Obama to sign farm bill during visit to Michigan

The White House says that President Barack Obama will sign the farm bill at Michigan State University on Friday during a previously announced visit to East Lansing.
AP Wire
Feb 5, 2014

The White House first announced the trip last Friday. It confirmed Tuesday that he will sign the farm bill during the visit.

Michigan Democrat Debbie Stabenow chairs the U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee and led the fight for congressional passage of the farm bill.

The sweeping $100-billion-a-year measure won Senate approval Tuesday on a 68-32 vote after House passage last week. The bulk of its cost is for the food stamp program, which aids 1 in 7 Americans.

The White House said Obama will give a speech on the importance of the farm bill to the U.S. economy.

Comments

galwithscense

Great, another way for not all but a few of the slacker farmers to receive $$$ for not taking care of their crops!!!! Last year the price of blueberries was low so many farmers let the berries fall to the ground. Sad!!!

Former Grandhavenite

Seriously, if they're going to be paid by the government either way, they should be required to actually grow the crops and donate whatever surplus they aren't able to sell. There are plenty of hungry people out there who would be more than happy to solve the problem of farmers producing "too much" food.

Back to the Wall

(sarcasm)
That's right, the govenment should be able tell businesses exactly what to do with their product.
(end sarcasm).

That's the problem with corporate welfare - It creates a dependance -then the provider is free to pull any strings and make the recipient dance.

Don't smoke the pipe. Not even once. It's impossible to stop. Then it's got you, and you've given up all sense of self-determination. You've allowed yourself to become a (in the classic sense) a ZOMBIE!!!!

Former Grandhavenite

Corporate welfare is 'redistribution' in the truest sense of the word. Not only does it rip off the taxpayer, but it creates a dependence as you said. You always hear how welfare for individual families is bad since it reduces the incentive to work and creates dependency, although we rarely acknowledge that corporate welfare in the form of transferring wealth from taxpayers to private corporations has all of the same issues.

Tri-cities realist

So can we agree to end all welfare subsidies to individuals and businesses?

Back to the Wall

Crickets....

Lanivan

I'm afraid you'll get no agreement from the Repubs, who are working very hard to cut the subsidies to the former, while maintaining or increasing subsidies to the latter.

Back to the Wall

And with that shrill interjection a discussion about ideas becomes a discussion about people.
Sigh.

Lanivan

Please forgive me if you have the wherewithal to do so. But you left out a critical caveat - "when I don't agree with the "shrill" interjection".

And by the way, I was replying to my buddy Tri-Cities Realist, most definitely not you, so mind your own beeswax and keep your grousing to yourself. It just turns the discussion into a b***h session.

Back to the Wall

...and civil discourse goes out the window.
Pseudo-political banter takes a left turn into identity politics.
Cognative bias rears its ugly head as hostile attempts are made to quiet disagreement using accusations, plausabile deniability, and verbal abuse.

Yes, I can follow an example and debase myself into talking about people too, Mizz Lanivan.

Just keep this in mind: The b***h session never began until your grand entrance.

Lanivan

So apparently you DON'T have the wherewithal. I understand - you're a little edgy today what with the 100+" of snow and all.

But let's move on from your frothing at the mouth. So, Back to the Wall - Do you, or don't you, have any pertinent thoughts about government subsidies, both corporate or individual? Especially those corporate subsidies that the Repubs want to maintain or increase and those social subsidies they wish to cut.

Lanivan

Crickets....

Tri-cities realist

Buddy huh? I was hoping for "my dear friend." Looks like I have some work to do. But back on topic, if the Repubs would propose a dollar for dollar cut in subsidies to both individuals and businesses, would you support it? While I am concerned with what our elected reps do, in this case, I'm curious about YOUR thoughts on reducing or eliminating subsidies. Cheers to my dear old friend... err... dear friend.

Lanivan

"Friendship is about finding people who are your kind of crazy". With this in mind, yes - you are my dear and crazy friend. Now, to continue with our always civil discourse, after being so rudely interrupted,...

Of course, I would support a proposal that would cut both corporate and social subsidies in programs equally that were shown that, a.) it was proven to no longer be needed (oil/gas industry comes to mind), b.) there is a lot of waste and inefficiency, c.) need that was once acute has now been reduced, d.) the programs are based on niche special interest, lobby-driven, rather than for the common good.

By the way, I appreciate your attempt to cut the subsidizing of your reference to me by eliminating the unnecessary and bloated descriptive use of the word "old"!

Tri-cities realist

Glad you caught the last part, which brings me to your first quote; I do enjoy your (along with most on here) sense of humor.

(a) this might be difficult. The problem with dependence on govt subsidies is that the benefactor (individuals or businesses) assume it will be there, making it a part of their "norm", so if you talk about reducing or eliminating a subsidy, they cry "but we NEED it to survive."

(b) I guess we'll need to define "a lot".

(c) see point (a).

(d) this could be the really interesting one. Virtually all subsidies could be considered niche, and there are lobby groups for just about anything. So agreeing on a particular subsidy's merit over another is likely folly in getting any agreement. So here's my proposal: assuming the breakdown by fed dept is accurate here:

http://www.cato.org/blog/federal...

How about cutting each dept's subsidies by 10% as a start. I'm sure each dept could find that much waste or inefficiency if they looked hard enough. Across the board cuts would be the most fair, nobody could claim favoritism to another dept or lobby. Ready to climb on board?

Former Grandhavenite

I think the key distinction is that if we end corporate welfare it'll hurt the balance sheets of companies who are unwilling to adapt their business model to be self-sustaining, but if we end individual and family welfare people without the ability (or to be fair, in some cases the desire) to work will starve to death. For moral and ethical reasons I think welfare payments to individuals are necessary.

I have no doubt that in some extreme minority of cases the availability of welfare reduces the incentive to work, but I consider subsidizing the laziness of a small number of people as a lot less of a problem than the potential for large numbers of people to not be able to put food on their plates. Welfare pretty much does what it's supposed to do since it keeps someone alive, but with a very minimal and uncomfortable standard of living, thereby creating an incentive to work if at all possible.

Tri-cities realist

While probably not the norm, this guy doesn't seem too uncomfortable.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3...

Post a Comment

Log in to your account to post comments here and on other stories, galleries and polls. Share your thoughts and reply to comments posted by others. Don't have an account on GrandHavenTribune.com? Create a new account today to get started.