|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 13, 2013 3:27 am Post subject: The Monty Burns Republicans |
 |
|
The Monty Burns Republicans.
| Quote: |
Cut food stamps but go all in for corporate welfare for Big Ag? That’s the Republican Party and the farm bill. Reports The Washington Post:
House Republicans narrowly passed a farm bill on Thursday that was stripped of hundreds of billions in funding for food stamps, abandoning four decades of precedent to gain the backing of conservative lawmakers.
The 216 to 208 vote was a victory for a Republican caucus that has struggled to pass the most basic of legislation, but it also set up weeks of acrimony and uncertainty as House and Senate leaders must reconcile two vastly different visions for providing subsidies to farmers and feeding the hungry.
Ross Douthat is not amused:
This is egregious whatever you think of the food stamp program, and it’s indicative of why the endless, often-esoteric debates about the Republican future actually matter to our politics. Practically any conception of the common good, libertarian or communitarian or anywhere in between, would produce better policy than a factionally-driven approach of further subsidizing the rich while cutting programs for the poor. The compassionate-conservative G.O.P. of George W. Bush combined various forms of corporate welfare with expanded spending on social programs, which was obviously deeply problematic in various ways … but not as absurd and self-dealing as only doing welfare for the rich.
More:
Reasonable people can disagree, in other words, about what kind of conservatism would best serve the common good. But everyone should agree that any alternative would be preferable to a Republican Party that doesn’t seem to think about the common good at all.
Amen. Every House Democrat opposed this bill because it jettisoned food stamps. Only 12 Republican House members voted against the bill. Only twelve. Andrew Sullivan:
There’s no small government consistency here – just an embrace of subsidizing Big Ag and a contempt for the needy in a long, protracted growth recession. Are theytrying to make themselves look like total douchebags?
The Monty Burns Republicans. That’s what they are. Look, I will grant you that the food stamp program almost certainly needs reform, given the astronomical rate of growth in the past decade, past even what you would expect in the face of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. On the other hand, we have a lot more poor people, and people barely making it. TheWall Street Journal has a good, balanced piece on the complexities of the food-stamp program and its growth. It has become much easier to qualify for food stamps, but that is on purpose. Excerpt:
“We decided to adopt [easier] standards in order to prevent [people] from having to spend all of their life savings,” said Richard Berry, a GOP-appointed director of the agency that screens applicants in Mississippi, where one out of every three children receive benefits. “We didn’t want people to have to become destitute in order to get help.”
There are no doubt some lazy people who are enjoying being on the dole, and who have no intention of getting off of food stamps. But I bet most people who came onto the rolls in the past few years are like this guy from the Journal story:
With more entering the program, social service groups began recommending it as an option for struggling families that previously hadn’t applied.
That is what happened to Basem Eljauni, a 55-year-old cashier at a Sam’s Club in Greensboro, N.C., who lost his two businesses—a grocery store and a gas station—and his $250,000 in savings and investments. The father of six says he now makes around $1,000 a month if he is lucky and supplements his income with about $800 in government-paid food assistance and handouts from charities.
“It’s hard to see yourself stuck on food stamps,” said Mr. Eljauni. “Amazing—I never thought I was going to be stuck in the system.”
I’ve never had to rely on food stamps, but I have friends who have found themselves in a very tight economic spot, through no fault of their own, and who had to go on food stamps to feed their children. There is no shame in that. It can happen to people you know, to people in your own family. It can happen to you.
Food writer Corby Kummer, who, like most people who follow food policy, hates the farm bill, puts this latest GOP move into perspective. It’s not at all a crazy idea to separate agricultural policy from anti-hunger policy, he says:
Anyone who looks at the farm bill for a few minutes–or, like Dan Imhoff, devotes a book to it, or, like Marion Nestle, an entire semester’s course to it–sees what a chimera or, more to the point, a monster it is. It has next to nothing to do with the farms most people think of–the ones growing mixed crops, the ones that supply farmer’s markets. It doesn’t mention environmental protection or land conservation, though some of the country’s most important safeguards are in it. And it doesn’t mention nutrition assistance or hunger, though fully four-fifths of it are food stamps. Why not keep the agricultural parts, even if they benefit only industrial agriculture, in what’s called the farm bill, and call the food-assistance portion what it is? That would get the farm bill back on the rails, and stop letting SNAP debates hijack every vote.
Here’s why not: because that means, as anyone in the anti-hunger community recognizes, pushing the 47 million Americans on food stamps onto an ice floe.
More Kummer:
In case it might have crossed your mind that the Republicans–who left subsidies to millionaire farmers untouched and un-subject to means testing, as the Cato Institute pointed out right away–might give a bit more consideration to agriculture lobbyists than to food-stamp recipients, Derek Thompson makes the role of campaign contributions absolutely plain in this good and stark piece.
The Republican Party is throwing corporate welfare at farmers, but telling people who are so poor they qualify for government aid to feed themselves that they are not a priority. As a matter of basic politics, the Republicans have lost their minds. This is Mitt Romney’s 47 percent remark all over again.
President Obama has vowed to veto this GOP farm bill if it hits his desk, so Congress is going to have to try again. You know who needs to find their voice and use it right now? Conservative Christian pastors and leaders. Christians need to seriously reconsider uncritical support for a political party that prioritizes lavishing subsidies on the agribusiness rich while telling the poor to sit quietly and wait for scraps. |
What to say? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 13, 2013 3:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The farming subsidies are insane, and in a sane world separating food stamps, which ought to be, in general, fairly uncontroversial, i.e. no such thing as a food stamp queen, from harmful and stupid subsidies should be a good thing. But this isn't the world we live in, the stupid and harmful subsidies and agricultural protectionism and is bi-partisan. If anything the republicans ought to be against the whole thing if they were truly small government, anti-spending ideologues. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 13, 2013 4:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Its an astounding refusal to extend the most efficient and effective safety net during a time of high unemployment.
Derek Thompson has some graphs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 13, 2013 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have to think there will be another middle class 'revolt' such as occupy wall street that will take hold.
Its just bound to happen. The middle class will continue to get squeezed and take action. Its just a matter of when not if. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 14, 2013 7:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sirius black wrote: |
| The middle class will continue to get squeezed |
This would be a good thing. Remember, only the most vile and depraved amongst us are condemned to the class of middles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 14, 2013 1:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Farm subsidies and food stamps have nothing to do with the middle class. The farmers are top earners and food stamps bottom earners.
Occupy wasn't a middle class thing either. It was supported by Soros for fk sake. Get the hippies out camping in cities and you *turn off* the middle class. That was the point.
There will be no middle class revolt as long as the condition of media ownership remains stable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 14, 2013 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| sirius black wrote: |
| The middle class will continue to get squeezed |
This would be a good thing. Remember, only the most vile and depraved amongst us are condemned to the class of middles. |
The fact that Sirius Black's parroted talking point in defense of food stamps for the lower class revolves around the notion of the middle class being "squeezed" is a good indicator of precisely how strong a role middle class narcissism and egotism plays in our national politics. Want to engage in upper class corporate welfare? Flatter the middle class with talk of middle class small business owners. Want to save food stamps for the sake of the lower class? Want to support Occupy Wall Street? Frame it as a "middle class revolt." Talk about how eliminating them hurts the middle class. Want to argue against a minimum wage? Lament the notion that the middle class might have to pay slightly more for their goods and services.
Hell, even a single instance of criticism launched against the middle class and its vices is evidently so traumatic that one if the survivors of that incident (don't worry, you're not a victim, you're a survivor) can't help but relive it again later in response to a barely-related stimulus! God forbid everyone isn't always heaping praise and admiration on a group of people whose highest aspirations revolve around purchasing and owning nice objects. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 14, 2013 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Want to argue against a minimum wage? Lament the notion that the middle class might have to pay slightly more for their goods and services. |
I know full well that I am forever condemned for voicing opposition to a specific mode of minimum wage assistance, but I was hoping that my previous comment here would function as some measure of atonement. Clearly I was mistaken.
Ah well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yodanole
Joined: 02 Mar 2003
Location: La Florida
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2013 1:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| In the American political theater, more good generally comes from Democratic folly than Republican wisdom. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2013 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Want to argue against a minimum wage? Lament the notion that the middle class might have to pay slightly more for their goods and services. |
I know full well that I am forever condemned for voicing opposition to a specific mode of minimum wage assistance, but I was hoping that my previous comment here would function as some measure of atonement. Clearly I was mistaken.
Ah well. |
You're against raising the minimum wage? Really?
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2013 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Public floggings are held on the first Tuesday of each month, Kuros. I've a tight schedule to keep, I'm afraid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 12, 2013 9:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One of the great scams of the last century was that Soviet state farms were a mess while American corporate farms were a bonanza.
There should be a better deal worked out to get a stable income for family farms and a dependable food supply to the needy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 13, 2013 5:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
One of the great scams of the last century was that Soviet state farms were a mess while American corporate farms were a bonanza.
There should be a better deal worked out to get a stable income for family farms and a dependable food supply to the needy. |
I realize you come from Iowa, so you're a bit biased, but are family farms that important? What % of the country consists of family farms? Less than 1%?
That being said, I do believe our agriculture policy needs to be reformed to the extreme. If that happens to help boost small farm support, so much the better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 13, 2013 11:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| One of the great scams of the last century was that Soviet state farms were a mess while American corporate farms were a bonanza. |
Do you know how many people died immediately following the collectivization of Soviet ag? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
