Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Disgusting Compromise on $956B Farm Bill; In Spite of Massive Howls, No Actual Cuts in Food Stamps
MISH'S Global Economic Trend Analysis ^ | 1/29/2014 | Mike Shedlock (Mish)

Posted on 01/29/2014 10:34:53 AM PST by SteelTrap

Proving that neither party really wants to do anything about escalating costs of anything, in typical D.C. compromise action, the House Passes $956B Farm Bill in a bipartisan vote.

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) all voted for the bill.

Democrats are howling over minuscule cuts in SNAP (food stamps). For example, an inane headline on the Daily Koz reads House passes food stamp-slashing farm bill.

Supposedly there will be $8.6 billion in devastating food stamp cuts. Even if that happens it is less than a 1% cut in an economy that is supposedly in recovery.

(Excerpt) Read more at globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy
KEYWORDS: farmbill; foodstamps; foodstampsbill; mish; uniparty
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last

1 posted on 01/29/2014 10:34:54 AM PST by SteelTrap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SteelTrap

Someone presently will be by to blame everything on free trade.


2 posted on 01/29/2014 10:36:26 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

And the lack of available “workers”.


3 posted on 01/29/2014 10:38:12 AM PST by SteelTrap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

The best way to cut food stamps is to put people back to work.

Publishing fake unemployment numbers and claiming a recovery when there isn’t one doesn’t work.


4 posted on 01/29/2014 10:39:09 AM PST by DannyTN (A>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

The best way to cut food stamps is to put people back to work.

Publishing fake unemployment numbers and claiming a recovery when there isn’t one doesn’t work.


5 posted on 01/29/2014 10:39:09 AM PST by DannyTN (A>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

6 posted on 01/29/2014 10:40:37 AM PST by DannyTN (A>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SteelTrap

The title reads there are no actual cuts in food stamps, but down the article there are 8.6 billion of cuts. Eight billion is a lot of pesos, no matter how you slice it.


7 posted on 01/29/2014 10:40:53 AM PST by MichaelCorleone (Jesus Christ is not a religion. He's the Truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SteelTrap

The title is wrong, it should just be:

Disgusting $956B Farm Bill

Pissing and moaning about a small portion of the giveaways in the giveaway-palooza that is the Farm Bill is dumb.


8 posted on 01/29/2014 10:41:30 AM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SteelTrap
Wall Street Advisor:Actual unemployment is 37.2%, 'misery index' worst in 40 years

The stores are full of imports while Americans sit idle.

9 posted on 01/29/2014 10:43:56 AM PST by DannyTN (A>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SteelTrap
Wall Street Advisor:Actual unemployment is 37.2%, 'misery index' worst in 40 years

The stores are full of imports while Americans sit idle.

10 posted on 01/29/2014 10:43:56 AM PST by DannyTN (A>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SteelTrap

So the bill is $956BB in spending, with an $8.6BB cut in food stamps.

Last years total was $964.6BB?


11 posted on 01/29/2014 10:45:21 AM PST by andyk (I have sworn...eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

Never get tired of seeing the Shadowstats hockey-stick graph.


12 posted on 01/29/2014 10:45:59 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MichaelCorleone

If you read the article you will realize no actual cut will take place.

One area they could save on is to deduct the amount of the school breakfast lunch and in some cases supper given.
since the parents aren’t providing these meals they could be getting the food stamp allotment for them


13 posted on 01/29/2014 10:46:35 AM PST by RWGinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

Did you see the other article I posted that says unemployment is really 37%?

Shadowstats is conservative.


14 posted on 01/29/2014 10:51:43 AM PST by DannyTN (A>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
The new face of food stamps: working-age Americans
15 posted on 01/29/2014 10:52:39 AM PST by DannyTN (A>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
The new face of food stamps: working-age Americans
16 posted on 01/29/2014 10:52:39 AM PST by DannyTN (A>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RWGinger

Thanks for the reply. Just so you know I did try to get to the article three times but the link didn’t work for me for some reason.


17 posted on 01/29/2014 10:55:50 AM PST by MichaelCorleone (Jesus Christ is not a religion. He's the Truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SteelTrap; All
Thank you for referencing that article SteelTrap. But beware of articles about federal bills related to agriculture which don't point out the following. As evidenced by the excerpt below from Butler v. United State, the states have never delegated to Congress, via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate agricultural production.
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited. None to regulate agricultural production is given, and therefore legislation by Congress for that purpose is forbidden (emphasis added)." --United States v. Butler, 1936.

Note that the excerpt even includes a reference to the 10th Amendment.

18 posted on 01/29/2014 11:07:02 AM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

The Farm Bill is nearly exclusively a subsidy for Free Trade. Someone of your slight intelligence and fanboy devotion to Globalism is never going to accept that.


19 posted on 01/29/2014 11:54:45 AM PST by SeminoleCounty (Amnesty And Not Ending ObamaCare Will Kill GOP In 2014)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeminoleCounty

Oh, please elaborate. The Farm Bill is a testament to your God: Big Government.


20 posted on 01/29/2014 11:56:31 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

Thank you for the accurate links...

Some will never accept the fact that Farm Bill subsidies are just welfare programs for bad legislation


21 posted on 01/29/2014 11:59:57 AM PST by SeminoleCounty (Amnesty And Not Ending ObamaCare Will Kill GOP In 2014)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

Why don’t you prove I am wrong. This time, try using relevant facts and links. Do something besides trolling


22 posted on 01/29/2014 12:01:46 PM PST by SeminoleCounty (Amnesty And Not Ending ObamaCare Will Kill GOP In 2014)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SeminoleCounty

Being called a troll by you actually is a compliment. It’s the only thing you do well. And no, I’m not going to hold your hand, wipe your butt, and do your research for you.


23 posted on 01/29/2014 12:03:21 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy; SeminoleCounty

Free traders are the biggest enablers of Big Government that there are. It’s the free trade policies that are making a hundred million Americans dependent on government.


24 posted on 01/29/2014 12:08:47 PM PST by DannyTN (A>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

One of the reasons that free traders butt heads with protectionists: assuming that what the protectionists claim is true, the protectionist solution to make government bigger is ridiculous.


25 posted on 01/29/2014 12:11:10 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

Then maybe you should be helping your fellow Free Trader traveller Barack Obama on his US-EU Free Trade deal, instead of wasting your time here. You two can hold hands and hate America together


26 posted on 01/29/2014 12:18:16 PM PST by SeminoleCounty (Amnesty And Not Ending ObamaCare Will Kill GOP In 2014)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
"One of the reasons that free traders butt heads with protectionists: assuming that what the protectionists claim is true, the protectionist solution to make government bigger is ridiculous."

You're projecting. The protectionist solution reduces government.

Raising the import tariffs doesn't make government bigger. We already have all that government infrastructure, it's just a rate change. Reducing income taxes on the other hand, weakens the IRS.

But more importantly, it gets people off of the welfare roles which reduces government substantially.

Your so called "free trade" solution has resulted in 100 million people on food stamps. Worse it has strengthened the largest communist government out there. Who is really big government?

27 posted on 01/29/2014 12:18:54 PM PST by DannyTN (A>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
"One of the reasons that free traders butt heads with protectionists: assuming that what the protectionists claim is true, the protectionist solution to make government bigger is ridiculous."

You're projecting. The protectionist solution reduces government.

Raising the import tariffs doesn't make government bigger. We already have all that government infrastructure, it's just a rate change. Reducing income taxes on the other hand, weakens the IRS.

But more importantly, it gets people off of the welfare roles which reduces government substantially.

Your so called "free trade" solution has resulted in 100 million people on food stamps. Worse it has strengthened the largest communist government out there. Who is really big government?

28 posted on 01/29/2014 12:18:54 PM PST by DannyTN (A>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SteelTrap

bump


29 posted on 01/29/2014 12:19:38 PM PST by gibsosa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeminoleCounty

I’ll stick to Ronald Reagan, thanks. I don’t feel like joining your Party.


30 posted on 01/29/2014 12:20:04 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: SteelTrap

How come nobody ever mentions the inflationary effect on food prices from food stamps?

Free money chasing food = higher prices.


31 posted on 01/29/2014 12:22:41 PM PST by nascarnation (I'm hiring Jack Palladino to investigate Baraq's golf scores.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
Your so called "free trade" solution has resulted in 100 million people on food stamps.

You forget the thread on which you post, and you expect me to believe that raising my taxes will reduce expenditures on food stamps, despite the evidence staring you in the face.

As I stated, your faith in the government has no equal.

32 posted on 01/29/2014 12:22:47 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SteelTrap
Is that $956 billion over one year? or 10? or what?

The Washington Power Nuts are always obfuscating by switching back and forth when yapping, depending on whether they want a highly emotional number or more "moderate" number.

There should be a new way of writing about budget numbers, as in "$956 billion/o-ten," which equals "$95.6 billion/o-one."

33 posted on 01/29/2014 12:28:01 PM PST by cookcounty (IRS = Internal Revenge Service.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
"You forget the thread on which you post, and you expect me to believe that raising my taxes will reduce expenditures on food stamps, despite the evidence staring you in the face."

Your talking gibberish now.

I want to lower income taxes not raise them. I want to raise tariffs by an equal amount, so there is no net increase in taxes of any kind, except the new income taxes, and sales taxes from people returning to work and having more money to spend.

This thread presents no evidence that you claim for it.

34 posted on 01/29/2014 1:04:21 PM PST by DannyTN (A>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
"You forget the thread on which you post, and you expect me to believe that raising my taxes will reduce expenditures on food stamps, despite the evidence staring you in the face."

Your talking gibberish now.

I want to lower income taxes not raise them. I want to raise tariffs by an equal amount, so there is no net increase in taxes of any kind, except the new income taxes, and sales taxes from people returning to work and having more money to spend.

This thread presents no evidence that you claim for it.

35 posted on 01/29/2014 1:04:21 PM PST by DannyTN (A>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
Gibberish? LOL

You want to talk jibberish, of the economic sort? Let's talk about how you think raising tariffs, with all the ripple-effect it causes, can even be considered at the same time as lowering the marginal tax rate (which, despite being politically impossible, one cannot calculate on a 1:1, or even 1:x basis, as you suggest).

It's food for idiots, and you are obese. You throw these numbers and ideas about and have no idea what they mean.

36 posted on 01/29/2014 1:10:52 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
I don't know what you mean by a 1:1 basis, but it's really quite simple.

You take the $ amount of imports x 10% (tariff increase). That is the amount that the tariff increase will generate.

And then that's the amount that you reduce income taxes by.

Any decrease in the tariff due to a fall in the amount of imports would be more than offset by the increased American incomes, when people change their buying habits.

Your import related business would suck, but America would be far better off, if you were in the food stamp line instead of the 100 million Americans there now.

37 posted on 01/29/2014 1:18:59 PM PST by DannyTN (A>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

Identify the assumptions that you are making in your last comment, and you too can be an economist.


38 posted on 01/29/2014 1:20:56 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
You take the $ amount of imports x 10% (tariff increase). That is the amount that the tariff increase will generate.

And then you subtract out the higher domestic prices your new tax will cause, how many jobs will that cost?

39 posted on 01/29/2014 2:02:14 PM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Science is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
There won't be significant increases in domestic prices due to a tariff increase.

The tariff itself will cause up to 1.4% increase in the general price level. But that will be offset by the lowered income taxes. Taxpayers would have on average $1500 from lowered taxes to pay the increase costs of imports, if they choose to continue buying imports.

If a domestic product includes an imported component, it may go up, but only by the proportion that it has imports as components. And that is already factored in the general price increase above.

If a domestic product exists that currently competes against an import, then conceivably that domestic product could raise it's prices. But if they were competing profitably before, the increase would result in excess profits, and more domestic competitors would enter the market driving the price back down.\

40 posted on 01/29/2014 2:18:48 PM PST by DannyTN (A>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

Your posts make sense. Unfortunately, some would rather punish American producers with income taxes and reward our enemies in the process.


41 posted on 01/29/2014 2:26:49 PM PST by SeminoleCounty (Amnesty And Not Ending ObamaCare Will Kill GOP In 2014)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
There won't be significant increases in domestic prices due to a tariff increase.

Right. Because when foreign oil goes up 10%, domestic oil goes up 10% as well.

Taxpayers would have on average $1500 from lowered taxes

Workers would, retirees, not so much.

to pay the increase costs of imports, if they choose to continue buying imports.

And if they only buy domestic goods, which also went up in price, you'll send them your $1500?

If a domestic product exists that currently competes against an import, then conceivably that domestic product could raise it's prices.

LOL!

42 posted on 01/29/2014 2:30:13 PM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Science is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: SeminoleCounty
Yes! We must punish American consumers with higher prices!

Silly kulaks.

43 posted on 01/29/2014 2:31:27 PM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Science is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: SteelTrap

“Recovery.” Yeah, right. That’s a ten percent cut in the whole food stamp program, BTW. We need a much larger manufacturing base on U.S. soil, and we need to be rid of local-yocal zoning laws against new, small manufacturing shops. Debt-sucking NIMBYs are the problem.


44 posted on 01/29/2014 2:32:50 PM PST by familyop (We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of corruption smelled around the planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
"Right. Because when foreign oil goes up 10%, domestic oil goes up 10% as well. "

Not necessarily, you see oil prices falling now because prices went up too much and stimulated new exploration and new drilling techniques.

But in your worse case scenario 10% price incrase * 1% (the percent of GNP that oil makes up) = 0.1% general price increase.

Workers would, retirees, not so much.

Again the general price increases would be less than 1.4%. Less than 1.5% including your worse case oil scenario. But then Social Security increases are tied to inflation, so retires would be protected. And the boost to the U.S. economy would result in capital gains in any investments the retirees held. So I think they would fare pretty well.

And if they only buy domestic goods, which also went up in price, you'll send them your $1500?

Don't be stupid. I'm not sending anybody anything. But the government no longer be taking their $1500 through the income tax. So that's a pretty conservative plan. Americans keeping their hard earned dollars. And foreigners having to pay access to our market. That's what the founding fathers did and it worked well for this country.

The free traders have 100 million Americans on food stamps. Y'all are the biggest enablers of big government around.

45 posted on 01/29/2014 2:52:38 PM PST by DannyTN (A>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
Free traders are the biggest enablers of Big Government that there are. It’s the free trade policies that are making a hundred million Americans dependent on government.

This country's economy is a lopsided non-productive joke. A lot of the work done here has nothing to do with anything useful and I don't mean just gov't jobs.If we had ditched free trade in the early 1990s we would be doing great. Now we have millions supported by the Federal gov't because we allowed good middle class jobs to migrate over to Asia. Some Americans got very rich on this. Those are the only rich people I don't like. Those rich free traitors. Many of them live in DC where trade lawyers got rich. 

Now we will have computerization, automation, robotics decimating many of the remaining decent paying jobs that free trade did not get to kill. Add open borders, making for even more of a labor surplus.....

46 posted on 01/29/2014 3:04:39 PM PST by dennisw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
But in your worse case scenario 10% price incrase * 1% (the percent of GNP that oil makes up) = 0.1% general price increase.

We're about half imports, half domestic production.

So prices will go up about twice as much as the tariff will bring in.

Again the general price increases would be less than 1.4%. Less than 1.5% including your worse case oil scenario.

You're ignoring every domestic price hike except oil? Why would you do that?

So that's a pretty conservative plan. Americans keeping their hard earned dollars.

Those hard earned dollars first come out of their pocket, to pay the tariff.

The free traders have 100 million Americans on food stamps.

I'm pretty sure the free traders didn't give us the highest in the world corporate tax rates or idiotic regulations, like Obamacare and the EPA, but if you find any who did, be sure to let me know.

Y'all are the biggest enablers of big government around.

I know, with my desire to seal the borders, privatize Social Security, slash taxes and spending, I can see why you'd feel that way.

47 posted on 01/29/2014 3:11:59 PM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Science is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
The free traders have 100 million Americans on food stamps. Y'all are the biggest enablers of big government around.

America had a very libertarian economy before 1913 when we started the income tax. Prior to 1913 the Federal gov't was lean because it was funded only by tariffs plus alcohol and tobacco taxes. Federal gasoline taxes pull in billions these days too. With the income tax the Feds now have the money and power to over regulate and stick their noses in everyone's business. 

Tariffs are an honorable form of taxation and can allow income taxes to be reduced.

48 posted on 01/29/2014 3:12:07 PM PST by dennisw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
I agree 100% with you.

But it's not too late to reverse it. Unfortunately I don't see either party talking about this yet.

It's going to take someone who is willing to educate the voters. They already see the stores are full of imports. But a lot of them have been conditioned to think tariffs are bad and caused the Great Depression. When neither is true.

But if a candidate manned up to the task, they could swing a lot of votes to the GOP.

Automation is still coming. But it would be better for Americans to own the automated factories, the automation and be employed in the jobs related to automation.

49 posted on 01/29/2014 3:15:51 PM PST by DannyTN (A>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
Yes! We must punish American consumers with higher prices!

Consumption is feminine
Production is masculine

A nation with pride and intelligence puts production first and consumption second. Free trade destroyed mostly men's jobs making tangible useful items. Japan, Korea, Taiwan and China put jobs and production first. They do their best to keep production on their own soil. To keep their people employed instead of on welfare. We put free trade, consumption and welfare handouts first

Free trade empowers Democrats who make all kinds of promises like ObamaKare to buy votes with your money. The money Todd pays in taxes. Todd is too stupid to connect the dots

50 posted on 01/29/2014 3:20:08 PM PST by dennisw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson