pacino wrote:if we're tying everything to inflation, maybe we should tie the min wage to inflation too!!!!

TenuredVulture wrote:I'd be more tolerant of food stamp cuts if they eliminated any farm subsidy that made food more expensive. Which I think is all of them. I want cheap imported sugar from Brazil, dammit. And stop turning #$!&@ corn into motor fuel that trashes the environment, makes food more expensive, and is really bad for my engine. That's where you should focus your outrage on this farm bill.

jerseyhoya wrote:There has been a steady trend of expansion of eligibility for the program each time it is reauthorized, and that combined with the economic slump has led to the explosion of recipients.

pacino wrote:you are conveniently sidestepping the realities of real actual living life, but whatever, keep putting out talking points. it feels good. 'incentivizing work' for a program where most everyone on it are children, elderly, disabled or already working is meaningless and feel-good without accomplishing everything but putting up hoops for everyone involved.

you've yet to adequately explain why it's such a bad thing the program has expanded to include more people. is it somehow ensnaring otherwise economically healthy persons who are just mooching because it's the thing to do?

TenuredVulture wrote:I'd be more tolerant of food stamp cuts if they eliminated any farm subsidy that made food more expensive. Which I think is all of them. I want cheap imported sugar from Brazil, dammit. And stop turning fucking corn into motor fuel that trashes the environment, makes food more expensive, and is really bad for my engine. That's where you should focus your outrage on this farm bill.

jerseyhoya wrote: trying to cut the program by 5% focusing on work and/or job training requirements for able bodied people without children seems like a pretty reasonable course of action that I would support.

pacino wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

The Senate on Thursday joined the House in overwhelmingly supporting a farm bill, which was cleared to President Bush by an 81-15 vote despite his veto threat.

The move followed a 318-106 favorable vote in the House, meaning both chambers provided the bill with veto-proof margins.

Only 13 Republicans voted against the bill. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and a majority of his conference supported the bill.

The only Democrats to oppose the bill were Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse, both of Rhode Island.

All three presidential candidates missed the vote. Democratic candidates Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) released statements of support for the bill, and both criticized GOP candidate Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), who had said he would veto the bill if he were president.

Hope. Change. Huge, market distorting subsidies for rich farmers.

there is a lot of food stamp money in these bills

pacino wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Then pass a $#@! food stamp bill. It's a bloated 300 billion dollar mess.

not really how it works...the department of agriculture issues food stamps. they have to get funding from congress through these bills

jerseyhoya wrote:If only the Democrats controlled Congress and if only Obama was an important figure in the Democratic Party, then maybe he would have been able to take a leadership role on this bill to make it less of a giveaway.

He'll show leadership someday though. Let's elect him president.

TenuredVulture wrote:Any person of modest intelligence should see in the farm bill all the things that are wrong with our government.

The problems won't go away just because Bush isn't President anymore.

jerseyhoya wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Any person of modest intelligence should see in the farm bill all the things that are wrong with our government.

The problems won't go away just because Bush isn't President anymore.

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Any person of modest intelligence should see in the farm bill all the things that are wrong with our government.

The problems won't go away just because Bush isn't President anymore.

you're entitled to your pet obsessions, but kvetching about the sausagemaking accompanying a program that enables a goodly number of people to eat decently who might not otherwise, when the same government is gunning down pretty much anyone it pleases with remote-controlled aircraft, feels kind of like going out of your way to be small.

I mean, knock yourself out to ensure a few undeserving young bucks miss a meal or two, but at least try to indicate how your noble project gets some bigger fish fried - like maybe some wall street bottom feeders who could stand to miss a meal or two themselves, or the eggheads who've devised our current "security" state.

The members of your team scuttling about to accomplish your Big Objectives have no such larger purpose. Perhaps you could come up with something for them.

jerseyhoya wrote:There has been a steady trend of expansion of eligibility for the program each time it is reauthorized, and that combined with the economic slump has led to the explosion of recipients.

Food Stamps Growth Has Bipartisan Roots

pacino wrote:fake democracy happening in Detroit today, mayoral primary today!!! come on Detroiters, go vote! maybe they can vote out Kevin Orr?

Werthless wrote:This could triple again over the next year and not one of pacino/td/doc/youseff/etc would support a cut. Because it's an important program, and thus can never be cut, criticized, scrutinized, or even have the growth rate slowed (because that's a cut). If you do question the absurd growth rate, your questioning means you support starvation.

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Any person of modest intelligence should see in the farm bill all the things that are wrong with our government.

The problems won't go away just because Bush isn't President anymore.

you're entitled to your pet obsessions, but kvetching about the sausagemaking accompanying a program that enables a goodly number of people to eat decently who might not otherwise, when the same government is gunning down pretty much anyone it pleases with remote-controlled aircraft, feels kind of like going out of your way to be small.

I mean, knock yourself out to ensure a few undeserving young bucks miss a meal or two, but at least try to indicate how your noble project gets some bigger fish fried - like maybe some wall street bottom feeders who could stand to miss a meal or two themselves, or the eggheads who've devised our current "security" state.

The members of your team scuttling about to accomplish your Big Objectives have no such larger purpose. Perhaps you could come up with something for them.

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Any person of modest intelligence should see in the farm bill all the things that are wrong with our government.

The problems won't go away just because Bush isn't President anymore.

you're entitled to your pet obsessions, but kvetching about the sausagemaking accompanying a program that enables a goodly number of people to eat decently who might not otherwise, when the same government is gunning down pretty much anyone it pleases with remote-controlled aircraft, feels kind of like going out of your way to be small.

I mean, knock yourself out to ensure a few undeserving young bucks miss a meal or two, but at least try to indicate how your noble project gets some bigger fish fried - like maybe some wall street bottom feeders who could stand to miss a meal or two themselves, or the eggheads who've devised our current "security" state.

The members of your team scuttling about to accomplish your Big Objectives have no such larger purpose. Perhaps you could come up with something for them.

You realize you're quoting TV there and not me, yes?

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Any person of modest intelligence should see in the farm bill all the things that are wrong with our government.

The problems won't go away just because Bush isn't President anymore.

you're entitled to your pet obsessions, but kvetching about the sausagemaking accompanying a program that enables a goodly number of people to eat decently who might not otherwise, when the same government is gunning down pretty much anyone it pleases with remote-controlled aircraft, feels kind of like going out of your way to be small.

I mean, knock yourself out to ensure a few undeserving young bucks miss a meal or two, but at least try to indicate how your noble project gets some bigger fish fried - like maybe some wall street bottom feeders who could stand to miss a meal or two themselves, or the eggheads who've devised our current "security" state.

The members of your team scuttling about to accomplish your Big Objectives have no such larger purpose. Perhaps you could come up with something for them.

You realize you're quoting TV there and not me, yes?

yes. As I read it, you quoted him in support of your effort to defend losing sleep over the fearsome (to you, evidently) costs of a federal food safety net program, instead of more critical/costly issues of public concern. So I took it that you looked to his words to support your 'position', if it is that, and proceeded to chide you for so doing.