It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

President Obama signs $8.7 billion food stamp cut into law

page: 8
32
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: macman

Promoting the General Welfare is a goal of the Constitution. I can make a strong argument that programs like Food Stamps/SNAP do exactly this.

The reality is the government wastes much more on other programs. Huge tax breaks for the extremely rich and taxing the working man's spare change only sets up civil unrest.

I agree with a lot of what you write. We just have fundamentally different perspectives of what is going wrong with government waste in the US.




posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod


Promoting the General Welfare is a goal of the Constitution.


Welfare is not the "General Welfare" of the country.

If that was the case, which it isn't, why did it take so long for the Govt to construct the welfare programs?



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
President Obama signs $8.7 billion food stamp cut into law

So Jpm Morgan, and the Walmart, and other retailers, and banks don't make as much off me.

And less GMO food will be eaten?

The problem is where ?

Glass half full people!


Wrong Neo.

While they have made cuts to food stamps for the little people, they have increased funding to Agriculture in the same Farm Bill.

Every part of this all benefits corporations.

More people added to the labor pool drives wages down further and drives profits up even more for the leeches at the top.

www.newrepublic.com...

The Farm Bill Still Gives Wads of Cash to Agribusiness. It's Just Sneakier About It.


The Senate passed on Thursday a farm bill that took two years to complete. Most of the discussion around the bill—and the reason for the delay—concerns the level of cuts to food stamps, which wound up at $8.7 billion over 10 years (about 1 percent of the overall program). But while the parties argued about how much food to take away from poor people, it’s just as revealing to look at the area where they both agreed. Democrats and Republicans alike have pointed to the repeal of $4.5 billion in annual direct cash payments, a long disfavored policy where farmers received a fixed amount of money for every acre they owned, regardless of whether it was planted. The Senate will “end outdated and unnecessary subsidies,” said lead Democratic negotiator Debbie Stabenow on Monday. Her Republican counterpart, House Agriculture Committee chair Frank Lucas, once supported direct payments, but highlighted their repeal upon House passage of the bill. “Don’t underestimate the magnitude of the reforms,” he said last week.


But don’t be fooled: The politicians patting themselves on the back for repealing subsidies to farmers have found a surreptitious way to deposit these savings right back in the pocket of agribusiness. That’s because the farm bill will expand subsidies for crop insurance, which looks like a private-sector program but which actually hands over virtually the same amount of taxpayer money to farmers, mostly wealthy ones, as the old direct payment program. What’s more, the shift from direct payments to crop insurance ensures that those handouts can be distributed in a hidden, more politically palatable way, making it more difficult to ever dislodge them.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: macman

Because the gov't started out as a confederacy between 13 rebellious colonies in a time when messengers on horseback broke breaking news from town to town.

This bill takes away from the poorest and gives it back to extremely wealthy big agriculture industry that has conspired to make laws that enabled them to essentially steal farms from the family farmer, who the Farm Aid bill were originally passed to protect.

Why are we paying multi-billion dollar corporations a fortune to NOT grow food?



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: Shiloh7

A virtually instant job creation bill would be to write a specific law to send all of the illegals home pronto.
Yep. Those would be low-paying jobs, but the illegals seem to survive with them and even send money back home.


Corporations need those illegal aliens for cheap labor.

The majority of Americans are against illegal immigration but the Corporate lobbyists and Bankers thumb their noses at the people of this country.

www.endillegalimmigration.com...

A super majority of Americans support immigration enforcement and oppose Amnesty according to countless polls and surveys about illegal immigration. Unfortunately, the pro-Amnesty lobby is circulating a few politicized polls that claim the opposite.

Top Corporate Executives Descend On Washington To Lobby For Amnesty… - See more at: www.teaparty.org...



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod


Because the gov't started out as a confederacy between 13 rebellious colonies in a time when messengers on horseback broke breaking news from town to town.

And the years after that???

There is no reasoning to provide that such a thing was intended. If it was, there would have been laws constructed to create such programs.
There wasn't. Even as the world began to modernize, there wasn't.



originally posted by: jrod
This bill takes away from the poorest and gives it back to extremely wealthy big agriculture industry that has conspired to make laws that enabled them to essentially steal farms from the family farmer, who the Farm Aid bill were originally passed to protect.

Why are we paying multi-billion dollar corporations a fortune to NOT grow food?


The bill doesn't take away, as that implies they are owed or own those welfare items. It is not theirs.

Farm Aid is the biggest scam as well.
The US Govt pays farmers to either grow a certain crop, or not grow something. Just another handout from the Govt, all funded by the tax payer.

And it seems that the beloved Govt by those people it supposedly "Loves and Protects" is screwing people left and right, so the answer is larger and more controlling Govt.
A law, to enforce the law that was created to enforce the first law. Sounds about right.
The Govt has done this with everything else, firearms, illegals, other freedoms.....so why not this.

Tell you what. You and other petition the Govt to return the rights back to the people, say the true and full intent of the 2nd, and then maybe the Govt will think twice about screwing people over.

Or, remove the Progressive element that has encased the Govt, and then maybe things will get better.


Seems that yet again, the people are getting the Govt they wanted and deserved. An all controlling bloated monster that expects you to ask "how high" when it says jump.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: jacobe001

I say a sliding fine for employment of illegals. No need to tax a company higher or anything else.

$100k for the first offense of knowingly and willfully hiring of an illegal. $500k for the second and then it doubles for every offense afterwards.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: macman

99% of Americans have no say in our political process and the people they select for us to choose from our backed up by Bankers and Multinational Corporations.

That would be the one percent or less.

When are you going to go after them since it is their policies you hate?



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: jacobe001

The Govt is the one creating and enforcing the laws.

Not bankers.....



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: macman

That almost seems like one of those questions with no right answer that you asked. What is your answer to the question you asked me?

Promoting the General Welfare. If this does not include helping to feed the needy, then I have clueless to what your interpretation of the Preamble is. Perhaps you could enlighten this forum.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: macman

The bankers own the government and select which two puppets the masses get to choose from.

Our candidates are NOT elected, they are selected. The choice between Red and Blue is an illusion.
edit on 26-8-2014 by jrod because: maybe i should just leave my typos so they can be quoted....



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: jacobe001

I say a sliding fine for employment of illegals. No need to tax a company higher or anything else.

$100k for the first offense of knowingly and willfully hiring of an illegal. $500k for the second and then it doubles for every offense afterwards.



I disagree. Fines for Large Multinational Conglomerates comes out to being just a cost of doing business.
The CEO's take all the risk and responsibility and well as reaping the profits.

If they get fined, they either cut wages of their employers are increase the price on their products. The ones running the ship never take a paycut or pay for it. That is what they do when taxes are increased as well. Correct?

They need to be sent to prison.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: jacobe001

The Govt is the one creating and enforcing the laws.

Not bankers.....


No, The laws and bills are created by lobbyists who then pass it on to their cronies.
Remember Pelosi saying we have to pass the bill to see what is in it?

The corporate and banking lobbyists already paid for it.

The condition our government and country is in, is not because of the 99% that have no political nor monetary influence but because of the greedy 1%.

We need to ban lobbying and criminalize bribes and kill the revolving door between DC, Wall Street and Corporations.

Corporations and Banks need to stand on their own two feet just like as you say individuals do as well.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

Safety and Freedom of/for the US citizen. That was created by following laws from the signing and ratification of the Constitution.

How many years went by before the Govt decided it would take from some to give to others??? You know, "welfare".

This is not very complex. It has become complex due to Progressives injecting new meanings to words.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

And that may be.....so vote Libertarian. Or what ever candidate is labeled as the parties enemy.

Republicans do this, as do the Democrats.

It still all stems from a corrupt Govt.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: jacobe001

As the fines increase, the apexing of profit versus overhead will sink the company.

Then that evil rich person will not have a machine for a profit.
The workers will have to find a new job, but life is not a static event, with no bad things happening.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: jacobe001

All enabled by the corrupt Govt.

And yes, banks, companies and people need to be personally responsible for their actions.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: jacobe001

As the fines increase, the apexing of profit versus overhead will sink the company.

Then that evil rich person will not have a machine for a profit.
The workers will have to find a new job, but life is not a static event, with no bad things happening.



No that is not good enough.
The company folds and the mastermind behind it all escapes with a golden parachute as we have seen to many times.

The oft quoted mantra of taking all the risks seems to fall only on the employees that had nothing to do with the ceo policies.

Sort of like how the rich control our government and want to blame everyone below them when they are the problem. I hear so much about personal responsibility from them and wonder if they ever looked in a mirror.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: jacobe001

What risk exactly is the working taking again???

The worker goes to work, works, gets paid for work and leaves.

AS for a golden parachute....this really amounts to jealously and envy.

If you don't like it, don't work for said company....or purchase their products.

If I built up a company, I too would work into a safety net in the event it failed. I built the company.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: jacobe001

What risk exactly is the working taking again???

The worker goes to work, works, gets paid for work and leaves.

AS for a golden parachute....this really amounts to jealously and envy.

If you don't like it, don't work for said company....or purchase their products.

If I built up a company, I too would work into a safety net in the event it failed. I built the company.


Considering we are not living in the new frontier anymore where we can "strike it on our own homestead" and be independent from the system, most people, if they want to live, are going to have to work for someone. The 1% at the top have made it to expensive to start a business in order to kill off competition for their top corporate lobbyists.

You may think it is moral and ethical with what these leeches are doing but I don't and will continue to speak about it, until the top 1% take that ability away as well via lobbying. The ones killing Freedom of Speech would not be coming from the 99%.







 
32
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join