Farm Bill Fails in the House

OK we can return to this thread when Obama gets his increase in SNAP funding...never.

No, we can return to this thread when you find that SOURCE, Fred...

You let me know when you find a SOURCE that the President "AGREED" to SNAP reductions...

(Hint: It's probably hiding in the same place as the source for Bradley Manning's 'outting of covert agents'...)

:rofllol :rofllol

You should stop digging, Fred...


Insert "last word" here: _________________________ (since, once again, you have nothing but empty rhetoric...)

LadyJazzer wrote: No, we can return to this thread when you find that SOURCE, Fred...

You let me know when you find a SOURCE that the President "AGREED" to SNAP reductions...

(Hint: It's probably hiding in the same place as the source for Bradley Manning's 'outting of covert agents'...)

:rofllol :rofllol

You should stop digging, Fred...


Insert "last word" here: _________________________ (since, once again, you have nothing but empty rhetoric...)

You see... if Lady Jazzer didn't have so many people on "ignore," including myself, she would have seen this article I posted earlier...

Walter L Newton wrote: Who's cutting what... ?

WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House is threatening to veto the House version of a massive, five-year farm bill, saying food stamp cuts included in the legislation could leave some Americans hungry.

The House is preparing to consider the bill this week. The legislation would cut $2 billion annually, or around 3 percent, from food stamps and make it harder for some people to qualify for the program. Food stamps, now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, cost almost $80 billion last year, twice the amount it cost five years ago.

The Senate passed its version of the farm bill last week with only a fifth of the amount of those cuts, or about $400 million a year, with the support of the administration. [/b][/i]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... e/2432849/

Complete with Lady Jazzer outrage 150 sized fonts.

But Lady Jazzer... when you talk to yourself all day, you learn nothing new.

LJ,

Since you just provide graphs without any causal statistics....

Since 1979 social services, in fact all govt services have increased a great deal. As you often point out, we all use these services, but especially those in lower income brackets (they get and use more welfares, unemployment, schoolings, etc.).

As much of these are funded my higher income brackets, wouldn't such a representation of incomes over times produce similar curves even if what I describe above was the only factor? Lower income people would need less income (inflation adjusted) to be the same as they were in 1979 because they get more from the govt they used to be on their own for and Higher income people would have to have increases in pay (perhaps not this much) to cover the increases in tax burden being thrust upon them to pay for those in need (lower income brackets). In fact, since there are far fewer people in the 1% (thus why we refer to them as just 1%) in order to cover their immense share of the taxes (immense relative to their % of the population), any little increase in govt services, or cost, would have to hit them very hard and would have to result in a much larger increase in income in order to not loose ground.

Given this, I accept that there are many, many things at play in your graph and this is why the graph, without an educated analysis of the causes, is somewhat useless.

Do you have an opinion of the benefits of social programs and the need to pay for them? The only way to produce a graph that is different is to tax the poor people more to pay for their programs and then justify market based pay increases to compensate....or to actually show the causal analysis.

In addition, most such trends are exponential in nature (remember, the % religion), and all exponential graphs look like that. If one group goes up even slightly as a % and the other goes down, then after enough cycles, the graph will look as you show. Simply an increase in the size of govt (like we had under Reagan or others since) will produce such a graph under any current set of policies or most that many are proposing aside from more price controls (like capping income, etc.), unless you want to increases taxes on the poor more than the rich.

Are those incomes pre or post tax? That really matters.

Thoughts on this?

I also agree the economy is doing better for those that already had jobs, those that work for the govt, those that have large businesses, those are relatively wealthy and those that have lots of assets....but those are not the ones that we are messing with the economy for....at least I thought it was for the unemployed, uneducated, unskilled and generally unable. They are not doing better on average, at least from my perspective. You of all people should not use these economic indicaters that measure the rich as indicator of how we are all doing. It's time to face it, our govt created a crash and now they are doing everything they can to fix it, by keeping us there. Can you find a market crash that lasts 5-10 years when the govt was not in control. We are living in bad times for most, and to claim otherwise or to think rich folks or cubical workers are a measure of America ain't helping. The Nile is a river.

Aren't more people on food stamps because the govt artificially crashed the economy and then kept it down by not letting us fix it? Regardless of who was in office, they are running the economy not us, as long as it is them, we will crash and or return to a crash.

Thanks for playing....if you do. By the way, it is no game, it is guns and time and opportunity...or lack there of.

LadyJazzer wrote:

FredHayek wrote: 1) Bernanke says the economy is doing better and is slowing QE.
2) Sequestration, remember that?
3) Food Stamps have increased exponenetially, time to pull back?
4) Unemployment rate has started to fall according to Team Obama, less need for food assistance.

And consider this, why are food stamps part of the farm bill? Time to vote on those seperately.

1) So you admit that the economy is doing better... Good...It's about time.

Why, yes, the economy HAS improved...Mostly for the top 1-2%:

The bottom 50+ % ... Not so much.... Imagine my surprise...

2) Sequestration?...Why yes, I remember that... The cuts in programs for HeadStart, Hot-lunch programs, Hot-meals-for-Seniors, is what is causing the jump in food-stamp assistance requests... TeaBaggers taking away with the Right hand, and then realizing they should take away with the left hand too, since they haven't done enough damage to the 47%.

3) Food Stamps have increased [sic] exponenetially, time to pull back?...
NO... (I think you mean "exponentially"...) Since it's the cuts in all of the other unemployment-benefits, and cuts to other social safety-net programs that has caused the increase, the TeaLiban shouldn't cry "It's time to cut more."

4) For those who have found jobs and no longer qualify for food-assistance, that's great... For people, (like Wal-Mart 'screwees') who are working, but still fall under the poverty line for food assistance, and for those like seniors, children, disabled, and veterans on disability who CAN'T work, it's still necessary, and this is nothing more than the usual Randroid/Libertarian/sociopathic punitive-punishment knee-jerk reaction...

But thanks for playing.

Prediction: The Farm bill will eventually pass and the Senate & House will agree on some compromise amount., but Barack won't be able to increase SNAP funding.

We can return to this thread when you find that SOURCE, Fred...

You let me know when you find a SOURCE that the President "AGREED" to SNAP reductions...

on that note wrote: LJ,

Since you just provide graphs without any causal statistics....

Since 1979 social services, in fact all govt services have increased a great deal. As you often point out, we all use these services, but especially those in lower income brackets (they get and use more welfares, unemployment, schoolings, etc.).

As much of these are funded my higher income brackets, wouldn't such a representation of incomes over times produce similar curves even if what I describe above was the only factor? Lower income people would need less income (inflation adjusted) to be the same as they were in 1979 because they get more from the govt they used to be on their own for and Higher income people would have to have increases in pay (perhaps not this much) to cover the increases in tax burden being thrust upon them to pay for those in need (lower income brackets). In fact, since there are far fewer people in the 1% (thus why we refer to them as just 1%) in order to cover their immense share of the taxes (immense relative to their % of the population), any little increase in govt services, or cost, would have to hit them very hard and would have to result in a much larger increase in income in order to not loose ground.

Given this, I accept that there are many, many things at play in your graph and this is why the graph, without an educated analysis of the causes, is somewhat useless.

Do you have an opinion of the benefits of social programs and the need to pay for them? The only way to produce a graph that is different is to tax the poor people more to pay for their programs and then justify market based pay increases to compensate....or to actually show the causal analysis.

In addition, most such trends are exponential in nature (remember, the % religion), and all exponential graphs look like that. If one group goes up even slightly as a % and the other goes down, then after enough cycles, the graph will look as you show. Simply an increase in the size of govt (like we had under Reagan or others since) will produce such a graph under any current set of policies or most that many are proposing aside from more price controls (like capping income, etc.), unless you want to increases taxes on the poor more than the rich.

Are those incomes pre or post tax? That really matters.

Thoughts on this?

I also agree the economy is doing better for those that already had jobs, those that work for the govt, those that have large businesses, those are relatively wealthy and those that have lots of assets....but those are not the ones that we are messing with the economy for....at least I thought it was for the unemployed, uneducated, unskilled and generally unable. They are not doing better on average, at least from my perspective. You of all people should not use these economic indicaters that measure the rich as indicator of how we are all doing. It's time to face it, our govt created a crash and now they are doing everything they can to fix it, by keeping us there. Can you find a market crash that lasts 5-10 years when the govt was not in control. We are living in bad times for most, and to claim otherwise or to think rich folks or cubical workers are a measure of America ain't helping. The Nile is a river.

Aren't more people on food stamps because the govt artificially crashed the economy and then kept it down by not letting us fix it? Regardless of who was in office, they are running the economy not us, as long as it is them, we will crash and or return to a crash.

Thanks for playing....if you do. By the way, it is no game, it is guns and time and opportunity...or lack there of.

LadyJazzer wrote:

FredHayek wrote: 1) Bernanke says the economy is doing better and is slowing QE.
2) Sequestration, remember that?
3) Food Stamps have increased exponenetially, time to pull back?
4) Unemployment rate has started to fall according to Team Obama, less need for food assistance.

And consider this, why are food stamps part of the farm bill? Time to vote on those seperately.

1) So you admit that the economy is doing better... Good...It's about time.

Why, yes, the economy HAS improved...Mostly for the top 1-2%:

The bottom 50+ % ... Not so much.... Imagine my surprise...

2) Sequestration?...Why yes, I remember that... The cuts in programs for HeadStart, Hot-lunch programs, Hot-meals-for-Seniors, is what is causing the jump in food-stamp assistance requests... TeaBaggers taking away with the Right hand, and then realizing they should take away with the left hand too, since they haven't done enough damage to the 47%.

3) Food Stamps have increased [sic] exponenetially, time to pull back?...
NO... (I think you mean "exponentially"...) Since it's the cuts in all of the other unemployment-benefits, and cuts to other social safety-net programs that has caused the increase, the TeaLiban shouldn't cry "It's time to cut more."

4) For those who have found jobs and no longer qualify for food-assistance, that's great... For people, (like Wal-Mart 'screwees') who are working, but still fall under the poverty line for food assistance, and for those like seniors, children, disabled, and veterans on disability who CAN'T work, it's still necessary, and this is nothing more than the usual Randroid/Libertarian/sociopathic punitive-punishment knee-jerk reaction...

But thanks for playing.

My thoughts on this are:

1) The graphs are clearly marked already as to what is "pre-tax" and "post-tax"...Your reading comprehension, or lack thereof, is not my problem.

2) The source of the graphs is the Congressional Budget Office. Since Fred never provides any sources for his hyperbole and empty rhetoric, and I HAVE provided sources, I suggest you take the time to do your own research on them. That's not my responsibility.

3) Our GOVERNMENT is the one that is digging us out of the mess caused by 8 years of failed Bush policy that CAUSED IT, and teabagger obstructionism that started the day Obama took his first oath of office...In spite of them--not because of them--it is turning around. (And I thank Fred for admitting that the economy is improving...IN SPITE of the teabaggers.)

4) There are more people on food-stamps because the TeaPublicans have done everything they can to ensure that the rich get richer, and the folks that they have put out of work, and whose jobs they have outsourced, and whose unemployment benefits they continue to cut, NEED IT.

"Aren't more people on food stamps because the govt artificially crashed the economy and then kept it down by not letting us fix it? "

No, more people are on food stamps because the Bush administration caused the biggest recession since the Great Depression and crashed the economy BEFORE handing the keys to Obama, and then the teabaggers kept it down by doing everything possible to obstruct the policies that WOULD have fixed it. Nice try...But that dog won't hunt.

5) The continual whine that "the most critical thing facing America is the "debt" and the "deficit" has been proven to be bull-puckey....

Thanks for playing.

(Poor Fred...Still can't fight his own battles...)

LadyJazzer wrote: We can return to this thread when you find that SOURCE, Fred...

You let me know when you find a SOURCE that the President "AGREED" to SNAP reductions...

Would somebody please quote the article about the administration agreeing to SNAP cuts so our myopic Lady Jazzer can see the source. She has so many people on ignore, I think the only person she has left to fight with is Fred and herself.

She keeps asking for this info and it's right in front of her... if she would just get out of her self-induced echo chamber.

...none are as blind as those who will not see?

FredHayek wrote: ...none are as blind as those who will not see?

Then why the hell didn't you clip and paste the article I linked to so she can see it?