Meanwhile, Congress Takes Action To Starve Four Million More Children

[Ifly2]

Or so...

But, who's counting...

203 - 210

More or less bipartisan


In order to preserve the profits of commercial agribusiness and commercial shippers


Basically, CARE and a whole host of other religious, secular, bipartisan organizations directly involved support allowing food aid money to be used buying surplus local, or at least more local, crops to provide food aid already budgeted. This would save on transportation costs, resulting in more efficiency and more kids being fed.

Coincidentally, fits the model of teaching a man to fish, rather than giving him one, and promotes the idea of local self-sufficiency, while still " feeding the poor".

Current law requires the program to use food grown in the US and shipped on US flag carriers. This consumes ~25% of the "food aid" $$$.

IOW, you are subsidizing big business with humanitarian aid money.

So, the biz interests see "their" welfare on the chopping block, fire up the lobbyists, and Voila!...

It fails....

_______________________________________________

"Across party lines

98 Democrats voted for the amendment, 105 Republicans.
94 Democrats voted against, 126 Republicans.

45 percent of voting Republicans supported the amendment and 51 percent of voting Democrats supported the amendment.

Analysis: The vote was remarkably bipartisan, which isquite unusual in this era of hyper-partisanship.

- See more at: http://politicsofpoverty.oxfamamerica.org/2013/06/26/digging-into-the-numbers-of-the-food-aid-reform-vote-in-congress/#sthash.KgtevdJB.dpuf"

 

[eolesen]

No wonder it failed -- it's all about outsourcing work currently done by US merchant seamen and farmers....

Using US taxpayer funds to buy foreign food and ship it on foreign flag vessels... it's almost more of a third rail issue than gun control.

 

[Ifly2]

I thought the point was to feed hungry kids.

You, typically, see it as Supporting Business.

I, CARE, scads of other humanitarian orgs, and nearly half of Congress see it as feeding people, as many of them as possible, in the most effective way, and helping local economies develop so that we don't have to feed as many, not as many die, and just maybe we don't create even more dependents.

Them's conservative, christian, values... Right?

Not?

Turns out, it is as much a corporate welfare program for US AgriBusiness and shipping. Protecting their gov't contracts, which a part of obviously fall into the realm of unnecessary gov't spending caused by artificially mandated demand. These subsidies are winning over feeding the kids, developing local economies, and saving the taxpayer $$$.

I posted it to show that things are not always what they seem, and because I thought the Christians on here might put their beliefs into practice and pick up a pen and encourage their congressmen to put the lobbyist's checkbook down and vote for the most effective way to do what the program is supposed to do.

Which that is, to feed people, and maybe, coincidentally, enable the locals to develop the ability to feed them themselves

 

[delldude]

Are these the food programs that cause obesity?

 

[Ifly2]

Are these the food programs that cause obesity?

Seriously? Dude?

You are smarter than that.

I know you are

 

[eolesen]

My church does plenty of relief work outside the bounds of the US Government, and does so willingly.

But hey, let me ask you a question that you seem to like asking....

Where in the Constitution does it say that the US Taxpayers are obligated to feed anyone outside of the US?

 

[delldude]

Seriously? Dude?

You are smarter than that.

I know you are

Are we talking foreign or domestic?

 

[Ifly2]

E

It obviously doesn't

It also doesn't authorize maintaining a large, standing, federally controlled army.

Or about 42 hundred/thousand/million other things.

Like, mandating unnecessary spending on shipping US grain halfway around the world when more hungry people could be fed with the money saved on shipping by buying locally produced food.

Or, the Blue Angels and ThunderBirds

Or, a posh O Club on the best beach in CA

Congress passed a law doing all of those, and That is authorized by the Constitution

But you knew that





Dude,

This particular program is foreign aid

 

[delldude]

I'm sorry, I thought I read it was about stamps and after school food programs.



Congrat's on your 1st topic BTW


Edit: Actually I'm right......until one reads that amendment that's what it is about.

 

[Ifly2]

Check out the link

And it wasn't a left/right thing

It is a "how this crap goes down" thing...


Decide to do something good, debate that on its merits

And, then, run up the cost and decrease the effectiveness by throwing a little corporate welfare on the top. In this case, as much as 25%, that could either not be spent or spent to accomplish more of the original purpose.

 

[delldude]

Check out the link

And it wasn't a left/right thing

It is a "how this crap goes down" thing...


Decide to do something good, debate that on its merits

And, then, run up the cost and decrease the effectiveness by throwing a little corporate welfare on the top. In this case, as much as 25%, that could either not be spent or spent to accomplish more of the original purpose.

This is how crap goes down thing.....

I buy that......but is it being distributed other than UN?

Also, why does the foreign relations committee now have to tack its spending onto US farm monies?

 

[Ifly2]

"Also, why does the foreign relations committee now have to tack its spending onto US farm monies? "



I dunno.. IIRC, the Cotus allows the senate and house to make their own rules for conducting their business.

If I were making the rules, bills would be about the one thing they are about, any amendments would have to be verry verry closely related, or a change to the actual bill for redonciliation perhaps, if they were allowed at all.

Every bill would stand on its own merits, or not.

But I'm not

Best guess?

It lets 'em cater to the folks with the $$$, while looking like they are doing something else.

 

[eolesen]

It also doesn't authorize maintaining a large, standing, federally controlled army.

You're right. Only the Navy is explicitly authorized. The other branches of the military are reauthorized every two years.

But still, you deflected instead of addressing your original topic.

You're obsessed with foreign aid when we can't pay our own debts? This is how the country went broke.

 

[Ms Tree]

You're right. Only the Navy is explicitly authorized. The other branches of the military are reauthorized every two years.

But still, you deflected instead of addressing your original topic.

You're obsessed with foreign aid when we can't pay our own debts? This is how the country went broke.

Foreign aid which is 1% of our budget is why we went broke? The US blows more on useless military projects in a week than we spend on aid.

 

[eolesen]

Again, you miss the forest thru the trees, Tree.

Foreign aid, grants to renewable energy donors companies, research on the mating habits of lizards, Obamaphones, not using a means test for social security or Medicare... all that starts to add up.

We're expected to live within our means, and neither you or I can go borrow money when we've already borrowed more than we can pay back.

It's time to expect government to do the same. It's certainly working in Wisconsin and other states who have a requirement for balanced budgets...