Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Finding a middle ground

Legislators, ag leaders discuss the fate of the farm bill at Farmfest

August 7, 2013

GILFILLAN ESTATE — It’s all about compromise....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(10)

johnlittle

Aug-07-13 7:49 AM

I get why we need to help folks with food support or SNAP. I dont understand subsidies for a group that seems to be doing well.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rona45

Aug-07-13 8:10 AM

We have all those new 11 million illegals who need to be fed as well as the Somalis. There is also the people with their new free phones that need to be taken care of. 80% of the money that is in the socalled farm bill is for food stamps.

2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

OIIOHH

Aug-07-13 11:19 AM

Compromise is how the “farm-bill” monstrosity turned into the massive special-interest giveaway and welfare program it is today. The entire purpose of the “farm bill” is to make people dependent upon the government for food. The two socialist congressmen couldn’t be more wrong about needing a “compromise” – what’s needed is a principled stand again runaway government largesse.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

Aug-07-13 3:09 PM

“The entire purpose of the “farm bill” is to make people dependent upon the government for food.”

That’s ridiculous; the govt. is not in the business of growing food so what would be the point? The farm bill was first introduced to stabilize commodity prices and to provide an adequate food supply through various controls in the days when family farms supplied much of our food. Now, most of our nation’s food is generated by corporate enterprises. IMO, I’d like to see a farm bill that helps family farmers gain access to local markets, provides incentives for adopting sustainable farming practices, ensures access to capital at guaranteed low rates and facilitates family farm start-ups. It’s time to eliminate the influence corporate farms have on the farm bill. Labels should be required on food containing genetically engineered ingredients. End the irresponsible use of antibiotics. Is it just coincidence obesity rates increased with the growth of Corporate farming practices?

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

OIIOHH

Aug-08-13 12:27 AM

“The govt. is not in the business of growing food…” Well, the govt. is sure as heck in the business of PAYING FOR FOOD, in case that SOMEHOW escaped your attention. THAT WOULD BE THE POINT!

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

merioncooper

Aug-08-13 3:28 AM

OHIOOH, I would love to see it if there weren't government subsidies for essential foods: I'm sure you wouldn't mind paying twelve dollars for a gallon of milk, ten bucks for a pound of ground beef. Rona, if the government did not buy food products for the poor, you'd have a) a lot of starving people on our hands and b) farmers with a lot less income. Maybe it would be cleaner if the farmers just donated their excess grain and meat directly to food banks, WIC, nursing homes and other programs and places that feed the poor. Eh?

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

merioncooper

Aug-08-13 3:38 AM

Rona, 55 percent of recipients of SNAP (food stamps) are either under 18 or older than sixty. I suppose we could force those kids to work in the basements of factories or in coal mining carts much like they did in the 1880s for their food. And, let's just make the elderly keep on working and working. Oh, wait, big business keeps laying off those older employees. Myself, I'd like a return to 1931 America -- soup lines, apple carts, tent cities. It would be better on the taxpayers and, heck, selling bruised apples for a penny apiece might even give some of those kids and old people a job, get them off their duffs and back into the real world. Or we could do this: all those businesses that got bailouts, that continue to get sizeable tax breaks, those millionaire job providers who benefited when Obama extended the Bush tax breaks could actually start providing substantial jobs.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

merioncooper

Aug-08-13 3:38 AM

Business and the rich have gotten almost everything they've asked for because it was supposed to produce more good jobs. Well, were are the jobs? Well?

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

levelheaded

Aug-08-13 8:42 AM

If you do research, there is more money going to big business then to help to poor. The food stamp program is small potatoes compared to other programs that don't make the news.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

Aug-08-13 5:37 PM

"Companies like Monsanto make nearly $12 billion on their own, so receiving the $18 billion (in subsidies) since 1995 is basically a waste of taxpayer dollars."

I agree the government is paying for food OIIOHH, it's just not for the reason YOU claim. You and rona seem to miss the point that Corporations, which earn BILLIONS of dollars, are also receiving BILLIONS of dollars in welfare while individuals who actually WORK for a living can't afford to buy food. rona is more concerned with "free phones" than the ability of people to get the food they need to survive.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 10 of 10 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web