want it FIXED, but I don't believe in throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I prefer facts and figures, and there are plenty of those to go around.

As to increasing cost (which talking point you didn't address, but I'm sure is coming):
Quote:

Let's start with claims about out-of-control costs. As the chart below shows, SNAP costs did rise substantially between 2007 and 2011. The reason, however, is overwhelmingly economic. By design, SNAP provides modest benefits to eligible vulnerable people, and the number of such people rises when the economy weakens. CBO found that about two-thirds of the increase in spending on benefits between 2007 and 2011 reflects higher program participation due to the economy:

The primary reason for the increase in the number of [SNAP] participants was the deep recession from December 2007 to June 2009 and the subsequent slow recovery; there were no significant legislative expansions of eligibility for the program during that time.

Another 20 percent of the increase in costs reflects a temporary increase in SNAP benefits – which President Obama and Congress enacted as part of the 2009 Recovery Act. The remainder reflects other factors that automatically boost benefits, such as higher food prices and lower incomes among recipients due to the weaker economy.

CBO projects that an improving economy will reduce the share of the population that participates in SNAP to its 2008 level in coming years; accordingly, costs will fall as a share of the economy. That's because most SNAP beneficiaries who can work want to and do work ( http://www.offthechartsblog.org/the-facts-on-snap-part-2-snap-supports
-work/)k
when jobs are available. About two-thirds of SNAP recipients aren't expected to work, mostly because they are children, elderly or disabled.
But, as the chart below shows, work rates are high among SNAP households with at least one working-age, non-disabled adult while they receive SNAP – and higher still within a year before or after they receive SNAP.



The "entitlement society" myth is often paired with similarly discredited arguments that SNAP and other federal social programs are poorly run or have high administrative costs. In fact, SNAP has a strong record of efficiency. It has one of the most rigorous quality control systems of any public benefit program. SNAP error rates (benefit overpayments and underpayments) are at an all-time low; just 3 percent of benefits went to ineligible households or exceeded the allowable benefit for eligible households.

Conservative critics of SNAP and other federal social programs like to portray them as turning the United States into an "entitlement society" by undermining the work ethic and creating a class of people dependent on government programs. That's not true of SNAP and it's not true of other federal health and income security programs. CBPP analysis finds that more than 90 percent of the benefit dollars that these programs spend go to assist people who are elderly, seriously disabled or members of working households – not to able-bodied, working-age Americans who choose not to work. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2013/05/16/f
acts-show-food-stamp-program-has-a-strong-record-of-efficienty



We all know you guys couldn't be less interested in facts and figures, I just put that up for everyone else.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 14, 2013 1:12 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Here's something that's worth looking at. The answer to Shiny's question, which turns out to be quite interesting: "What was the SNAP program budget back in 2001?"

The SNAP budget in 2001, when Bush took office, was $17,789.39. In 2009, when Obama took office, it was $53,621.49. In 2012, it was $78,435.92. So it went up $35,832.10, or essentially doubled, under Bush. It has gone up $24,814.43 under Obama, during the worst economic times in America since the Depression. Gee, I'm sure that had nothing to do with it.

What I'd like to know is why didn't it GO DOWN under Bush, since those were supposedly "boom times"?? Why did it double? After all, under Clinton it went down from $23,652.97 to $17,789.39 (after, note, going UP for three years), so it went down $5,863.58. What did Bush do to add essentially $41,695.68 to it in his eight years…by the way, essentially TWICE what Obama has added during, again, the worst economic times in America since the Depression?

Let's look at participation, while we're at it. Bush began with 17,318,000 participants in 2001. By the time Obama took office, there were 33,490,000 participants…and addition of 16,172,000 participants. Obama added 13,119,000 participants in three years…BUT, again, Bush took office after Clinton had REDUCED participation in SNAP by 9,669,000…so why didn't it go down under Bush, too, rather than to up over 16 million? (Figures from http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm)

Gee whiz, d'ya think it might not be as simplistic as our righties like to make out? Like maybe there's a whole lot that comes into the equation besides who's President??

Silly, I know; everything that conceivably goes on is Obama's own, personal responsibility...but if so, what about those Bush Figures?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 14, 2013 1:37 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


And hey, while we're at it, what ABOUT that farm bill and those millionaire "farmers"?
Quote:

The bitter and much publicized debate leading up to the party-line vote tended to obscure what happened to the rest of the bill in the House: many of the same legislators up in arms about government spending and welfare abuse nonetheless voted for an increase in federal subsidies to wealthy farm interests.

“What’s remarkable and extraordinary about the farm bill is that, at a time of record crop prices and federal deficits, the House overwhelmingly passed a bill to increase subsidies,” Scott Faber, vice president for governmental affairs at the Environmental Working Group, told me this week.

“Only an evil genius could have dreamed this up.”

The debate over food stamps provided a smoke screen for the agriculture subsidies, he said. “Unless you read the fine print in the agricultural press, you wouldn’t have noticed.”

“It’s hard to understand how anyone in the House who calls himself a conservative could support this, but many did,” said Chris Chocola, president of the free-market-oriented Club for Growth, which opposed the bill and lobbied against it.

Mr. Chocola is a former congressman from Indiana’s Second District and commutes to Washington from his 40-acre farm near Elkhart. He said he’s spent most of his life in agriculture.

“With the federal debt and deficit we have, to be subsidizing millionaire farmers makes absolutely no sense,” he said.

Many farm commodity prices, farm incomes and farmland values are at or near record levels, notwithstanding a severe drought in some parts of the Great Plains.

Earlier this year, the Agriculture Department projected that farm income in 2013 would be $128.2 billion, the highest since 1973, fueled by “record crop production levels” and “high prices for many crops.” Moreover, surging prices of farmland — 2013 was the third year of double-digit increases, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City — have greatly improved farm balance sheets, the department said, and raised the net worth of many farmers.

Despite flush times in the farm belt, the bill the House passed last week provides the most generous farm subsidies in history. It increased crop insurance subsidies and raised price targets for a wide variety of crops, locking in price guarantees at their recent near-record levels.

Under previous incarnations of the farm bill, such subsidies expired every five years unless Congress acted to extend them. It always did, but at least there was an opportunity for periodic changes reform. Under the new bill the subsidies are permanent.

“It’s frightening,” Mr. Chocola said. “They’re locking in historically high commodity prices at taxpayer expense. And maybe the worst is that this is now permanent.”

The Senate version of the farm bill, although it retains financing for food stamps, contains many of the same generous farm subsidies.

“Right now, the federal government favors the big guy over the little guy,” Congressman Paul Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin, who is the chairman of the House budget committee and a former Republican candidate for vice president, told me this week. “We subsidize large agribusiness and the wealthy at the expense of the family farmer and the taxpayer. It’s an egregious example of cronyism. Both parties are to blame, but I’m hopeful both sides can come together to set this right.

The new House bill does contain some purported reforms. It slashes spending for conservation and nutrition, taking aim at favored liberal causes. And, with the exception of cotton farmers — “Who always get the best deal,” Mr. Faber said — it ends so-called direct payments to farmers who don’t grow anything.

Direct payments are the $4 billion to $5 billion given each year to owners of farmland that had traditionally grown various crops, including corn, wheat, soybeans, cotton and rice. These resulted in widely criticized payments to wealthy absentee “farmers” in places like Manhattan — including over $340,000 to a Rockefeller scion, Mark F. Rockefeller, The New York Post reported earlier this year — who owned land that grew nothing. Even the farm lobby backed down on that.

Yet out of the estimated $50 billion that might have been saved on direct payments over 10 years — and perhaps far more, depending on commodity prices — was plowed back into other subsidy programs the Cato Institute’s Sallie James put it, what the proposed bills “offer with one hand, they take with the other” for programs that “are even more likely to distort markets.”

These include increased crop insurance and increased target prices for crops that guarantee farm incomes. Crop insurance subsidies already cost taxpayers $9 billion a year flow overwhelmingly to the wealthiest farmers and agribusinesses. While the wealthiest farmers collect over $1 million a year each in insurance subsidies, and 10,000 get over $100,000, the lowest 80 percent of policy holders collect on average just $5,000 each, according to the group.

Under so-called shallow loss provisions of both the House and Senate versions of the farm bill, government makes direct payments to farmers to guarantee they receive 88 percent (in the Senate version) or 85 percent (in the House version) of the “target” price of various crops

By raising target prices, the bills vastly increase the likelihood of huge payments should prices decline from their current near-record levels. The American Enterprise Institute estimated that the program could cost as much as $18 billion annually based on historical average prices for crops covered by the bill.

These payments, too, go overwhelmingly to the largest and wealthiest farmers. “The more you produce, the bigger the subsidy and the more you get,” Mr. Faber said. “This really favors big agribusiness, since they produce and sell the most crops. “

Mr. Chocola of the Club for Growth agreed. “You talk to young farmers, and they don’t want any of this,” Mr. Chocola said. “It’s not helping small farmers. We really need a generational change in thinking on farm subsidies.”

Is there any hope for reform? Congress still has to reconcile the House and Senate versions, but most of the attention is again expected to be on the food stamp program, and not the generous agriculture subsidies. Senators Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, and Dick Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, have proposed reducing crop insurance subsidies by 15 percent for farmers earning more than $750,000 a year. Capping the subsidies would save taxpayers an estimated $1 billion a year, the senators said.

In the House, Mr. Ryan got his knuckles rapped by Speaker John Boehner after he initially voted against the House bill, in part because it had no income cap for subsidy recipients. Although he supported this week’s version, he said he wouldn’t vote for a final bill that doesn’t set an income limit.

“I’m hopeful that a conference agreement will limit crop-insurance subsidies to small farmers,” he said in a statement last week.

Mr. Chocola doubts the final bill will be much better than either the Senate or House versions. Democrats are likely to look the other way to restore food stamps, and many free-market Republicans have already caved. “It’s just the way Washington has always worked and we can’t afford it anymore,” he said.

“The bigger picture is, how can developing countries compete with our massive subsidies?” he said. “You can talk about improving the plight of the poor in third world, but there’s no way they can compete with our farmers. There’s nothing free market about it, there’s no national security aspect, and we’re not going to run out of food. There’s no excuse.” http://www.columbia.edu/~eg198/u6400/Subsidies_farmers_2013.pdf


Hell, even your right-wing Club for Growth and Little Jesus Rand Paul can see the forest for the trees, but SNAP is SUCH a much easier target!

You wanna talk about this aspect of the Farm Bill, guys? Instead of bitching and lying about the $40 billion over ten years that might be saved by cutting SNAP for hungry people, how about we discuss the $50 billion that might have been saved on direct payments to rich people over 10 years? Or ANY of the unquestionably egregious "gimmes" in the Farm Bill??


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Elections; 2024
Fri, March 29, 2024 06:56 - 2076 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Fri, March 29, 2024 06:20 - 6156 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Fri, March 29, 2024 06:18 - 57 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:54 - 3414 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:49 - 11 posts
Long List of Celebrities that are Still Here
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:00 - 1 posts
China
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:10 - 447 posts
Biden
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:03 - 853 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL