Quote:
|
Originally Posted by loquitur
dc, I don't get how you can say it's a good idea to give money away to big businesses jsut because the same bill also gives money to causes you like. That logic, roughly speaking, is exactly what you rejected with the Bush tax cuts. The difference is that this involves government directly transferring money rather than just leaving it in the economy.
|
loquitor...perhaps I wasnt as clear as I should have been.
Knowing that there was overwhelming bi-partisan, veto-proof support for reauthorization of the the farm bill, I would much rather see it as passed this week...with double the funding of food stamps/nutrition programs (estimate) and half the funding of crop subsidies (estimate) than as it was passed in previous (2002) bills. While far from perfect,
It was a significant step in changing the priorities of the legislation and the best possible outcome knowing that passage of a "farm bill" was inevitable.
I think there is a critical need right now for increased funding for food stamps/child nutrition programs as there are millions more children and families living near or below the poverty level and living with "food insecurity" (the Dept of Ag. doesnt call it "hunger") than seven years ago.
The bill is acceptable to me in its present form
because it is the only way to get enough Republican support for these programs for the working poor ....and w/or Repub support (to override a Bush veto), there will be no increased funding for these programs.
If I had my choice the food stamps/child nutrition programs would be in a free-standing bill, but that aint never gonna happen with a Repub president and large Repub minorities in Congress that can effectively block legislation.