Krugman (DLC &/or RW tool according to O-nation): Poverty is Poison

[rinsd]

This is the last 4 paragraphs of the article but feel free to read the whole article.


And governments that set their minds to it can reduce poverty. In Britain, the Labor government that came into office in 1997 made reducing poverty a priority — and despite some setbacks, its program of income subsidies and other aid has achieved a great deal. Child poverty, in particular, has been cut in half by the measure that corresponds most closely to the U.S. definition.

At the moment it’s hard to imagine anything comparable happening in this country. To their credit — and to the credit of John Edwards, who goaded them into it — both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are proposing new initiatives against poverty. But their proposals are modest in scope and far from central to their campaigns.

I’m not blaming them for that; if a progressive wins this election, it will be by promising to ease the anxiety of the middle class rather than aiding the poor. And for a variety of reasons, health care, not poverty, should be the first priority of a Democratic administration.

But ultimately, let’s hope that the nation turns back to the task it abandoned — that of ending the poverty that still poisons so many American lives.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/18/opinion/18krugman.html?em&ex=1203570000&en=bbc3e9fc13b5f690&ei=5087%0A

[Redbear]

1. Healthcare, Poverty, and Education

Should be our three priorities.

[rinsd]

4. Exactly.

[Mark Twain Girl]

17. Absolutely agreed on your issues, and this Krugman piece was great. nt

[pnwmom]

23. Can you believe the knee-jerk ignorance of some of the responses here?

They've made up their minds to hate Krugman -- because he prefers HRC's health plan -- so they don't even bother to read the article before spouting off on it.

[Mark Twain Girl]

28. Yes, I'm not getting it either -- it's a powerful piece with good lessons

about how poverty has been "framed" in political debate. And it ends with a key point: we need to talk about poverty and health care in this election, desperately. Krugman is out there putting the spotlight on these issues. How on earth is he being a "hack"?

[Obamaniac]

2. Krugman should be beaten like a mule

nt

[TexasObserver]

5. He'd pay to get that.

[ShortnFiery]

6. Krugman should be beaten like a bad piece of meat! (channeling Clintonian Hack Begala)

[pnwmom]

15. Please go to the link, read the actual article, and then tell me if your response

still makes sense.

Please?

:shrug:

[pnwmom]

14. Why don't you try reading the article? You might learn something.

Or were you already familiar with the AAAS research? In which case, I can't imagine why you wouldn't applaud Krugman for making it known to a much wider audience.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ShortnFiery]

44. Oh. how lovely you take this "personal" but not surprising. Nothing about HRC or her surrogates ...

would surprise me. They'd low crawl over broken glass if it meant more power for them and their beloved Clintonian DLC.

I read the article. I don't buy-into (get the pun? :P) Krugman's argument. He's hardly an objective observer nor should he expect (unlike with HRC) a cushy position within Obama's Executive Branch. ;)

[pnwmom]

47. So you don't accept the research that shows the effects of poverty-related

stress on the child's developing brain?

And you don't accept his conclusion that, along with providing for health care for all Americans, we should return to the goal of ending poverty?

[ShortnFiery]

48. Oh stop! You know better than to perform that rabbit-punch. I think Krugman is BIASED.

:eyes:

[pnwmom]

49. What has he said in the article that is objectionable? Anything? n/t

[paulk]

51. and nothing you post surprises me, ShortnHairy...

it's just a constant stream of Hillary hate. Has been since the day you joined....

[sandnsea]

3. Barack Obama has a poverty agenda, Hillary doesn't

He's just another Edwards supporter who can't stand that Obama took the spot that they thought Edwards was owed. Obama is the one who includes the working poor in every economic package he proposes. He doesn't consider us some sort of special charity cases, we're just regular folks that make up a huge part of this country. He gets it. Paul Krugman doesn't.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/poverty/

[pnwmom]

24. That is such a crock.

And if you actually bothered to read Krugman's article -- where he talks about physical changes in the child's brain caused by stress hormones from living in poverty -- then you'd realize that he "gets it" just as much as Obama.

[KittyWampus]

30. Well, apparently Krugman didn't bother checking Obama's actual written policy proposals.

Krugman HIMSELF wrote about the need to see what candidates put in writing as an indication of how they will behave in office.

Obama has an extensive, comprehensive approach to Poverty as an Issue, in and of itself.

Clinton does not.

[rinsd]

36. Wow a whole webpage! That's making poverty a central portion of your campaign!

[jackson_dem]

54. He gave a speech once

Guess when the speech came? Hint: it came during a three day period in the summer when a certain other candidate was putting poverty in the news. Funny how the speech couldn't come in any of the other 362 days of the year isn't it?

[pnwmom]

41. Clinton started working on poverty issues at the age of 25, when

she first graduated from law school. I've no doubt that Clinton will make them a priority.

Why not read Krugman's article? If you actually do care about reducing poverty -- and not just using that concern to push for Obama's candidacy -- you will see that Krugman provides heavy ammunition for everyone who has the former goal in mind.

[sandnsea]

33. On paper, from his ivory tower

It's all theoretical to him. The poor are like mice to be studied, not living breathing people with the exact same value as he has. There will always be poor people, as long as there is an economy that thrives on labor exploitation. I don't see that changing ever. We'd be much better off with that approach than the fantasy that there will ever be a society without rich and poor.

[pnwmom]

45. He's talking about actual physical, permanent changes that occur in the

child's developing brain as a result of living under the stresses of poverty, providing strong ammunition for anyone who's concerned about poverty.

But apparently you don't want to be bothered to read this, because you've already made up about Krugman.

[sandnsea]

50. Stress comes from lots of things

Not just poverty. But leave it to a smug elitist to label the poor as stupid and think you're doing them a favor.

[pnwmom]

52. He's not labeling anyone as stupid.

He's pointing out how vulnerable children's brains are to the effects of poverty -- but some people would rather keep their own heads in the sand because they've already made up their minds to hate Krugman.

[sandnsea]

55. Again, stress comes from lots of things

Not just poverty. The ability to excel comes from a lot of things, not just intelligence. Poor people aren't poor because they're stupid. They're poor because that's the reality of a capitalist society.

[pnwmom]

64. Children who suffer from poor health, lead poisoning,

malnutrition, stress hormone related brain changes and other effects of poverty are going to suffer from the effects for the rest of their lives. This is the bottom line and why we need to join together to push society to eliminate poverty.

[sandnsea]

67. Children who suffer from sick parents, domestic violence,

too much junk food... which happens in ALL homes, not just poor homes. Only elitist snobs don't get that. Poverty is caused by the exploitive nature of capitalism.

[pnwmom]

73. Are you trying to tell me that poor children don't suffer more than

middle class or wealthy children? Yes, like all children they may have sick parents, domestic violence, etc. -- but in addition to the burdens that can afflict families in any walk of society, they suffer from a higher percentage of other problems specifically related to poverty.

Poverty is caused by a number of factors, including the extremes of capitalism -- and also the extremes of Marxism.

[jackson_dem]

53. When did Krugman endorse Edwards?

Another Obamite myth.

[BeyondGeography]

7. WTF does Krugman know about poverty compared with Obama?

He prefers white papers that warm his cold little acadmeic heart. Meantime, Obama has actually lived and worked in depressed areas. Not surprising, then, that he doesn't go in for tidy, I-have-the-stone-tablet solutions.

From the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel endorsement:

==In an interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Editorial Board on Wednesday, the first-term senator proved himself adept at detail and vision. They are not mutually exclusive.

On poverty, he eschewed the phrase "war on poverty," preferring instead to describe the task as a long-haul effort. No one should launch a program, fight a battle and declare mission accomplished, he seemed to say.

Instead, it will require continuous and unflagging efforts along several fronts - taxation, education, economic development and, yes, personal responsibility - to make progress. He speaks of strengthening the middle class, helping with child care, early childhood education and ensuring access to affordable health care.

In other words, a broad, nuanced approach that recognizes that problems are linked to others.==

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=718696

[rinsd]

9. Ummm bit of an overreaction there BG.

:shrug:

What did Krugman say that was wrong?

[BeyondGeography]

10. His endless elevation of Edwards to progressive sainthood status is false and tiresome

[rinsd]

11. Edwards spoke more about poverty during the campaign than anyone but maybe Kucinich.

Is he a saint? Certainly not. His Senate voting record seems very much at odds with his campaign rhetoric.

But you'll notice labor & poverty issues dropped off the radar when Edwards left with labor concerns making a push now only because of the political terrain.

[BeyondGeography]

16. But speeches don't put food on the table

Remember?

[rinsd]

20. No they don't.

But I think we can agree that the Edwards effect upon this race has been a positive one in terms of forcing the other two candidates to adopt more progressive positions.

[BeyondGeography]

27. We can...he had a constructive effect on the race

we also shouldn't ignore the fact that his strategy was in no small part born of tactical necessity. Hillary and, particularly, Obama forced him to move left. To his credit, he went with it. We can always check the record to see what kind of "progressive" he was when the mood of the country and the lay of the land was different.

[rinsd]

29. I disagree.

I think Edwards was planning the Democratic antiwar/populist run from the start.

What undercut him was the sudden emergence of Obama as the more impressive candidate in terms of org, fundraising, speeches.

[jackson_dem]

60. Edwards ran as a populist in 2004

The war was a change but he ran as a populist in 2004 as well. Why do you think Obamites never posted his "Two Americas" speech? The fundamental populism has remained the same in his career and posting the speech would show that.

[rinsd]

62. Agreed. His run in 2004 definitely had a populist flavor.

But I think you would agree it was a more forceful populist campaign this time around.

[jackson_dem]

70. Yes but it isn't fair to say he suddenly discovered populism in 2008

Tweaks will occur in all candidates every four years, especially with those who last the previous time. He changed on the environment and the war but on economic populism he was always the same. That is what he has always been about. He was never a social issues crusader.

[rinsd]

72. No, it probably isn't fair.

[jackson_dem]

56. What has been forcing Obama to move to the right since the 90's?

Obamites rail against Edwards moving to the left, the right direction, but completely ignore Obama's consistent move to the right over his career.

BG, you love to call Edwards a flip flopping fraud but you never show up in threads exposing Obama's own flip flops and "record not matching his rhetoric." Which is odd. How about joining http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4656600 and http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4585898

[ProSense]

22. Just because the media isn't talking about it doesn't mean it's fallen off Obama's radar

Obama, Hagel, Cantwell, Smith Hail Committee Passage of the Global Poverty Act

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Legislation would aim to cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Congressman Adam Smith (D-WA) today hailed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's passage of the Global Poverty Act (S.2433), which requires the President to develop and implement a comprehensive policy to cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief, and coordination with the international community, businesses and NGOs. This legislation was introduced in December. Smith and Congressman Spencer Bachus (R-AL) sponsored the House version of the bill (H.R. 1302), which passed the House last September.

"With billions of people living on just dollars a day around the world, global poverty remains one of the greatest challenges and tragedies the international community faces," said Senator Obama. "It must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty and ensuring every child has food, shelter, and clean drinking water. As we strive to rebuild America's standing in the world, this important bill will demonstrate our promise and commitment to those in the developing world. Our commitment to the global economy must extend beyond trade agreements that are more about increasing corporate profits than about helping workers and small farmers everywhere. I commend Chairman Biden and Ranking Member Lugar for supporting this bill and moving it forward quickly."

"Poverty, hunger, and disease will be among the most serious challenges confronting the world in the 21st century," Senator Hagel said. "This legislation provides the President of the United States the framework and resources to help implement a comprehensive policy to reduce global poverty. It is the human condition that has always driven the great events of history. This is a responsibility of all citizens of the world."

"Global poverty directly impacts our national security. We must rally private sector and government resources to eliminate extreme global poverty and to fight global disease." said Senator Cantwell. "With more than 1.1 billion men, women and children throughout the world living on less than $1 a day, it is of the utmost importance to make sure these people get the help they need and push for sustainable economic growth. We need to do more to save lives in the poorest countries and extend our hand to people in need."

"Global poverty is one of the greatest moral and security challenges facing the world today. Nearly 2.7 billion people live on less than $2 a day and close to a billion live on less than $1 a day. This bill represents a major advance in our effort to address global poverty. After introducing this measure in the House for the past several years, I am pleased to see the Senate Foreign Relations Committee take significant steps toward its final passage," Congressman Smith said.

For years, America has committed to improving the lives of the world's poorest people. In 2000, the U.S. joined more than 180 countries at the United Nations Millennium Summit and vowed to reduce global poverty by 2015. We are halfway towards this deadline, and it is time the United States makes it a priority of our foreign policy to meet this goal and help those who are struggling day to day.

The Global Poverty Act:

• Declares it official U.S. policy to promote the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of cutting extreme global poverty in half by 2015.
  
  
• Requires the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to carry out that policy.
  
  
• Includes guidelines for what the strategy should include - from aid, trade, and debt relief, to working with the international community, businesses and NGOs, to ensuring environmental sustainability.
  
  
• Requires that the President's strategy include specific and measurable goals, efforts to be undertaken, benchmarks, and timetables.
  
  
• Requires the President to report back to Congress on progress made in the implementation of the global poverty strategy.

The legislation is supported by a broad range of groups, including Bread for the World, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, CARE, Oxfam America, Habitat for Humanity International, National Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club, United Church of Christ, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the Borgen Project, United Methodist General Board of Church and Society, RESULTS, Micah Challenge USA, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

Global Poverty Act (PDF)

[rinsd]

25. When it passes the Senate then we have something.

[ProSense]

32. What has Hillary done? You also claimed it was off the radar because Edwards dropped out! Why isn't

Krugman talking about this?

[rinsd]

34. It is off the radar.

You think getting a bill thru committee is putting poverty front & center?

Shit the only reason Obama is talking about NAFTA is to hit Clinton on it in OH.

I love the insanity Krugman brings out in Obama supporters.

Even when writing primarily about poverty and offering the lightest of criticism of Obama elicits the most vile responses.

No wonder why he penned his column about blind hatred of Obama supporters, this thread could be exhibit A.

[ProSense]

37. "You think getting a bill thru committee is putting poverty front & center?" Where's Hillary's bill?

You aren't going to claim, like Hillary did, that voting for a bill in not the way to get it passed are you?

[rinsd]

39. You would have a point if I was arguing that Hillary was at the forefront of this issue.

But I'm not.

But feel free to continue arguing that Obama has put poverty on the same level with his campaign as Edwards did.

[jackson_dem]

58. His record on poverty, labor, and trade is consistent and very good

He did change on things like the environment but on those central tenets of, Edwardism, if you will he remained the same throughout his political career. With respect to poverty he was involved in that long before he entered politics, something the msm and Obamites could never bring themselves to acknowledge.

rinsd, would you agree Obama has consistently moved to the right as he went from representing a very liberal state senator district to running in a statewide primary then a statewide general and now a national primary? I asked this of an Obamite but I don't expect a response. How far to the right will Obama go if he has to contest a national general election?

[ProSense]

31. It is! They ignore the facts.

Krugman also ignores that Edwards copied Kerry's entire platforms.

[pnwmom]

13. I already posted this and got an entirely different response.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2889910&mesg_id=2889910

I think you drew out everyone who is resentful that Krugman has supported Hillary's health plan over Obama's.

You can tell that most of these people aren't bothering to read the whole article -- because the information about how poverty literally changes the developing brain is truly frightening -- and more important than these stupid squabbles over which of two very similar candidates is the better one.

[rinsd]

19. I posted the "political" portion since this is GDP.

And yes I agree most aren't reading the article.

Hell most aren't even reading what I posted which was a fair rebuke of both candidates in regard to their attention to the issue of poverty.

[Mark Twain Girl]

38. I agree, this transcends politics - from the article

As the article explained, neuroscientists have found that “many children growing up in very poor families with low social status experience unhealthy levels of stress hormones, which impair their neural development.” The effect is to impair language development and memory — and hence the ability to escape poverty — for the rest of the child’s life.

The part about language development really struck me. This is important.

[onehandle]

12. More right-wingisms from some Obama supporters.

Because Krugman is an academic he doesn't care about the poor.

Very nice, Rush.

[BeyondGeography]

18. Way to miss the point

and have fun learning about Obama. You just might have to vote for him.

[onehandle]

26. All I learn from DU about Obama is about his supporters.

I'll vote for him anyway if he's the nominee.

[pnwmom]

21. Maybe if you actually read Krugman's article you'd find out.

Obama hasn't been reporting the research that shows actual physical changes in the child's brain that occur due to the increase in stress hormones related to poverty -- Krugman has. The article is well worth reading, but it's clear that you haven't bothered.

[cooolandrew]

8. It wasn't central to Blairs campaign he appealed to the right wing voters to get it done.

[applegrove]

35. I'm reading "Conscience of A Liberal " right now. It is really good.

Krugman writes so well.

[redqueen]

42. Poverty IS poison.

It will take a couple generations to undo the damage... I hope we get started on it soon.

[rinsd]

43. Jan 2009 sounds good to me.

[pnwmom]

46. And childhood poverty is permanent poison,

according to the research Krugman cites. A call to action, indeed.

[jackson_dem]

57. Anyone who doubts it is a cult should bookmark this thread

The knee-jerk, irrational, hysterical replies from Obamites say it all.

[ProSense]

59. No, the thread and your comment are signs of desperation. Don't be afraid to read this, no links n/t

[jackson_dem]

61. Desperation motivated by what?

What is there to be desperate about?

[ProSense]

63. "What is there to be desperate about?" "The knee-jerk, irrational, hysterical replies from Obamites"

You tell me! n/t

[rinsd]

65. Umm Obama supporters on this thread are slamming Krugman for talking about poverty.

Most did not bother to read the article.

The reaction here is the definition of knee jerk.

[pnwmom]

68. GDP has sure gotten to be an unpleasant place lately.

That's why it was a relief to have something to post in GD!

I'll never understand why people are so obsessed when our whole field was as good as it was, and infinitely better than the pitiful offerings on the other side.

[rinsd]

69. Its mostly the newbies in the last few months.

I still get along with some of the "older" posters who have been here thru the summer months.

But christ almighty there have been hundreds of threads started in the last 2 months for no other purpose than to get us pissed off at one another.

[jackson_dem]

71. Exactly right. It isn't "desperate" to state reality

[pnwmom]

66. I'm not in either the Hillary or the Obama camp.

Although I spent a lot of time yesterday defending Obama over the Rezko business.

But the reaction to some of the Obama people here today to Krugman's excellent article floored me. People are so obsessed with the fact that Krugman prefers HRC's health plan, that they're entirely ignoring the great article Krugman has written -- which supports every value that Democrats share.

[ProSense]

74. Krugman's attacks on Obama are bizarre and not

supported by facts

[rinsd]

75. This is a bizarre attack?

"both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are proposing new initiatives against poverty. But their proposals are modest in scope and far from central to their campaigns."


:shrug:

[ProSense]

77. Where is Hillary's current legislation, as I asked upthread? n/t

[rinsd]

78. What does Hillary have to do with this?

The only thing Obama has to do with this thread is the insane reaction of his supporters to Krugman.

It would appear none of you read the actual article.


But here's the hunger bill that Hillary is working on if you actually care



February 8, 2008

Senator Clinton Continues to Push Congress to Address Hunger Issues Affecting Hard Working Americans

Clinton Urges Conference Committee to Make Strong Investment in Nutrition Measures to Combat Growing Problem of Food Insecurity

Washington, DC – Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton joined several of her colleagues in urging the leadership of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees to make a strong investment in the Nutrition Title for the 2007 Reauthorization of the Farm Bill. In a letter, the bipartisan coalition of senators stressed the need to develop a bill that retains the strength of the Senate’s nutrition title provisions, and the structure of the House title which provides a strong level of funding for key nutrition programs.

“It is unconscionable to think that as the wealthiest country in the world, there are still millions of Americans who struggle every day to put food on their tables,” said Senator Clinton. “Ensuring that hardworking families have access to programs and services that provide healthy, nutritious food should be a priority for our government, and it is one that I share with my colleagues in Congress. With the upcoming Farm Bill, we can work together to begin to close the gap and address the hunger problem in this country.”

The lawmakers impressed upon a need to retain the House approach, which makes permanent improvements to Food Stamps and the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP). If the House approach is not carried through, there is a risk of losing the major benefits included in the nutrition title after 2012. More than 10 million recipients would experience benefit cuts, while 300,000 low-income people would be cut off from food stamps in 2013. USDA/Census Bureau survey data shows that there are more than 35 million people in the United States who live in households facing hunger. The support of a strong nutrition title in the upcoming Farm Bill will help move the nation closer to a hunger-free America.

Senator Clinton has worked to promote initiatives that increase the availability and affordability of healthy and fresh foods to working families, and has been a supporter of strengthening the Food Stamp program. A strong Nutrition title in the new Farm Bill would provide funding for legislation that was proposed earlier this year by Senator Clinton, which would help deliver fresh food from farms to underserved communities. The Food Outreach and Opportunity Development (FOOD) for a Healthy America Act would increase the supply and availability of locally produced foods by providing innovative financing for small and midsized family farmers and ranchers.

The full text of the letter follows –

The Honorable Tom Harkin
Chairman,
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
United States Senate

The Honorable Saxby Chambliss
Ranking Member,
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
United States Senate

The Honorable Collin Peterson
Chairman,
Committee on Agriculture
United States House of Representatives

The Honorable Bob Goodlatte
Ranking Member,
Committee on Agriculture
United States House of Representatives


Dear Chairmen and Ranking Members:


As the Conference Committee continues negotiations on the 2007 farm bill, we write to emphasize the critical need to increase investments in federal nutrition programs and to produce the strongest possible nutrition title. This is a concern we know you share. Through a strong nutrition title, Congress has the opportunity to strengthen the economic security of low-income Americans by assisting them with putting food on their tables while also working to improve their health by providing nutritious food options and programs aimed at the adoption of healthy eating habits. This is an important factor for us in analyzing a final Farm Bill agreement.


We urge you to develop a final bill that both retains the strength of the Senate’s nutrition title provisions and the structure of the House title which makes permanent improvements to Food Stamps and the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP). Such an approach provides for a strong level of funding for these key nutrition programs, while also including the critical improvements to nutrition programs provided for in the Senate version of this title.


Unless the final farm bill adopts the House approach, all the major benefit improvements included in the nutrition title would end after 2012, and policies would return to current law. Unless Congress later took action to extend the policies, more than 10 million recipients would experience benefit cuts and over 300,000 low-income people would be cut off food stamps in 2013. The difficult fiscal outlook in the future certainly means there's no assurance that resources will be available to extend these provisions in 2013.


Nutrition remains an important priority for this Congress, and there is no better opportunity to strengthen nutrition policy and programs than the 2007 Farm Bill.


Thank you in advance for you consideration of our request. We thank you for your continued leadership to craft a farm bill that protects and assists the most vulnerable of our society: children, seniors, and families who are food insecure. We appreciate your leadership and look forward to working with you.


http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/record.cfm?id=292649

[ProSense]

83. Nothing, without a link to current legislation. n/t

[rinsd]

85. You asked for what current legislation she is working on.

I gave you something from last week.

An unlike you with Obama's legislation I didn't attach any false claims of granduer to it.

But hey tell me again how Obama doesn't have mandates in his healthcare plan when he specifically states that he does.

[ProSense]

86. Link to poverty legislation? n/t

[rinsd]

87. Psssssttt

"Senator Clinton has worked to promote initiatives that increase the availability and affordability of healthy and fresh foods to working families, and has been a supporter of strengthening the Food Stamp program. A strong Nutrition title in the new Farm Bill would provide funding for legislation that was proposed earlier this year by Senator Clinton, which would help deliver fresh food from farms to underserved communities. The Food Outreach and Opportunity Development (FOOD) for a Healthy America Act would increase the supply and availability of locally produced foods by providing innovative financing for small and midsized family farmers and ranchers."

I know, I know

It doesn't say the word poverty so in ProNonsense's world it has nothing to do with poverty.

[ProSense]

76. Desperate is

denouncing mandates as unworkable and costly, and then claiming they're the greatest

[rinsd]

80. And dishonest is....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4660366&mesg_id=4663302">saying Obama's healthcare plan doesn't include mandates when it does

[ProSense]

84. Dishonest is trying to claim that this is the same thing. n/t

[pnwmom]

81. Obama has denounced them but has also said he may end up using them.

And he will need to, because plans that don't require even the (presently) healthy to buy-in aren't economically feasible.

[pnwmom]

79. The OP wasn't any kind of attack on Obama at all. n/t

[ProSense]

82. The article misrepresented the facts! n/t

[pnwmom]

88. How so? Are you an expert in the brain research he was writing about?

Or do you have a link explaining why the research reported by the American Association for the Advancement of Science was wrong?