REPUBLICAN'S SHOULD BE TRIED FOR TREASON!

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: REPUBLICAN'S SHOULD BE TRIED FOR TREASON!

    In response to UserName9's comment:

    Representative Stephen Fincher, a Republican and a farmer from Frog Jump, Tenn., collected nearly $3.5 million in federal farm subsidies from 1999 to 2012. 

     

    In 2012 alone, Rep. Fincher received $70,000 in direct federal farm payments, money that is given to farmers, even if they do not grow crops.

     

    Most of the Farm Bill 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.

     

    During debate on the 1% 'Farm Bill' in the House Agriculture Committee in July, 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.

     

    “We have to remember there is not a big printing press in Washington that continually prints money over and over,” Mr. Fincher said during the debate. “This is other people’s money that Washington is appropriating and spending.”

     

    Scott Faber, vice president of government affairs at the Environmental Working Group, said. “Not only is Fincher advocating deep cuts to other people’s money while he is getting subsidies, he also voted to increase the subsidies that he benefits from,” Mr. Faber said.

     

    In Mr. Fincher's home county, 22% of the people receive food stamps averaging $132 per month or $1600 annually.

     

    Why any poor or humane person would vote for the feudal overlord GOP is the greatest mystery and scam of all time.


    2011..

    "at least 23 representatives and senators, or their family members, applied for farm subsidy payments between 1995 and 2009. Seventeen were Republicans and six belonged to the Democratic Party, with the GOP taking in more than $5.3 million, compared to only $489,856 for Democrats.

      The biggest beneficiaries of farm subsidies in the current Congress have been: ·       Rep. Stephen Fincher (R-Tennessee) $3,368,843 ·       Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Missouri) $469,292 ·       Rep. Kristi Noem (R-South Dakota) $443,748 ·       Sen. John Tester (D-Montana) $442,303 ·       Rep. Tom Latham (R-Iowa) $330,046"     It is quite legal to receive such subsidies. The ethanol subsidy also fattens the wallet of wealthy farming conglomerates....    The point is to do away with such subsidies !   The Republicans own this outrage, but now the GOP is  trying to do away with these subsidies...where are the Democrats on this??   Democrats are the Party of Government, the Party of Subsidies, the Party Against the Free Market. Their philosophy is that the Government chooses winners and losers, and they manipulate the free market to benefit their special interests.. The Dems are fine with crooked Solyndra deals, they are fine with ethanol subsides and they are fine with any farm subsidies that benefit their friends.....    



     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: REPUBLICAN'S SHOULD BE TRIED FOR TREASON!

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     


    Cut off the farm subsidies as well.  

     

     

    What, do you think we were going to defend that?

    you must be stupider than your posts indicate.

     

     


     

     

     

    You do defend it, every time you vote to re-elect these wingnuts, so just shut the heck up.

     

    You're more of a sanctimonious poltroon than I give you credit for.

     

     ****



    Well, no, I don't, because I don't vote for those people, unless you can point out a Massachusetts rep that takes farm subsidies.

     

    But, be careful throwing those stones.  Harry Reid seems to have his snout in a couple of troughs, as does Diane Fienstien and Nancy Pelosi.

    Face it, corruption is probably the only bi-partisan thing going on in Washington.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re: REPUBLICAN'S SHOULD BE TRIED FOR TREASON!


    Krugman nails it again.

    Free to Be Hungry

    The word “freedom” looms large in modern conservative rhetoric. Lobbying groups are given names like FreedomWorks; health reform is denounced not just for its cost but as an assault on, yes, freedom. Oh, and remember when we were supposed to refer to pommes frites as “freedom fries”?

    The right’s definition of freedom, however, isn’t one that, say, F.D.R. would recognize. In particular, the third of his famous Four Freedoms — freedom from want — seems to have been turned on its head. Conservatives seem, in particular, to believe that freedom’s just another word for not enough to eat.

    Hence the war on food stamps, which House Republicans have just voted to cut sharply even while voting to increase farm subsidies.

    In a way, you can see why the food stamp program — or, to use its proper name, the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) — has become a target. Conservatives are deeply committed to the view that the size of government has exploded under President Obama but face the awkward fact that public employment is down sharply, while overall spending has been falling fast as a share of G.D.P. SNAP, however, really has grown a lot, with enrollment rising from 26 million Americans in 2007 to almost 48 million now.

    Conservatives look at this and see what, to their great disappointment, they can’t find elsewhere in the data: runaway, explosive growth in a government program. The rest of us, however, see a safety-net program doing exactly what it’s supposed to do: help more people in a time of widespread economic distress.

    The recent growth of SNAP has indeed been unusual, but then so have the times, in the worst possible way. The Great Recession of 2007-9 was the worst slump since the Great Depression, and the recovery that followed has been very weak. Multiple careful economic studies have shown that the economic downturn explains the great bulk of the increase in food stamp use. And while the economic news has been generally bad, one piece of good news is that food stamps have at least mitigated the hardship, keeping millions of Americans out of poverty.

    Nor is that the program’s only benefit. The evidence is now overwhelming that spending cuts in a depressed economy deepen the slump, yet government spending has been falling anyway. SNAP, however, is one program that has been expanding, and as such it has indirectly helped save hundreds of thousands of jobs.

    But, say the usual suspects, the recession ended in 2009. Why hasn’t recovery brought the SNAP rolls down? The answer is, while the recession did indeed officially end in 2009, what we’ve had since then is a recovery of, by and for a small number of people at the top of the income distribution, with none of the gains trickling down to the less fortunate. Adjusted for inflation, the income of the top 1 percent rose 31 percent from 2009 to 2012, but the real income of the bottom 40 percent actually fell 6 percent. Why should food stamp usage have gone down?

    Still, is SNAP in general a good idea? Or is it, as Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, puts it, an example of turning the safety net into “a hammock that lulls able-bodied people to lives of dependency and complacency.”

    One answer is, some hammock: last year, average food stamp benefits were $4.45 a day. Also, about those “able-bodied people”: almost two-thirds of SNAP beneficiaries are children, the elderly or the disabled, and most of the rest are adults with children.

    Beyond that, however, you might think that ensuring adequate nutrition for children, which is a large part of what SNAP does, actually makes it less, not more likely that those children will be poor and need public assistance when they grow up. And that’s what the evidence shows. The economists Hilary Hoynes and Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach have studied the impact of the food stamp program in the 1960s and 1970s, when it was gradually rolled out across the country. They found that children who received early assistance grew up, on average, to be healthier and more productive adults than those who didn’t — and they were also, it turns out, less likely to turn to the safety net for help.

    SNAP, in short, is public policy at its best. It not only helps those in need; it helps them help themselves. And it has done yeoman work in the economic crisis, mitigating suffering and protecting jobs at a time when all too many policy makers seem determined to do the opposite. So it tells you something that conservatives have singled out this of all programs for special ire.

    Even some conservative pundits worry that the war on food stamps, especially combined with the vote to increase farm subsidies, is bad for the G.O.P., because it makes Republicans look like meanspirited class warriors. Indeed it does. And that’s because they are.

    <NYT_CORRECTION_BOTTOM abp="1062">

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: REPUBLICAN'S SHOULD BE TRIED FOR TREASON!

    Somehow Republicans that legally benefit from the system while trying to reform it are worse than Democrats who legally benefit from the system while trying to expand the system (and, by definition, their own benefits.)

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: REPUBLICAN'S SHOULD BE TRIED FOR TREASON!

    In response to UserName9's comment:

     


    Krugman nails it again.

    Free to Be Hungry

    The word “freedom” looms large in modern conservative rhetoric. Lobbying groups are given names like FreedomWorks; health reform is denounced not just for its cost but as an assault on, yes, freedom. Oh, and remember when we were supposed to refer to pommes frites as “freedom fries”?

    The right’s definition of freedom, however, isn’t one that, say, F.D.R. would recognize. In particular, the third of his famous Four Freedoms — freedom from want — seems to have been turned on its head. Conservatives seem, in particular, to believe that freedom’s just another word for not enough to eat.

    Hence the war on food stamps, which House Republicans have just voted to cut sharply even while voting to increase farm subsidies.

    In a way, you can see why the food stamp program — or, to use its proper name, the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) — has become a target. Conservatives are deeply committed to the view that the size of government has exploded under President Obama but face the awkward fact that public employment is down sharply, while overall spending has been falling fast as a share of G.D.P. SNAP, however, really has grown a lot, with enrollment rising from 26 million Americans in 2007 to almost 48 million now.

    Conservatives look at this and see what, to their great disappointment, they can’t find elsewhere in the data: runaway, explosive growth in a government program. The rest of us, however, see a safety-net program doing exactly what it’s supposed to do: help more people in a time of widespread economic distress.

    The recent growth of SNAP has indeed been unusual, but then so have the times, in the worst possible way. The Great Recession of 2007-9 was the worst slump since the Great Depression, and the recovery that followed has been very weak. Multiple careful economic studies have shown that the economic downturn explains the great bulk of the increase in food stamp use. And while the economic news has been generally bad, one piece of good news is that food stamps have at least mitigated the hardship, keeping millions of Americans out of poverty.

    Nor is that the program’s only benefit. The evidence is now overwhelming that spending cuts in a depressed economy deepen the slump, yet government spending has been falling anyway. SNAP, however, is one program that has been expanding, and as such it has indirectly helped save hundreds of thousands of jobs.

    But, say the usual suspects, the recession ended in 2009. Why hasn’t recovery brought the SNAP rolls down? The answer is, while the recession did indeed officially end in 2009, what we’ve had since then is a recovery of, by and for a small number of people at the top of the income distribution, with none of the gains trickling down to the less fortunate. Adjusted for inflation, the income of the top 1 percent rose 31 percent from 2009 to 2012, but the real income of the bottom 40 percent actually fell 6 percent. Why should food stamp usage have gone down?

    Still, is SNAP in general a good idea? Or is it, as Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, puts it, an example of turning the safety net into “a hammock that lulls able-bodied people to lives of dependency and complacency.”

    One answer is, some hammock: last year, average food stamp benefits were $4.45 a day. Also, about those “able-bodied people”: almost two-thirds of SNAP beneficiaries are children, the elderly or the disabled, and most of the rest are adults with children.

    Beyond that, however, you might think that ensuring adequate nutrition for children, which is a large part of what SNAP does, actually makes it less, not more likely that those children will be poor and need public assistance when they grow up. And that’s what the evidence shows. The economists Hilary Hoynes and Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach have studied the impact of the food stamp program in the 1960s and 1970s, when it was gradually rolled out across the country. They found that children who received early assistance grew up, on average, to be healthier and more productive adults than those who didn’t — and they were also, it turns out, less likely to turn to the safety net for help.

    SNAP, in short, is public policy at its best. It not only helps those in need; it helps them help themselves. And it has done yeoman work in the economic crisis, mitigating suffering and protecting jobs at a time when all too many policy makers seem determined to do the opposite. So it tells you something that conservatives have singled out this of all programs for special ire.

    Even some conservative pundits worry that the war on food stamps, especially combined with the vote to increase farm subsidies, is bad for the G.O.P., because it makes Republicans look like meanspirited class warriors. Indeed it does. And that’s because they are.

    <NYT_CORRECTION_BOTTOM abp="1062">

     



    Krugman doesn't know what he is talking about.  Our country is literally awash in food. there is no need (or in the very least a very, very small need) for food stamps. Here, I'll post the truth about food again:

     

    In 2006, the U.S. food supply provided 3,900 calories per person per day.

    Accounting for waste, the average American consumed 2,594 calories per day in 2009 – an increase of 20% from 1970.

    In 2008, 200 pounds of meat per personwas available for consumption, which is up 13 pounds from 1970.16 34% of grains grown are used to feed animals(down from 50%+ in past years).

    The average American ate 30 tsp. of added sweeteners and sugars per day in 2005 – more than triple the recommended amount.

    More than 73% of U.S. adults are overweight or obese (body mass index 25+), and nearly 20% of children age 6-19 are obese.

    Physical inactivity and obesity accounted for 407,000 premature deaths in 2005.

    Diet contributes to heart disease, certain cancers, and stroke – the three leading causes of U.S. deaths.

    In 2008, the cost of obesity-attributed medical expenditures in the U.S. was approximately $147 billion.

    26% of the edible food available is wasted at the consumer level. (See “Losses” in figure).

    http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS01-06.pdf

    Hunger is not the problem the left thinks it is, but they are statistically right about obesity being a problem. 

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: REPUBLICAN'S SHOULD BE TRIED FOR TREASON!

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

    nothing new here .... the gop wants people to be without health care and to go hungry ..... maybe putin is right .... that some of the citizens of America aren't exceptional ..... exceptional people don't punish others because they are poor



    Nothing new here... you are a complete liar.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share