Congressman Who Gets Millions In Farm Subsidies Says Food Stamps Are Stealing

[letzrockexpress]

This guy has some huge rocks to make this argument. He has received over 3 Million in farm subsidies himself since 1999, a byproduct of the same farm bill that provides funding for the SNAP program... Unbelievable!

Congressman Who Gets Millions In Farm Subsidies Denounces Food Stamps As Stealing 'Other People's Money' | ThinkProgress

 

[Turtle]

Equating farm subsidies to Food Stamp welfare is way off the mark, and is done mostly by people who don't understand what farm subsidies really are. It's easy to look on the surface and conclude farm subsidies are nothing more than "farmer's welfare," but it's not. Not even close. Farm subsidies are used to control, regulate and manage the supply and price of agricultural commodities, particularly those commodities which are unprofitable for farmers to grow but that the US and the world needs. If left to purely free market agriculture, farmers would only grow the most profitable and easiest to manage crops, and many food items would simply disappear to back yard gardens and we'd have a country (and a world) that doesn't even have the opportunity to eat a healthy, balanced diet. And one or two years of all the farmers growing the same crops, nearly all farmers would be out of business, and then we'd all be screwed because we'd be importing nearly all of our food.

Fincher Farms (dood in the article) grows cotton, corn, soybeans and wheat. If farm subsidies were removed, they'd grow only corn and soybeans and a little wheat. No cotton, cause cotton isn't profitable. And nearly all of Ficnher's farm subsidies came from the cotton program. Fincher is limited by the farm program in how many acres a year he can plant of corn, soybeans and wheat, and in exchange for that, and for growing unprofitable cotton, he receives a subsidy. That's hardly the same as getting Food Stamps.

 

[paullud]

The subsidies are in place to stabilize our food sources and prices because one year all the farmers would grow corn which would cause corn to plummet and beans to spike. The cycle would continue causing unemployment and bankruptcies to increase which as a result would force the supply down and prices on everything up.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

 

[letzrockexpress]

Equating farm subsidies to Food Stamp welfare is way off the mark, and is done mostly by people who don't understand what farm subsidies really are. It's easy to look on the surface and conclude farm subsidies are nothing more than "farmer's welfare," but it's not. Not even close. Farm subsidies are used to control, regulate and manage the supply and price of agricultural commodities, particularly those commodities which are unprofitable for farmers to grow but that the US and the world needs. If left to purely free market agriculture, farmers would only grow the most profitable and easiest to manage crops, and many food items would simply disappear to back yard gardens and we'd have a country (and a world) that doesn't even have the opportunity to eat a healthy, balanced diet. And one or two years of all the farmers growing the same crops, nearly all farmers would be out of business, and then we'd all be screwed because we'd be importing nearly all of our food.

Fincher Farms (dood in the article) grows cotton, corn, soybeans and wheat. If farm subsidies were removed, they'd grow only corn and soybeans and a little wheat. No cotton, cause cotton isn't profitable. And nearly all of Ficnher's farm subsidies came from the cotton program. Fincher is limited by the farm program in how many acres a year he can plant of corn, soybeans and wheat, and in exchange for that, and for growing unprofitable cotton, he receives a subsidy. That's hardly the same as getting Food Stamps.

What? It is directly related. Look at the farm bill the Bush administration passed in 2008. 80% Food stamps.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/18/10-reasons-the-farm-bill-makes-no-sense/

 

[paullud]

What? It is directly related. Look at the farm bill the Bush administration passed in 2008. 80% Food stamps.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/18/10-reasons-the-farm-bill-makes-no-sense/

The bill combines two different things but farm subsidies aren't welfare.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

 

[Turtle]

What? It is directly related. Look at the farm bill the Bush administration passed in 2008. 80% Food stamps.

10 reasons the farm bill makes no sense | The Daily Caller

That link is just chock full of misunderstandings and ignorance, and quite a few things that just aren't at all true. Paullud nailed it. It doesn't matter whether most of the farm subsidies go to large farms or small farms, it goes where the food is in order to stabilize the food supply. The author of the piece at the link, and apparently you, think the Farm Bill and Farm Subsidy is exactly the same thing. It's not. It's mostly pork, like the food stamp program, which again, is welfare whereas the Farm Subsidy is not. Whether people buy their food with real money or food stamps, the commodity supply and pricing is the same. So, again, again, food stamp welfare isn't even remotely the same thing as farm subsidies, no matter how much people want to try and make it so.

 

[davekc]

Might be advisable for the OP to do a search on farm subsidies. Once that is reviewed, hopefully it will be realized they are in no way related to food stamps.

On a side note,
Is this related in any way to Obama's 100M African trip or the 70M in bonuses to the IRS?

 

[letzrockexpress]

That link is just chock full of misunderstandings and ignorance, and quite a few things that just aren't at all true. Paullud nailed it. It doesn't matter whether most of the farm subsidies go to large farms or small farms, it goes where the food is in order to stabilize the food supply. The author of the piece at the link, and apparently you, think the Farm Bill and Farm Subsidy is exactly the same thing. It's not. It's mostly pork, like the food stamp program, which again, is welfare whereas the Farm Subsidy is not. Whether people buy their food with real money or food stamps, the commodity supply and pricing is the same. So, again, again, food stamp welfare isn't even remotely the same thing as farm subsidies, no matter how much people want to try and make it so.

Where did I say it is exactly the same thing? The Farm Bill is chock full of subsidies and as well contains provisions for food stamps.. As far as being mostly pork, well, every bill that comes down the pike is full of pork. That is hardly relevant in this case. The fact remains that this guy is a hypocrite. He is benefiting from certain legislation while blasting others for doing the same thing! I know my point wasn't lost on you. Perhaps you are just bored.

 

[letzrockexpress]

Might be advisable for the OP to do a search on farm subsidies. Once that is reviewed, hopefully it will be realized they are in no way related to food stamps.

As a matter of fact the OP has done that. Her is an example of what I am talking about:

There is no nutritional requirements on food purchased under the SNAP program ( Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program). Why is this you ask? For instance, let's look at soda. It is loaded with corn sweetener. If soda purchases were denied under the food stamp program corn production would likely go down. Behemoth processors like ADM would slow production and the fat cats who run these companies would not be able to line their silky pockets with as much cash as they might if the soda purchases were allowed under SNAP. This is only one small example. One thing builds on another. It is all connected.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food,_Conservation,_and_Energy_Act_of_2008

 

[Turtle]

Where did I say it is exactly the same thing?

Right here...

He is benefiting from certain legislation while blasting others for doing the same thing!

You think they're the same, that farm subsidies and welfare are the same. I'd tell you again that they are not the same, not even remotely the same thing, but it would be a waste of good keystrokes since you seem to think facts are irrelevant if they don't support your ignorant beliefs. Like Dave said, do a little research on what the farm subsidies are.

The fact remains that this guy is a hypocrite.

See? You don't even know what a fact is. The only way he would be a hypocrite on the subject of welfare food stamps would be if he himself were a recipient of food stamps or some other welfare program. There is zero evidence, none mind you, that he is. People can claim farm subsidies are welfare, but such a claim has about as much validity and truth to it as the claim that farm subsidies are underground corn fields.

 

[Turtle]

As a matter of fact the OP has done that. Her is an example of what I am talking about:

There is no nutritional requirements on food purchased under the SNAP program ( Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program). Why is this you ask? For instance, let's look at soda. It is loaded with corn sweetener. If soda purchases were denied under the food stamp program corn production would likely go down. Behemoth processors like ADM would slow production and the fat cats who run these companies would not be able to line their silky pockets with as much cash as they might if the soda purchases were allowed under SNAP. This is only one small example. One thing builds on another. It is all connected.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food,_Conservation,_and_Energy_Act_of_2008

There's no question that the the whole food assistance program, essentially run by the USDA, is corrupt. But nothing in what you posted has anything to do with the farm subsidies. In fact, if you look at that bill, which I'm sure you have, you'll see that despite the dramatic increase in food stamp funding, farm subsidies remained stagnant and virtually unchanged.

There are certainly some aspects of food welfare that take advantage of the farm subsidy program, no question, and most of it is corrupt because of it, but the two are not related or connected in any way. Farm subsidies have been in place since long before the first food stamp was issued. They exist solely to control and ensure agricultural commodity supply, and to control prices, mainly to keep foreign countries from dramatically undercutting US farmers at pricing. You could spend a month just learning about the sugar subsidy, and its pros and cons and the corruption all around. Go to Canada and buy a Coke and it's sweetened with real, actual sugar. Buy one here and it's liquid corn. That's a direct result of the sugar subsidy and the corruption involving ADM and the sugar plantations in Florida, not the food stamp program.

 

[letzrockexpress]

There's no question that the the whole food assistance program, essentially run by the USDA, is corrupt. But nothing in what you posted has anything to do with the farm subsidies. In fact, if you look at that bill, which I'm sure you have, you'll see that despite the dramatic increase in food stamp funding, farm subsidies remained stagnant and virtually unchanged.

There are certainly some aspects of food welfare that take advantage of the farm subsidy program, no question, and most of it is corrupt because of it, but the two are not related or connected in any way. Farm subsidies have been in place since long before the first food stamp was issued. They exist solely to control and ensure agricultural commodity supply, and to control prices, mainly to keep foreign countries from dramatically undercutting US farmers at pricing. You could spend a month just learning about the sugar subsidy, and its pros and cons and the corruption all around. Go to Canada and buy a Coke and it's sweetened with real, actual sugar. Buy one here and it's liquid corn. That's a direct result of the sugar subsidy and the corruption involving ADM and the sugar plantations in Florida, not the food stamp program.

All true but not the point. Now I'm the bored one...

 

[Turtle]

All true but not the point. Now I'm the bored one...

OK. State the point in one sentence. Should be easy enough.

As you make the attempt, please do keep in mind that farm subsidies are not the same as welfare.

Go...

 

[wvcourier]

Grow your own food, the GMO crops most farmers are growing are killing you softly. Eat local eat Organic. So, I guess that rules out Truckstops and most Walmarts.

 

[wvcourier]

Farm subsidies are worse then Welfare, especially if the Congressman is making a profit from the subsidies. The Rich people paying the news people to tell the middleclass people to blame the poor people....sheeple fall hook line sinker

 

[Tennesseahawk]

Grow your own food, the GMO crops most farmers are growing are killing you softly. Eat local eat Organic. So, I guess that rules out Truckstops and most Walmarts.

Actually, we don't know if it's killing us yet. We are, however, the guinea pigs.

 

[letzrockexpress]

OK. State the point in one sentence. Should be easy enough.

As you make the attempt, please do keep in mind that farm subsidies are not the same as welfare.

Go...

"The same legislation that allows this farmer/congressman to receive farm subsidies also provides food stamps to the alleged poor". One sentence. Clear and concise. What else ya got?

 

[xiggi]

Farm subsidies are worse then Welfare, especially if the Congressman is making a profit from the subsidies. The Rich people paying the news people to tell the middleclass people to blame the poor people....sheeple fall hook line sinker

Sheeple get their info from many sources. IMHO some of the biggest followers get most theirs from websites and blogs

Sent from my Fisher Price ABC-123.

 

[Turtle]

"The same legislation that allows this farmer/congressman to receive farm subsidies also provides food stamps to the alleged poor". One sentence. Clear and concise. What else ya got?

That legislation is called "The Farm Bill" and there are lot of things in it, like farm subsidies, and food stamps, that aren't related at all. The legislation may be the same, but farm subsidies and food stamps are not. So, I take it you're all bent out of shape because a single piece of legislation covers both farm subsidies and food stamps, instead of two separate pieces of legislation?

 

[letzrockexpress]

That legislation is called "The Farm Bill" and there are lot of things in it, like farm subsidies, and food stamps, that aren't related at all. The legislation may be the same, but farm subsidies and food stamps are not. So, I take it you're all bent out of shape because a single piece of legislation covers both farm subsidies and food stamps, instead of two separate pieces of legislation?

I'm bent because of what is in this excerpt from the article in the OP. You know what I'm bent about.

"While Fincher interprets food assistance for the needy as “stealing,” he has not similarly condemned the Farm Bill’s massive agricultural subsidies. In fact, he supported a proposal to expand crop insurance by $9 billion over the next 10 years. Fincher has a great personal stake in maintaining these particular government handouts, as the second most heavily subsidized farmer in Congress and one of the largest subsidy recipients in Tennessee history:

USDA data collected in EWG’s 2013 farm subsidy database update — going live tomorrow –shows that Fincher collected a staggering $3.48 million in “our” money from 1999 to 2012. In 2012 alone, the congressman was cut a government check for a $70,000 direct payment. Direct payments are issued automatically, regardless of need, and go predominantly to the largest, most profitable farm operations in the country.
Fincher’s $70,000 farm subsidy haul in 2012 dwarfs the average 2012 SNAP benefit in Tennessee of $1,586.40, and it is nearly double of Tennessee’s median household income. After voting to cut SNAP by more than $20 billion, Fincher joined his colleagues to support a proposal to expand crop insurance subsidies by $9 billion over the next 10 years."

​