House GOP wants to cut food stamps in drive to protect Pentagon from big federal budget cuts

Teaman wrote:

<quoted text>
Incredible, isn't it? Bon Jovi and Bruce Springsteen both receive farm subsidies. On top of that, they get a break on their property taxes here in NJ.
"From tax write-offs for gambling losses, vacation homes, and luxury yachts to subsidies for their ranches and estates, the government is subsidizing the lifestyles of the rich and famous. Multi-millionaires are even receiving government checks for not working," said Sen. Coburn in a statement Monday.
I like this Sen. Coburn.

I know little about him other than he's a Republican, was a physician by profession but also a Southern Baptist. I usually tap dance stage left when I encounter a Southern Baptist;-) That doesn't mean they're all bad, but I had a bad experience with a woman I knew long ago who condemned Dr. Sabes to hell (at a time he was in fact dying of a major coronary) because he was a Jew. I'm weird that way. It left a vivid impression. But, if Coburn is going after that kind of corporate welfare, he's on the right page.

Goodnight all!

NTRPRNR1 wrote:

<quoted text>Paul, huh? Has he announced he'll run again on a Third Party ticket? Debt, taxes, war, inequality. Corruption is addressed in Congressional representation, not a Presidential election - unless the sitting President has done something that rises to the level of an impeachable offense. Trustworthiness is campaigning on an agenda that you work to enact once elected.

The President sits on the FOMC
The AG serves the President
The President has appointment powers, like Treasury
The President has access to the bully pulpit
The President has veto power

Depends on your issue. Mine are all associated with the law written by bankers, for bankers. The one written in 1911, ratified in a disgrace during the Christmas massacre of 1912.

We all have our pet issues, mine is getting to the source of war, debt and corruption - The Federal Reserve
The attempt reign in the banksters through the Congress has failed, we need help from the chief executive. To get that we have to nominate a person who is not bought and aid for by the banksters.

Ron Paul is the only Presidential candidate that can get elected in the past 100 years that is not supported by a single Wall Street bank, corproation or lobbying firm. If they dont like him, I do

I cant believe you would support a candidate that is owned by the 1%....seems hypocritical

NTRPRNR1 wrote:

<quoted text>Then, let's stop picking on women's reproductive health care and focus our attention on tax breaks and for corporations. How about we stop subsidizing land owners who never had any intention whatsoever of farming the land to let it lay fallow?
City Slickers Continue To Rake In Farm Payments
Posted by Sara Sciammacco in Subsidies on June 23, 2011
Remember the last time you were smack in the middle of downtown Chicago or walking down a bustling street of Manhattan? Did you notice the sweeping farm vistas, the rich fields of corn and wheat?
Oh, wait a minute. There are none within the city limits of the Windy City or the Big Apple.
So why is the U.S. government sending hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars in farm subsidy payments to people who live in some of America’s wealthiest and decidedly urban neighborhoods?
The fact is, you can be a city slicker in Miami Beach or Beverly Hills and collect farm subsidy payments. All you have to do is have an ownership interest in some Iowa farmland. While 60 percent of American farmers must get along without a dime in federal subsidies, the so-called farm “safety net” benefits a narrow band of the wealthiest agri-businesses and absentee land owners and the lobbyists who ensure that the subsidies keep flowing.(Cont.)
http://www.ewg.org/agmag/2011/06/city-slicker...
Corporate welfare FIRST.

You want to figure how to discipline a Congress that can do anything they want, borrow any amount they want without gutting it. You tell me how to perform magic like that ?

LocalBoy wrote:

<quoted text>The President sits on the FOMC
The AG serves the President
The President has appointment powers, like Treasury
The President has access to the bully pulpit
The President has veto power
Depends on your issue. Mine are all associated with the law written by bankers, for bankers. The one written in 1911, ratified in a disgrace during the Christmas massacre of 1912.
We all have our pet issues, mine is getting to the source of war, debt and corruption - The Federal Reserve
The attempt reign in the banksters through the Congress has failed, we need help from the chief executive. To get that we have to nominate a person who is not bought and aid for by the banksters.
Ron Paul is the only Presidential candidate that can get elected in the past 100 years that is not supported by a single Wall Street bank, corproation or lobbying firm. If they dont like him, I do
I cant believe you would support a candidate that is owned by the 1%....seems hypocritical

What do you think of Rand Paul? It doesn't seem like he fell far from the tree. Give him a few years.

Teaman wrote:

<quoted text>
What do you think of Rand Paul? It doesn't seem like he fell far from the tree. Give him a few years.

Rand is a decent man who has to earn his bones.
The adversary that underestimates him is a fool, he has a lot of skills. One of them is not debating old law, he needs to stay away from this and stick to current affairs.

A few years is too late

Seems like I read Ron has two sons and one daughter that are doctors. Along with a few grandchildren that are doctors. A son that is an engineer for Dow and a grandson that runs his campaign.

Paul gets more support from active duty military than all other candidates combined, including the commander in chief.

After this weekend he has now won 7 States and is closing on Romney in the real delegate count. His movement is now taking over the GOP from the grassroots level all the way through the RNC. He is the only real threat to Obama, Paul can go after the Democrat base and the independents. If the GOP is serious about doing whatever it takes to beat Obama they better work with Paul, otherwise his people will destroy the GOP for not respecting their candidate. All this marginalization of Paul by the elites have the Paulies all worked up. The leadership better do something quick or the Paulies will run the whole show.
Cant say that it bothers me to see the liberals of the Bush years drummed from the GOP, as long as they go after the fed its all good for me.

Thing is this Paul thing is doing far more, winning far more than the media reports. I bet less than 5% of the population even knows Paul is within a few States of winning the GOP nomination. Most are convinced Romney has already won. Imagine what would happen if the media actually reported the news instead of shilling for Goldman Sachs. Of course Goldman has millions on Obama/Romney.

LocalBoy wrote:

<quoted text>The President sits on the FOMC
The AG serves the President
The President has appointment powers, like Treasury
The President has access to the bully pulpit
The President has veto power
Depends on your issue. Mine are all associated with the law written by bankers, for bankers. The one written in 1911, ratified in a disgrace during the Christmas massacre of 1912.
We all have our pet issues, mine is getting to the source of war, debt and corruption - The Federal Reserve
The attempt reign in the banksters through the Congress has failed, we need help from the chief executive. To get that we have to nominate a person who is not bought and aid for by the banksters.
Ron Paul is the only Presidential candidate that can get elected in the past 100 years that is not supported by a single Wall Street bank, corproation or lobbying firm. If they dont like him, I do
I cant believe you would support a candidate that is owned by the 1%....seems hypocritical

That's your opinion, but I'm not hypocritical. I dismiss Ron Paul - kooky guy extraordinaire, and I can't imagine you supporting him. But, more power to you. He can't win, so in my mind, you might as well sit home playing pinocle. Your vote has just about that much meaning. I have a choice to make between the lesser of two evils. I'm electing Option Obama, not because I'm happy with his performance, but because I think the opposition has even worse ideas that will continue fueling income inequality and benefit almost entirely those who have already benefited most for the last 35 years. Further, Obama has definitely tried to do what he told us he would when elected. If you don't like what he's done, you weren't paying attention to what he said he would do. Am I disappointed? Absolutely. Did I hope I'd have an alternative? Yes, I did. I don't think the Republicans provided one.

I'm not impressed with anything about Paul other than his consistency on his positions, some of which make me cringe. He believes them and he's steadfast except for illegal immigration, and he flip-flopped on that from 2008. Now, WHO in Congress is going to help him get a d*mned thing accomplished? Nobody. That's who. He'd be shut out colder than a well digger's azz. That's it in a nutshell.

You suit yourself.

LocalBoy wrote:

<quoted text>You want to figure how to discipline a Congress that can do anything they want, borrow any amount they want without gutting it. You tell me how to perform magic like that ?

NTR is a liberal consumed by hatred for the White race. She will vote for Obama because he is part Black.

CONSERVATIVE wrote:

<quoted text>
And WHY are they holding their money? Could it be because they don't trust nobama, his regulations, taxes, and most of all the unknowns of nobamacare? What people who have nothing at risk don't understand is those that do have assets at risk aren't going to risk them in a hostile environment. Nobama and the left have vilified and extorted them as THE REASON we are where we are, and nothing could be further fron the truth. Until the American people, ALL the American people realize it is GOV'T that is the instigator of most of our dire problems, we will continue to bemired in this malaise. Granted the markets are always in a state of flux, but not the drastic swings we've seen associated with this recession. When the markets are reacting to the irrational and unpredictable forces that have driven this downturn there is no formula for dealing with it, we just have to ride it out. One thing is for certain. Until there is more predictability in the markets. The big money will sit, watch, and wait. Tea Party 2012!

So they just hold onto their money and let it sit because of the possiblity of a tax situation they may not like? That makes no sense at all. If they had something to sell and people that were willing to buy their products, they are going to hold off until what? The corporate tax rate right now is at its lowest point in almost 75 years. I have heard that same dumb argument before.

They are holding onto it because they are greedy. They want the econonmy to tank as much as possible so Obama will be blamed. Its pretty simple and quite obvious. And we don't have time for "big money will sit, watch, and wait". Most of us have live to live and kids to raise. This isn't some Faux News gameshow.

Anonymous wrote:

Cutting welfare in the USA will hurt Americans the most. Unfortunately the Republican party feels that turning millions of Americans into collateral damage for the sake of funding the military industrial complex coffers is the best thing since sliced bread.
They can expect to lose their power over the next few years as a result of this.

Turn on your registered account Rico. The only one you're attempting to fool is yourself.

Rico the Magic Hispanic wrote:

Cutting welfare in the USA will hurt Americans the most. Unfortunately the Republican party feels that turning millions of Americans into collateral damage for the sake of funding the military industrial complex coffers is the best thing since sliced bread.
They can expect to lose their power over the next few years as a result of this.

Stopping welfare and starting WORKFARE for the able bodied will help American citizens the most......Plain and simple....

LocalBoy wrote:

<quoted text>Expanded by interpretation or amendment ?

It depends on the circumstances.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/...

U. S. Corporations Post Record Breaking Profits

..........

So, the top 500 had an increase in profits of 16.4%. They have done extraordinarily well by cutting payroll (and benefits no doubt). They've also been doing business in places like China and Brazil and expanding business there - not here. Who isn't participating? Employees who aren't getting raises.

Who are they?

Exxon Mobile
Walmart
Chevron
Conoco Phillips
GM

lead the pack.

REWBA wrote:

If you are gonna keep spewing half truths and lies in your incoherent rants, people are gonna start to think you are a bit nuts. Obama said he would enter Pakistan and kill Bin Laden without notifying Pakistan when he was running for election back in 2007. What did the folks on your side of the isle have to say about that? Obama kept his promise and ordered the killing the son of Bush's close family friend, Osama Bin Laden.

How did you get the idea Bush and the Bin Laden's are friends? Talk about 'rant', you take the cake.

Does your hatred of Bush know no bounds? What's the story with Bush and the Ayatolla?

.

REWBA wrote:

Then Obama had the body dumped at sea so the Bush family wouldn't have the embarrassment of joining the Bin Laden family at the funeral. You know how much money the Bush family owes the Bin Laden family? Romney is Bush and there is no denying it. Just look at the people he has surrounded himself with.

OK, I'll help maintain your delusions; how much?

If Romney is Bush, who is Bush? Let me guess, did he have a mustache and ruled Germany during WWII?

Son of SickNTired wrote:

<quoted text>
So they just hold onto their money and let it sit because of the possiblity of a tax situation they may not like? That makes no sense at all. If they had something to sell and people that were willing to buy their products, they are going to hold off until what? The corporate tax rate right now is at its lowest point in almost 75 years. I have heard that same dumb argument before.
They are holding onto it because they are greedy. They want the econonmy to tank as much as possible so Obama will be blamed. Its pretty simple and quite obvious. And we don't have time for "big money will sit, watch, and wait". Most of us have live to live and kids to raise. This isn't some Faux News gameshow.

NOT TO GET INTO YOUR BUSINESS, but who gives a shit if people hold there money its not yours!!!!!!!! and if you were smart like alot of people, it should not effect you for the fact if you got a good education saved your money and watch how you spend your money you should be fine. And if im a business man i wouldnt give the goverment shit, for the fact they tax the piss out of ya, and when its your money, i dont blame them esp with obama as president esp when he wants to share the wealth with everyone lolololololololol get a life get a good job and if thats not good enough get another like the rest of us responsible people who are not bitching about out lives when esp you make the path of yours

and if america didnt have so high of a tax maby business people who stay in the country instead of going outside to do business, since there corporate tax is alot lower and were the highest

NTRPRNR1 wrote:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/w atch/?id=7407748n&tag=stac k
U. S. Corporations Post Record Breaking Profits
..........
So, the top 500 had an increase in profits of 16.4%. They have done extraordinarily well by cutting payroll (and benefits no doubt). They've also been doing business in places like China and Brazil and expanding business there - not here. Who isn't participating? Employees who aren't getting raises.
Who are they?
Exxon Mobile
Walmart
Chevron
Conoco Phillips
GM
lead the pack.

Each one is a major contributor to the Obama regime.

And CBS news is the Continuous Barack Station!

Morgan Stanley wrote:

<quoted text> Each one is a major contributor to the Obama regime.

Cleo wrote:

<quoted text>
It depends on the circumstances.

If the contract can be changed with interpretation, why have an amendment process ?

The contract is between the people, their States and the central authority. That being the case - do you actually believe the people gave the central government authority to ignore the contract and do as they wish ? If so, how did it get ratified ?

NTRPRNR1 wrote:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/w atch/?id=7407748n&tag=stac k
U. S. Corporations Post Record Breaking Profits
..........
So, the top 500 had an increase in profits of 16.4%. They have done extraordinarily well by cutting payroll (and benefits no doubt). They've also been doing business in places like China and Brazil and expanding business there - not here. Who isn't participating? Employees who aren't getting raises.
Who are they?
Exxon Mobile
Walmart
Chevron
Conoco Phillips
GM
lead the pack.

All of them were major contributors to Obama, Bush, McCain, Romney, Kerry, Hillary, etc....

Why would an average citizen who thinks Wall Street is full of crooks vote for a candidate owned by Wall Street ?

NTRPRNR1 wrote:

<quoted text>That's your opinion, but I'm not hypocritical. I dismiss Ron Paul - kooky guy extraordinaire, and I can't imagine you supporting him. But, more power to you. He can't win, so in my mind, you might as well sit home playing pinocle. Your vote has just about that much meaning. I have a choice to make between the lesser of two evils. I'm electing Option Obama, not because I'm happy with his performance, but because I think the opposition has even worse ideas that will continue fueling income inequality and benefit almost entirely those who have already benefited most for the last 35 years. Further, Obama has definitely tried to do what he told us he would when elected. If you don't like what he's done, you weren't paying attention to what he said he would do. Am I disappointed? Absolutely. Did I hope I'd have an alternative? Yes, I did. I don't think the Republicans provided one.
I'm not impressed with anything about Paul other than his consistency on his positions, some of which make me cringe. He believes them and he's steadfast except for illegal immigration, and he flip-flopped on that from 2008. Now, WHO in Congress is going to help him get a d*mned thing accomplished? Nobody. That's who. He'd be shut out colder than a well digger's azz. That's it in a nutshell.
You suit yourself.

Cant win...he is winning !
Paul polls well against Obama, better than Romney on most days.
Paul has won seven States and is a close second right now.
Getting things done in Washington....you mean passing laws that spend the future earnings of the unborn ? That is not getting things done, it is theft of posterity. So to your question - not passing laws is getting things done and Paul will veto most all of them. Good news it would require bi-partisanship to override the veto.
330 House members, including many Democrats and independents all supported Paul with his audit the fed bill. So he does get things done. The bill did not pass because the contributors to Obama stopped it.
Get things done - He can bring the troops home with no help. He can stop the tyranny in the FOMC by himself. He can send his AG to Wall Street with a phone call. What help does he need to stop the Wall Street domination of the US government, that he can do by himself. All he needs help with is delegates, votes dont count.
From my view it is hypocritical to cry about the one percent while supporting them.
If your issues are debt, war and Wall Street corruption then Paul is the guy. He can accomplish those goals in spite of congress.
Ron Paul is a OBGYN who never denied a patient access to his services over money. He never accepted medicare, he simply discounted his service to the patient. If womens reproductive health is your issue you may look into the only OB in the race.