General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums22 Democrats voted to block $4.5 billion in food stamp aid, 22 Democrats,
guaranteed profit is more important
Shame on them all
Half of the food stamp beneficiaries are children, 17 percent are seniors, and unfortunately now 1.5 million households are veteran households that are receiving food stamps," Gillibrand said, referring not just to heat-and-eat participants, but the broader population of food stamp recipients.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=2&vote=00135
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Carper (D-DE)
Conrad (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Franken (D-MN)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
clang1
(884 posts)22 people that only call themselves Democrats. Usual names here.
It is 1 in 7 Americans on SNAP. 1 in 7.
goclark
(30,404 posts)spanone
(135,871 posts)matmar
(593 posts)Oh well.
I'm thinking of just saying fuck it all, I quit.
LynneSin
(95,337 posts)I suspect that any senator in a state with alot of farmland & farmers probably would vote against it.
There are other places they could get the money.
cali
(114,904 posts)and yes, Vermont has lots of farmers- of course they're mostly not fucking industrial corporate farm fucks.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Unusual that I am in agreement again.
Had it just been Klobuchar I would have written it off as her supermoderate posturing, but Franken is a good stand up guy. If he voted against it there are reasons. It might have been farming subsidies or there may be more to it.
This bill was a typical republican false-choice that seems like something out of a comic book. "Choose Democrat! You may either save your girlfriend or your trusty sidekick. Mwahahahahaha"
Why don't we ever make them make hard choices?
savannah43
(575 posts)LynneSin
(95,337 posts)seriously!
shcrane71
(1,721 posts)I could care less if farmers aren't getting their subsidies. Most farming people that I know got out of farming a generation or two ago (forced out). The only farmers that I know of now are rather wealthy.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)northern parts where the soil is not so good and it has to be farmed the old fashion way to produce anything substancial.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Al I like as a person, as a Senator he is a centrist piece of jelly.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)farmers would stay on their side. Food stamps can always be increase when we win but if we do not win they are definitely going to go down.
warrprayer
(4,734 posts)I can't believe it. I just can't.
SoutherDem
(2,307 posts)Was this the only thing on the bill? Did the GOP hang a poison pill on it so they would also be voting for something which would have gotten the same OP stating what horrible thing they did.
I was just wondering. Too often these shameful votes are tied to something else.
If not I agree this is wrong.
elleng
(131,087 posts)Ag bill FULL of stuff, this is just one of many issues. Gives us an idea about difficulty dealing with ag subsidies, etc.
Certainly ARE tied to something else, you're quite right.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)But these Democrats should be contacted about how they intend to take up the slack. My people are not on the list, but those in those states need to email, write and call their offices to see what the facts are on this. And then kindly report back.
dkf
(37,305 posts)"The farm bill being debated in the Senate reduces funding for food stamps and is finding support from both sides of the aisle as lawmakers look for ways to cut the nation's rising debt in an election year."
"The bipartisan bill making its way through the Senate would trim benefits by about $90 a month for about 500,000 households, the budget office said, largely by eliminating automatic enrollment for some households receiving nominal aid under federal home-heating assistance programs."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-food-stamps-20120620,0,2117959.story
RC
(25,592 posts)Think that might help? Nothing else they have done has.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)That offset is kind of a big deal. Especially as our weather gets more "wacky" due to global warming.
LynneSin
(95,337 posts)I would like to think the Democrats will find a way to save the Food Stamp cuts without affecting farmers.
clang1
(884 posts)Exactly what farmers are you talking about? These generally be corpo farmers my friend. Not your family farmers down the road.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)absorb some cuts rather than food stamp recipients. imho
jeff47
(26,549 posts)They'd never depend on crop insurance to save their farm. Only giant companies that can absorb the losses without crop insurance would benefit!
clang1
(884 posts)Yep. My family has a 100 year old barn
Thav
(946 posts)I'm not quite fluent in legalese, but it looks like this was just a set of amendments to the bill. As I was looking through the documents, I found a few things that made me go "WTF?":
SEC. __. LIMITATION ON FOREIGN ASSISTANCE TO PAKISTAN.
No amounts may be obligated or expended to provide any direct United States assistance to the Government of Pakistan unless the President certifies to Congress that--
(1) Dr. Shakil Afridi has been released from prison in Pakistan;
(2) any criminal charges brought against Dr. Afridi, including treason, have been dropped; and
(3) if necessary to ensure his freedom, Dr. Afridi has been allowed to leave Pakistan.
What does that have to do with a US agriculture bill or SNAP?
Anyway, the vote was on the amendment, not the actual bill itself.
clang1
(884 posts)I have no problem with this legislation, re: LIMITATION ON FOREIGN ASSISTANCE TO PAKISTAN.
deaniac21
(6,747 posts)mailing my food.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)are in an extremely bad condition. I feel something really ugly coming on, unless we just give up and hand it over to the teabaggers
Arkana
(24,347 posts)that stopped them, I know it.
mopinko
(70,206 posts)Teamster Jeff
(1,598 posts)The march to the right continues
USD79
(15 posts)I further suggest that they had valid reasons for their vote. I note that most, if not all, of the Senate Dems from the upper plains states (farm country), including my Sen. (Johnson - SD), support the farm bill. As I know nothing about the bill, I do not know their reasons for supporting it. Nor have any reasons been suggested in the above posts, yet the posters are willing to cry treason. I respectfully suggest that there is no basis for the blind condemnation at this time. This may change, however, as more facts come forth.
Swede
(33,282 posts)I agree,let's wait and see what this is about.
Franken supports the Farm Bill, but I'm guessing there was a poison pill in there.
SlimJimmy
(3,182 posts)not be an impediment to assistance.
(A) only provide supplemental nutrition assistance to citizens and lawful permanent residents of the United States; and
(B) take such action as is necessary to prohibit supplemental nutrition assistance benefits from being provided to any individual or household a member of which is not a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States.
barbtries
(28,811 posts)getting meaner by the minute, this country.
elleng
(131,087 posts)Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2012
HUGE bill, dealing with MANY issues, some discussed in this thread.
Welcome to DU!
proud2BlibKansan
(96,793 posts)DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)give me a break with your rationalization
jeff47
(26,549 posts)It would require proving citizenship or legal residence to use food stamps. Thus it would remove support from the poor.
The amendment would also pay for the increased cost by hurting farmers via crop insurance changes.
Make it an amendment that pays for the costs by taxing the rich, and I'm there with you. Pay for it via deficit spending, and I'm still with you.
An amendment that takes away food from the hungry in the name of giving food to the hungry, and attacks farmers in order to avoid taxing Wall Street? Not so much.
treestar
(82,383 posts)One thing you will find is that the willingness to jump to the most negative conclusion on the least possible facts is quite common!
ProgressiveEconomist
(5,818 posts)food stamps running out entirely would be much much worse.
How would the House respond to Gillenbrand's amendment had it passed the Senate?
Something needs to get to the President's desk ASAP to keep food stamp money flowing. Cuts now could be restored later should Democrats take back the House.
Gillenbrand fought the good fight, but politics is "the art of the POSSIBLE".
The presence of staunch Democratic Senators such as Durbin, Franken, Binghaman, Stabenaw, and Klobuchar on that list of "NO' voters reassures me that this vote was just a way to move the bill along to the President for signature and continued funding for Food Stamps.
BlueToTheBone
(3,747 posts)because he isn't a democrat. 22% of the children in our state go to bed hungry every night.
FUCK YOU MARK PRYOR GET OUT OF OUR PARTY YOU LYING HYPOCRITICAL BASTARD.
Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)trying to screw up a 2 car funeral. This is what happens when stupid amendments are tacked on. What should be dome is expose the author of the stupid amendment and then take the sucker down big time. You know this list will be reprinted in every right wing rag around the country for political hay. You have to give people the whole story and not the Fake News version.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)You have no clue..........
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)But Sherlock Holmes finally nailed you.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)And if you think I'm a DINO, I don't think you're one of us, not by a long shot.
ElsewheresDaughter
(24,000 posts).
judesedit
(4,443 posts)I can't see all of these democrats voting against the same constituents that will be voting to keep them or lose them. Let's see the whole bill.
elleng
(131,087 posts)some discussed up thread.
Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2012
proud2BlibKansan
(96,793 posts)Too many corporate farmers need that money!
elleng
(131,087 posts)proud2BlibKansan
(96,793 posts)As we passed by wheat field after wheat field after wheat field, my dad used to point out the window and say "See that kids, it may look like wheat to you, but it's really money!"
Now when you drive across the state, those wheat fields have oil wells in them. And there's natural gas underground too. I have lots of friends who grew up on Kansas farms where crops are no longer planted. The farmers collect agricultural subsidies AND get checks from oil companies. One of my friends gets at least $100,000 in 'gift money' from her family every year.
elleng
(131,087 posts)avoiding the puke, cause its icky.
proud2BlibKansan
(96,793 posts)That's repulsive.
wwytchwood
(31 posts)the rules here say "don't criticize Dems"!
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)deserves extra scrutiny.
First of all, 22 Democratic Senators did NOT vote "to block $4.5 billion in food stamp aid" as the OP's headline baldly states.
The 22 Senators voted against New York Senator Gillibrand's proposed amendment (S. 2156) that restored full food stamp funding to the Senate bill (S. 3240) by cutting crop insurance payments to farmers.
To recap, there is an Agriculture bill before the Senate (S. 3240) that proposes to reduce nutrition assistance. Senator Gillibrand's propsoed amendment (s. 2156) would have stricken the reduction, i.e., kept current funding, BUT paid for maintaining funding by REDUCING PAYMENTS TO FARMERS.
So why couldn't the OP's headline have read "22 Democratic Senators voted against cuts to farmers"??? Because that's not nearly as inflammatory a post.
None of these 22 Democratic Senators have voted to cut food stamps. Not one.
I'm calling "foul" on this OP and asking respectfully that it be substantially re-worded or withdrawn.
N.B. I grew up on a farm in southwest Missouri but I left there 34 years ago and have never returned to farm life.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
hahahareally
(22 posts)but none the less they did vote to cut food stamps.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)to pay for not cutting food stamps.
Here are some other ways to pay for not cutting food stamps that do not penalize farmers:
1) Cut the defense budget by 50%
2) Raise taxes on the top 10% of earners
3) Raise the capital gains tax rate
4) Raise the inheritance tax rate
And that's just for starters.
Do you really think Al Franken would vote 'no' on an amendment that preserves food stamp funding by raisng taxes on the top 10%? Put another way, why must farmers be penalized so that the poor have enough to eat?
hahahareally
(22 posts)we are not dealing with la la land, we are in reality.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)expect Senators from the Plains States to vote to cut aid to farmers????
FWIW, I live in 'La La Land' (Los Angeles
proud2BlibKansan
(96,793 posts)It's not that hard to grasp.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)this amendment proposed that food stamp funding be borne soley by cuts in aid to farmers. Don't think I need to point out that there are many other ways to fund the food stamp program that do not involve cutting aid to farmers.
OTOH, not sure whether you intended to respond to me with your post. I merely wanted to point out that the 22 Dem Senators did not vote to cut food stamps. This was not a vote on the bill proper (which does propose cuts in food stamp program), but on an amendment to said bill that proposed that cuts in aid to farmers fund the maintenance of said food stamp program.
I'm not usually a policy wonk and not used to diving into legislative details, so I apologize if I have unfairly mus-characterized the essence of what is happening here or have failed to consider important details contained herein.
midnight
(26,624 posts)but trillions to feed the pigs on Wall Street... That's bipartisan politics and it works really will for the monied folks....
Wisconsin: Johnson (R-WI), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Nay
lovuian
(19,362 posts)then you will have it
the food stamp program was started because riots began in the Great Depression
if you want a socialistic revolution then you will get what you voted for 22 Democrats
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)voted to prevent cuts in aid to farmers from being used to pay for the food stamp program.
FWIW, government aid to farmers also began during the Great Depression as a way to provide pricing stability so that farmers could make a living.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)that was raised in the USA and handed out once a month by the county social workers and included things like cheese, canned vegetables, rice, etc. That program was replaced by food stamps but still exists on some Reservations.
The food stamp program was also begun to help farmers who grow the food stay in business. I remember the farmers who were in trouble dumping milk rather than selling it when their parity was threatened. As the daughter of a small farmer who did go broke sometimes those subsidies you all seem to hate was the only thing that kept us going. Can you imagine what the farm vote would look like if they were told that they were going to have to pay for the food stamp program? They already wonder if it helps anyone.
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)respond here to say I now see Franken's motive for his vote.
ProfessionalLeftist
(4,982 posts)I'd hardly call that woman a Democrat. She's Republican to the bone. So sick of her.
Response to DainBramaged (Original post)
Mass This message was self-deleted by its author.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)with this bill? I can see some of them but those four?
shcrane71
(1,721 posts)what a sell out.
Mass
(27,315 posts)Not sure I buy it, but ...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/19/food-stamps-vote-senate-kirsten-gillibrand_n_1610590.html
The cuts target the so-called heat-and-eat initiative in which 14 states automatically make families eligible for more food aid if they receive even $1 in help paying their utility bills. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the decrease would amount to about $90 a month for an affected family, representing a quarter of its food budget.
...
"Here's what's going on: In a handful of states, they found a way to increase the SNAP benefits for people in their states by sending $1 checks in heating assistance to everyone who gets food assistance," said Stabenow. She allowed that heating costs are properly a factor in determining the need for aid, but said that states like New York and Massachusetts are going too far.
"Sending out $1 checks to everyone isn't the intent of Congress," Stabenow said. "For the small number of states that are doing that, it is undermining the integrity of the program in my judgment. This is about accountability and integrity."
So, in some states, they try to help poor people? How is it shocking?
OhioChick
(23,218 posts)Zorra
(27,670 posts)Hassin Bin Sober
(26,337 posts)That should tell you something is up in this story. I trust Franken.
Mass
(27,315 posts)This seems to be a regional issue: Senators from the NE and West voted YES, Senators from the MidWest, SouthWest, and South voted NO.
I have no idea if the reason they voted NO is a good reason or a bad one.
urlnts1
(3 posts)Beside Kucinich and Sanders are there any real Progressives "left" on the "left"?If not for Liberal policies like Social Security and Medicare this entire country would be like the teeming slums of Rio de Janeiro or Mumbai!
Blue Owl
(50,491 posts)we have to do a bunch of bad things to hurt others.
That's our government!
williesgirl
(4,033 posts)like Democrats. That's why we elected them. Good riddance to Webb this year. rec'd
sarcasmo
(23,968 posts)Arkansas Granny
(31,528 posts)some things in there that were very undesirable.
Here is Mark Pryor's statement about why he voted against it:
Jun 21 2012
Statement by Senator Mark Pryor On Voting Against the Senate Farm Bill
Agriculture in our country is an important economic force, but each region and industry has its own specific challenges. This farm bill fails to recognize the differences, and Im concerned that its policies will undermine the stable, safe and affordable food supply we have come to expect in our country.
For example, the bill fails rice farmers by employing an unworkable crop insurance program. This plan will compromise tens of thousands of jobs in Arkansas and billions in economic activity. I am also frustrated that the bill no longer contains an important safety inspection measure meant to protect Americans from contaminated catfish imported from overseas. Not only does this action put our safety at risk, it allows contaminated and cheaper imports to disrupt the Arkansas catfish industry.
Fortunately, Senate passage of this bill is not the end of the road. I will continue to work with my colleagues in the Senate and House of Representatives to improve this bill as it advances through the legislative process.
http://www.pryor.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ContentRecord_id=e97273db-0b5a-4f14-9657-4aa8162ef6ea