Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
If you believe in the necessity of a government social safety net, this bill was the only way that was going to happen.
|
I disagree. If we need a bill to feed needy children, seniors and the disabled why couldn't we pass a bill to do that? I think we could.
However, politicians in Washington seem to have this need to play "smoke and mirror" games. Hence you get a "farm bill" when 2/3's of it is a welfare for the poor and the other third is welfare for rich farmers. You get your favorite non-urban politician saying how everyone benefits from the farm bill by helping the good ol' traditional family farmer. You get your urban politician saying everyone benefits by making sure we feed our starving children. Then you get someone like Pelosi saying everyone wins because it is major reform, when it is not. If that is the way you think the system has to work, we strongly disagree.
I still don't know Obama's take on this, with him being a "reformer" candidate from a farming state with a few major urban areas. It has to be tough for him to support the subsidies to the wealthy farmers and the burden placed on the middle class through taxation and increased costs. If he fails to speak honestly about this, I will be disappointed. However, even if he takes your position, that he supports the bill because of "compromise", I will disagree with him but at least respect his honesty.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
It's not so much about who's going hungry or not; it's about lobby groups and marketing dollars that skew our thoughts on nutrition and food habits. There is an overabundance of food. What's at issue is who's being fed and for what purpose.
There is money in meat and dairy because they are more of a luxury good. Broccoli and oats aren't nearly as sexy. Ask the McDonald's marketing department.
Source: Health vs. Pork: Congress Debates the Farm Bill |
This is an excellent graphic. Again, I don't get our liberal friends. Why do they take on some causes but not others. For example smoking is a health risk, but so is a diet high in fat and sugar. They seem to want to take the choice of smoking away from people, while they subsidize diets high in fat and sugar. They want to have emission and gas mileage standards so a guy can't own certain exotic sports cars, but they subsidize the wasteful production, pollution, etc. of beef. Why aren't they consistent?