Subscribe
Shop Local
Magazine
Gas Prices
Today's Poll!Opinion: Food stamp legislation
Editorial
Friday, June 22, 2012
The Seattle Times on food stamp legislation:
Too many Americans are still out of work to justify cuts to the food stamp program. Democrats and Republicans banded together in the Senate to defeat an amendment by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., to slash spending on the program nearly in half.
Still, a version of the 2012 Farm Bill passed by the Senate Agriculture Committee and being debated by the Senate floor contains a $4.5 billion reduction over the next decade to the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program budget. The cuts aren't as steep as Paul's proposal and they represent a fraction of the federal program's $80 billion a year spending. But it would nonetheless be a devastating blow to poor families. ...
An amendment restoring cuts, offered by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., is the best solution. Her amendment would not add to the deficit. Restoring cuts to the food stamp program would be paid for by capping subsidies to the highly profitable crop insurance companies. ...
Participation in the food stamps program is high. That's understandable given widespread unemployment.
Congress must reduce spending. But this isn't the time to cut food benefits ...
Food stamps are one of the most effective first lines of defense against hunger. Nearly half of food stamp recipients are children. ...
At a time when much of America's focus is rightly trained on education, it is worth reminding the Senate that children with empty stomachs are less likely to do well in school. ...
Online:
Marry Me
Comments
dokeus6 11 months ago
Congress can cut the spending that feeds the poorest of children in this nation but they can't seem to cut out the subsidies to the oil companies who are raking in billions of dollars of profit per quarter.
What is wrong with this picture?
Seems like the religious right conservatives are really thinking of their fellow man with the decisions they are making.
Bunch of hypocrites.
spelchek 10 months, 3 weeks ago
If oil companies weren't subsidized like everything else, gas would be even more expensive; but you already knew that. Why don't you start walking everywhere in protest? Don't just armchair your disdain towards something you need, show us all how to bring down the man. WE SHALL OVERCOME....WE SHALL OVERCOME.......
dokeus6 10 months, 3 weeks ago
Well my question spelchek doesn't involve the price of gasoline.
I just merely asked why we can subsidize big oil who make billions not thousands or millions but BILLIONS of dollars in profit but our senators and representatives in congress cannot find the money to feed the poorest of children in our country by subsidizing food stamps.
It seems the attitude you show is a direct reflection of how selfish that our country has become.
Those children should have the same rights as you and I but for some reason they don't. I believe it is because money and greed has twisted this country to something that our founders didn't intend it to become.
And what amazes me the most is the republican party, the hypocrites that they are, the political party who are supposed to be the most religious, most Christian people on the face of the earth seem fit to tear our country apart due to that greed.
Didn't Christ tell us before he left that we should love one another?
Doesn't that include the poorest of children?
dokeus6 10 months, 3 weeks ago
You just assume that I am a liberal. I believe in fair treatment for all Grace not just the richest people.
The Preamble of the Constitution states that "We, the people" not the rich people" run this country.
I know charity works but the effects it has sometimes doesn't get distributed to all of those that need it. The same with government programs because of budget constraints.
dokeus6 10 months, 3 weeks ago
I do blame the rich for the world's problems due to the greed and corruption that they cause to protect their money. Like I said before in a previous post, this country was founded for the people to be led by the people not corporations acting as an individual. It's a total sham how the corporations have taken this country over.
asb 10 months, 3 weeks ago
No energy source is supsidised as much as carbon fuel. Subsidize solar, wind, hydrogen, nuke, and other alternatives - then their lower prices will make for better energy use and reduce the amount of carbon that we continue to pump into the air against all of our self interest but in support of one thing, profit. Making fun of equalizing true costs of energy with smarmy slogans doesn't help anybody.
wyriontair 10 months, 3 weeks ago
I hate to burst your bubble, however, oil companies are not "subsidized", they relieve tax breaks, just as all other companies do, it's the "green" companies that are truly subsidized.
dokeus6 11 months ago
peakoil.com/publicpolicy/transparency-how-much-does-the-united-states-subsidize-energy
From 2002 thru 2008 we subsidized the oil companies to a tune of 70.2 billion dollars.
How many children would that have fed?
dokeus6 10 months, 3 weeks ago
You still didn't answer the original question. You countered my statement with tax numbers. I want to know why we have to subsidize them when they ,I'm going to quote your words here grace, "says that in the five years prior to 2010 it paid about $59 billion in total U.S. taxes, while it earned . . . $40.5 billion domestically"
So they paid their taxes which is good but right after that you said they earned 40.5 billion domestically.
So the original question still stands. Why do we still subsidize big oil with billions of dollars a year when our children are going hungry.
Maybe not your children grace but we are supposed to be a leader in the world and our children are being treated like third world country children. No access to healthcare, no access to food.
viktorkowski 10 months, 3 weeks ago
because oil companies donate tens of millions every year to congress. there isn't a candidate that doesn't get money. opensecrets.org has a section you can see who they donate to and how much.
dokeus6 10 months, 3 weeks ago
Well grace if you would come to where the low-middle and poorest class lives you will see how true my statements are.
You have no clue what some of the people of this country or even this town are struggling with so please don't act like you know what's going on.
mmhh 10 months, 4 weeks ago
Word!
spelchek 10 months, 3 weeks ago
"Food stamps are one of the most effective first lines of defense against hunger. Nearly half of food stamp recipients are children.. " -- Meanwhile, Michelle Obama is out declaring war on a child obesity epidemic. Me thinks the government looks like an enabler and vying for future Democrats.
JMO 10 months, 3 weeks ago
Food stamps buy fruits and vegetables too.
asb 10 months, 3 weeks ago
But they're much more expensive, so people buy the more filling fat/start/sugar foods.
asb 10 months, 3 weeks ago
AgCorp gets billions in subsidies for the lowest-cost-to-produce, highest profit foods, that also happen to be the most fattening and in a lower class of total nutrtional value compared to the fruits and vegtables we should all be able to afford as much as the fat, sugar & starch that happens to be the most subsidized. Mind you, fat/sugar/starch are indeed staples and we all need them, but when they're subsidized down to being the cheapest thing in the fridge, you get fat. And that Michaelle! Will she ever stop trying to improve the health of children! To breed voters?! Oh Spelchek, that is such political tripe! Shame!
TickledPink 10 months, 3 weeks ago
I think there needs to be vast reform of the food stamp program. Why does an able bodied single man/woman with no children need food stamps? I had a relative - single, male, no children, more than capable of working - who applied and was given $92/month and had the audacity to complain that it wasn't enough. I realize we're in an economic crisis and good jobs aren't plentiful, but driving around town just yesterday I saw several help wanted signs so for those who don't have to earn enough to cover day care, diapers, formula, school supplies etc. stop complaining and get off your lazy butt. These programs were meant to be a stop gap while people got back on their feet, not a lifestyle for people unwilling to better their circumstances.
jeffcitygirl 10 months, 3 weeks ago
Able bodied adults without kids and no medical reason to not work are only allowed 6 months of food stamps, so yes, it is a "stop gap" to help that population get through a hard time.
Littleinvestor 10 months, 3 weeks ago
And I had a relative, age 90 with $400 a month in income and a $600 a month pharmacy bill. She got food stamps. Want to cut her off?(Actually she died years ago, but she had no children so by TickledPink's ruler she should have been cut off.) It's like howling that 47 percent of Americans pay no taxes? Well, if they are 80 years old with $1,500 a month in social security income, do you want them to pay income taxes? Simplistic cable TV arguments ignore reality sometimes.
TickledPink 10 months, 3 weeks ago
You must have missed the part where I said able bodied. I don't know of any "ruler" that would measure a 90 year old as able bodied no matter how healthy they are for their age. What I'm talking about are the people who are fully capable of working but choose not to. Please read all of what I say before jumping to conclusions (or down my throat).
Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting
Or login with:
OpenID