White House threatens to veto House farm bill because it isn’t expensive enough

posted at 11:11 am on June 18, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

Both Senate and House versions of the farm bill that Congress is looking to pass, preferably in short order and definitely before the current bill expires this September, are little better than deliberately gigantic messes full of an impressively convoluted combination of food stamps, corporate pork, tricky amendments, and completely unnecessary federal special treatment that agribusiness lobby claims agriculture for some reason deserves above all other economic sectors. The Hill has a useful rundown of some of the major battles that still need to be fought within Congress before they can agree upon a final bill, but one of the biggest is going to be over the majority of the spending in the bills that goes to food stamp programs. The Senate-passed version of the farm bill cut the food-stamp program by merely $400 million per year, with the support of the Obama administration, but the House is looking to go a little deeper (hi, trillion dollar yearly deficits, anyone?!) — and the Obama administration doesn’t like that at all.

The White House is threatening to veto the House version of a massive, five-year farm bill, saying food stamp cuts included in the legislation could leave some Americans hungry.

The House is preparing to consider the bill this week. The legislation would cut $2 billion annually, or around 3 percent, from food stamps and make it harder for some people to qualify for the program. Food stamps, now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, cost almost $80 billion last year, twice the amount it cost five years ago. …

The White House said in its statement Monday that food stamps are “a cornerstone of our nation’s food assistance safety net.” The administration argued that the House should make deeper cuts to farm subsidies like crop insurance instead.

Yes, it’s very easy to talk about the people who will be helped by continued growth in the food stamp program, except that the Obama administration has completely obliterated the normal standards and has grown the program by a whopping 70 percent since 2008 alone — even as the White House continues to insist that employment is improving everyday and our economy is continuing to recover. If that were really the case, why the expanded need for food stamps? You can’t have it both ways, you know.

Oh, and by the way — where is a lot of that corporate and special-interest pork in the farms bills coming from, you might very well wonder?

House members have filed more than 200 amendments to the bill, which is expected to come to the floor later this week.

Ugh.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

See my post re consumerism. We agree.

libfreeordie on June 18, 2013 at 12:31 PM

Just joined the conversation. I’ve been out building a tire wall around my garden since about 5 am Arizona time (9:38 now). Another one of those areas that if I can do the job I will.

chemman on June 18, 2013 at 12:39 PM

particularly when you consider that the modern university hates Western Civilization and celebrates post-modernism.

gwelf on June 18, 2013 at 12:33 PM

Modernity was a critique of feudalism, post-modernism is a critique of modernity, no doubt there will be another intellectual trend. People do sometimes take it too far in getting emotional about these things, but they are simply different intellectual trends. Conservatives spend far, far, FAR too much time getting caught up in that stuff. Whether you’re thinking about classical western civ or you’re thinking about poststructural critique you’re thinking, and it is good for you. Conservatives want to limit the spaces where that thinking happens and its a shame.

libfreeordie on June 18, 2013 at 12:41 PM

Want to talk consumerism? the fking democrats and GOP progs are consuming all created wealth and future wealth with their immoral profligate spending, every dime of which is stolen from the productive or printed out of thin air. every single one of them should be shot dead.

tom daschle concerned on June 18, 2013 at 12:48 PM

And here we get to the *real* cultural problem behind the eventual implosion of the American empire. Consumerism…
 
libfreeordie on June 18, 2013 at 12:19 PM

 

Unless we tackle consumerism, then we’ll never solve our problems.
 
libfreeordie on June 18, 2013 at 12:19 PM

 

This extends across race, class, religion, everything. Consumerism *IS* is the American religion.
 
libfreeordie on June 18, 2013 at 12:19 PM

 

The problem is that everyone thinks they need a damn marble countertop or backsplash or gucci bag.
 
libfreeordie on June 18, 2013 at 12:28 PM

 

The balance of necessity vs. frivolity within consumer culture has overwhelmingly gone towards the later, and I think you know it.
 
libfreeordie on June 18, 2013 at 12:28 PM

 
I’ll take “Kulaks” for $1000, Alex.

rogerb on June 18, 2013 at 12:49 PM

So the only driver of consumerism is the welfare state. Not the constant 24 hour, psychologically tested, blanket of marketing which envelops the entire culture? This is also where conservatism just gets laughable. As you’re reading this you’re saying “Not me! I’m immune! I’ve always been able to resist and live within my means.” That’s cute for you. But that makes you vastly exceptional. And of course the idea is that “well its not corporations fault if they are doing everything they possibly can to convince people they need our products for happiness, its only your fault if you give in.” Its a fascinating position, and it also really speaks to the symmetry between people who resist the notion that we’ve evolved from animals and people who argue that we can’t look to broader culture to explain our economic system. Its about ego. Its about a resistance to seeing yourself as susceptible to anything but your own subjectivity, despite the evidence that we (as all mammals) engage in group think *all the time.* And if you were honest, you would admit that.

Here’s an idea. If you were born in UK, do you honestly think you would prefer American football over soccer because something in you just *inherently* loves Football? Or is it that you were raised in a football culture, surrounded by other people who like football, saw fotball players as the big men on campus, saw women flocking to football, saw your friends and family sacrifice time and energy for football and repeated those patterns. There’s also a weird part of this were conservatives will claim that homosexuality is caused by formative experiences in childhood, but will totally deny that things like consumer culture are inculcated by a culture. So you can identify a culture which is sexually permissive, but can’t identify a culture which glorifies consumerism. Fascinating.

libfreeordie on June 18, 2013 at 12:37 PM

We do live in a consumer culture but large government enables it.

Liberals push an entitlement mentality and the message that the government will take care of you in the ways that really matter.

In other words – as others have already pointed out – liberalism pushed culture wide seriously erodes personal responsibility and accountability for your own life and to your family.

Consumerism exists – and has many bad aspects to it – but liberalism assures there’s little push back against it in the culture.

You point out people who buy granite countertops when they can’t really afford it. Yet somehow this is supposed to be a behavior conservatives encourage? Of course it’s not and whenever conservatives bring up personal responsibility in a political discussion we’re decried as hateful bigots who don’t like the poor.

gwelf on June 18, 2013 at 12:52 PM

not the constant 24 hour, psychologically tested, blanket of marketing which envelops the entire culture?

libfreeordie on June 18, 2013 at 12:37 PM

You are talking about the idiot box (television) culture with 500 channels and with very little worth watching. You don’t want that culture don’t participate.

Re: you comments about football and soccer. I really don’t care for either even though I was raised in an area that worshiped football. I am a long distance runner and enjoy long runs where I can commune with nature and the God of nature.

chemman on June 18, 2013 at 12:54 PM

Here’s an idea. If you were born into a culture that constantly reiterated and valued personal responsibility, do you honestly think you would allow yourself to believe that there are no consequences for your actions and lack of self-discipline?

blink on June 18, 2013 at 12:48 PM

Great. How do you propose to do that when the vast majority of our media outlets want us to buy things, not save our resources. How do propose producing a culture that constantly reiterated and valued personal responsibility while maintaining corporations right to do what they want over the airwaves?

libfreeordie on June 18, 2013 at 12:54 PM

The problem is corporations have been gradually lowering wages and benefits packages for the average worker for the last 40 years.

libfreeordie on June 18, 2013 at 11:32 AM

I keep hearing this, and yet in the last two years, I’ve been laid off from two different jobs, and the end result has been an increase in pay of 65% between then and now.

My wages remained stagnant so long as my job and skill set remained stagnant. Increasing my skill set made me more marketable and led to better opportunities. And despite borrowing another 30k for college, of which all the debt now belongs to the government, I learned all of those new skills on my own time and initiative; the college curriculum did very little to improve my standing.

Yet in indicting the University, you are indicting the profit motive. That sort of proves me point…..

libfreeordie on June 18, 2013 at 12:09 PM

University costs aren’t built on “profit motive” as an exercise in pure capitalism. Rampant subsidizing of tuition in general and student loans in particular destroys the supply/demand aspect of setting prices.

Consumerism *IS* is the American religion. And so people on the left have this horrible relationship to it. They recognize it is unsustainable, but can not resist it.

libfreeordie on June 18, 2013 at 12:19 PM

Consumerism is the PROGRESSIVE American religion. The bedrock principle of fiscal conservatism is you need money to pay for things, and if you don’t have money, you wait or defer. BUT NO, if every American doesn’t have TV and cable and high-speed Internet and 4G phones and iPads and XBoxes and hybrid cars, then it’s OMG THIRD WORLD AMERICA, and CONSERVATIVES WANT YOU TO DIE.

lets see people really try and survive without government as we currently know it. I think the move to the left would be swift.

libfreeordie on June 18, 2013 at 12:24 PM

Yes, I’m sure that the entire federal system would collapse overnight if the government only spent three trillion dollars a year, instead of spending all the trillions Paul Krugman demands to turn all of America into a Model City like Detroit.

The Schaef on June 18, 2013 at 12:56 PM

Liberals push an entitlement mentality and the message that the government will take care of you in the ways that really matter.

So how do you think Wall Street would respond if we cut off all food and housing aid to all populations. Social Security, medicaid, medicare, HUD etc. When people only had the resources to invest in sustenance what would be the reaction in our economy?

libfreeordie on June 18, 2013 at 12:57 PM

Here’s an idea. If you were born into a culture that constantly reiterated and valued personal responsibility, do you honestly think you would allow yourself to believe that there are no consequences for your actions and lack of self-discipline?

blink on June 18, 2013 at 12:48 PM

This. The left began rejecting that culture over 100 years ago and have replaced with a victim culture. Everyone is a victim.
Something I always taught my students was that when life takes a dump on you, and it will and various and sundry times, you have two choices. Choice one is to use it as fertilizer to become a better person or choice two is to bemoan your fate and decompose to become part of the cr*p.

chemman on June 18, 2013 at 12:57 PM

Consumerism is the PROGRESSIVE American religion. The bedrock principle of fiscal conservatism is you need money to pay for things, and if you don’t have money, you wait or defer. BUT NO, if every American doesn’t have TV and cable and high-speed Internet and 4G phones and iPads and XBoxes and hybrid cars, then it’s OMG THIRD WORLD AMERICA, and CONSERVATIVES WANT YOU TO DIE.

I suppose this is why those products only sell in blue states? And only exist in the houses of blue voters?

libfreeordie on June 18, 2013 at 12:58 PM

How do you propose to do that when the vast majority of our media outlets want us to buy things, not save our resources. How do propose producing a culture that constantly reiterated and valued personal responsibility while maintaining corporations right to do what they want over the airwaves?

libfreeordie on June 18, 2013 at 12:54 PM

Yeah, good point. As long as a corporation is capable of producing a thirty-second commercial, I am entirely incapable of balancing a checkbook.

The Schaef on June 18, 2013 at 12:58 PM

Great. How do you propose to do that when the vast majority of our media outlets want us to buy things, not save our resources. How do propose producing a culture that constantly reiterated and valued personal responsibility while maintaining corporations right to do what they want over the airwaves?

libfreeordie on June 18, 2013 at 12:54 PM

So destroying the First Amendment will fix our culture?

Liberals really are fascists.

What produces a culture of personal responsibility? It’s too bad liberals didn’t ask this question before kicking of the sexual revolution and the myriad other cultural transformations to free us of our religious hang-ups and bourgeois chains.

gwelf on June 18, 2013 at 12:59 PM

It’s crazy that communists like libfreeordie even try to blame this on conservatives.

blink on June 18, 2013 at 12:57 PM

Read my posts more carefully. I said this cuts across all political spectrums.

libfreeordie on June 18, 2013 at 12:59 PM

I suppose this is why those products only sell in blue states? And only exist in the houses of blue voters?

libfreeordie on June 18, 2013 at 12:58 PM

I’m not sure what your point is here.

The Schaef on June 18, 2013 at 1:00 PM

So destroying the First Amendment will fix our culture?

I didn’t propose anything. I asked a question. Your inability to respond honestly to an honest question speaks volumes.

libfreeordie on June 18, 2013 at 1:00 PM

Society is most certainly NOT inundated with marketing for granite countertops.

People want granite countertops because their friends are getting granite countertops.

You’re right. Keeping up with friends is NOT a behavior conservatives encourage.

It’s crazy that communists like libfreeordie even try to blame this on conservatives.

blink on June 18, 2013 at 12:57 PM

I agree that culture and community are bigger factors than marketing. I think that family is probably bigger than those two as well.

It’s astounding that libfreeordie is here calling out conservatives for not stopping liberals from destroying our cultural values.

gwelf on June 18, 2013 at 1:02 PM

I’m not sure what your point is here.

The Schaef on June 18, 2013 at 1:00 PM

If you’re willing to agree that consumerism exists along both sides of the aisle, then we agree and there is one. It sounded like you were trying to exclusively attribute consumerism to one party or another. Perhaps your claim is that the true minority is the genuine fiscal conservative.

libfreeordie on June 18, 2013 at 1:02 PM

I am glad someone is going to veto it.

Fleuries on June 18, 2013 at 1:03 PM

Read my posts more carefully. I said this cuts across all political spectrums.

libfreeordie on June 18, 2013 at 12:59 PM

So how did I misinterpret this?

How do propose producing a culture that constantly reiterated and valued personal responsibility while maintaining corporations right to do what they want over the airwaves?

libfreeordie on June 18, 2013 at 12:54 PM

Particularly when we’re talking about the affect that marketing has on a populace.

gwelf on June 18, 2013 at 1:04 PM

I agree that culture and community are bigger factors than marketing. I think that family is probably bigger than those two as well.

You feel you can actually separate out social structures like the family, culture and community from marketing? Wow, you’ve figured out the solution to the chicken and the egg paradox. Pray, how did you do this?

libfreeordie on June 18, 2013 at 1:04 PM

Yes, it’s very easy to talk about the people who will be helped by continued growth in the food stamp program, except that the Obama administration has completely obliterated the normal standards and has grown the program by a whopping 70 percent since 2008 alone — even as the White House continues to insist that employment is improving everyday and our economy is continuing to recover.

The White House has even been running ads about how it’s so cool to be on food stamps and get better nutrition.

I’ve got a better idea, Obummer. Get your big fat government jackboot off the energy industry, so we engineers can get good jobs and buy our own food!

Steve Z on June 18, 2013 at 1:05 PM

gwelf on June 18, 2013 at 1:04 PM

You misinterpreted by not understanding the difference between a “question” and a “proposal.” A proposal would have been “we should do x to solve y.” A question is “how do we do X given these conditions.” Now you either can say “I do not know” or “here is my response, it is Z.”

libfreeordie on June 18, 2013 at 1:05 PM

If you’re willing to agree that consumerism exists along both sides of the aisle, then we agree and there is one. It sounded like you were trying to exclusively attribute consumerism to one party or another. Perhaps your claim is that the true minority is the genuine fiscal conservative.

libfreeordie on June 18, 2013 at 1:02 PM

Are some of the things you’re talking about a culture-wide phenomenon?
Sure, but it’s undeniable that the various “progressive revolutions” have created most of the current culture that makes this possible.

gwelf on June 18, 2013 at 1:06 PM

How do propose producing a culture that constantly reiterated and valued personal responsibility while maintaining corporations right to do what they want over the airwaves?

libfreeordie on June 18, 2013 at 12:54 PM

Something I do one person at a time with. Every Sunday I teach a high school aged Sunday School class and it is all about character development. We are working on personal responsibility right now. The kids in the class all come from broken families most which are on some form of welfare. It is a slow slough but I am making headway with them.

If you really believed in producing a culture that constantly reiterates and values personal responsibility you wouldn’t be a die hard supporter of victimism and Marxism.

chemman on June 18, 2013 at 1:06 PM

Great. How do you propose to do that when the vast majority of our media outlets want us to buy things, not save our resources. How do propose producing a culture that constantly reiterated and valued personal responsibility while maintaining corporations right to do what they want over the airwaves?

libfreeordie on June 18, 2013 at 12:54 PM

Here’s an out-of-the-box idea; don’t buy things.

How hard was that?

bigmacdaddy on June 18, 2013 at 1:07 PM

If you’re willing to agree that consumerism exists along both sides of the aisle, then we agree and there is one. It sounded like you were trying to exclusively attribute consumerism to one party or another. Perhaps your claim is that the true minority is the genuine fiscal conservative.

libfreeordie on June 18, 2013 at 1:02 PM

That does not explain your comment at all.

Only one party is making the claim that it is “unfair” that one person should have something that you lack, and that the government is the tool of arbitrating this state of fairness.

And don’t act like you haven’t been blowing the “income inequality” horn as well, including in this very thread.

The Schaef on June 18, 2013 at 1:08 PM

Yeah, good point. As long as a corporation is capable of producing a thirty-second commercial, I am entirely incapable of balancing a checkbook.

The Schaef on June 18, 2013 at 12:58 PM

More intellectual dishonesty. The question is how do you produce a *culture* which values personal responsibility in a world where we’re all constant suffused by marketing campaigns and by the very human impulse of keeping up with the joneses? Parenting obviously has a huge role to play in this. But are conservative families *really* parenting their kids about personal responsibility? In my experience, kids from conservative families exhibit the same amounts of love for consumer culture as their fellows, but they have mommy and daddy pay for everything. It isn’t that there’s a real resistance to it. The people who I do see as resisting consumer culture are my poorer students who have to work multiple jobs.

libfreeordie on June 18, 2013 at 1:09 PM

The question is how do you produce a *culture* which values personal responsibility in a world where we’re all constant suffused by marketing campaigns and by the very human impulse of keeping up with the joneses?

You have the government regulate family spending, obviously.

In my experience, kids from conservative families exhibit the same amounts of love for consumer culture as their fellows, but they have mommy and daddy pay for everything.

You got me. When I get home tonight, I’ll tell my five-year-old to go out and get a job.

The Schaef on June 18, 2013 at 1:12 PM

You feel you can actually separate out social structures like the family, culture and community from marketing? Wow, you’ve figured out the solution to the chicken and the egg paradox. Pray, how did you do this?

libfreeordie on June 18, 2013 at 1:04 PM

Your worldview does not allow you to see that it is possible. You are locked in a set of perceptions that blind you to the reality I discussed above. For instance when my daughter went to purchase her first house the realtor and the loan agency tried to get her to buy a much more expensive abode. She firmly stated that she wouldn’t go more than 2.5 times her yearly income on the price of a home and actually settled on a home that was 1.3 times her yearly salary. My son did the same thing when he purchased his first home. He is now in the process of purchasing a small farm/ranch that he can use to greatly reduce his monthly costs while producing fresh food and meats for his family. He will sell his current house pay off what is left on that mortgage and have enough to pay off the ranch plus purchase the stock for it. Our worldview allowed my wife and I to overcome the cultural and marketing pressures for ourselves and train our children to be resistant to it. If we could do it why can’t others also? Perceptions are everything.

chemman on June 18, 2013 at 1:15 PM

You got me. When I get home tonight, I’ll tell my five-year-old to go out and get a job.

The Schaef on June 18, 2013 at 1:12 PM

And his memoir will begin, “I left the life of a liberal at age five.”

onomo on June 18, 2013 at 1:16 PM

Oh, Please, Mr. President, don’t throw me into that brier patch.

Fat chance this President will ever veto any spending bill because it’s not big enough, because then he’d have NOTHING!

Another Drew on June 18, 2013 at 1:20 PM

libfreeordie on June 18, 2013 at 1:04 PM

BTW that worldview that I hold is Christian. Our happiness isn’t about owning things or pursuing wealth. It is about a relationship with Jesus. We taught our children about self governance and personal responsibility and inculcated those habits in them in spite of the culture around them. They are not perfect but are doing well with their lives because they follow their training. “Train up a child in the way he should go and as he matures he will walk in it.”
We mostly walk in the way we are trained.

Also I agree that rampant consumerism is a problem on all sides of the aisle. Children will mimic their parents and take it to the next level. From a Christian perspective these attitudes tend to fall into the category of “acceptable” sins. They are just as detrimental to your life as those “bad” sins that far too many moralize about.

chemman on June 18, 2013 at 1:26 PM

Fat chance this President will ever veto any spending bill because it’s not big enough, because then he’d have NOTHING!

Another Drew on June 18, 2013 at 1:20 PM

What he’ll do is, he’ll sign it, say that they worked carefully for balance and fairness, and say this is the “right amount” to spend on something, then when its effects are mediocre at best, the problem will be that they didn’t spend two or three times as much, which of course is entirely the fault of obstructionist Republicans.

The Schaef on June 18, 2013 at 1:27 PM

If you really believed in producing a culture that constantly reiterates and values personal responsibility you wouldn’t be a die hard supporter of victimism…

chemman on June 18, 2013 at 1:06 PM

Ding, ding, ding, ding…

blink on June 18, 2013 at 1:53 PM

Exactly, that and pushing a magic notion of unlimited government expenditure on social problems have put us in the present mess.

ebrown2 on June 18, 2013 at 1:57 PM

OMG, the absolute stupidity of it. You would think at some point even a professor could figure it out. Too simple for it?

Bmore on June 18, 2013 at 2:07 PM

Exactly, left collectivists like LFD have a “pie on the ground, all around” view of economic production. It just sits there and only the vile influence of top-hatted capitalist vampires keeps it from us.

Considering that Marxism is fundamentally about the idea that labor is a form of capital, the notion of “pie on the ground, all around” is a ridiculous misreading of the theory.

libfreeordie on June 18, 2013 at 12:30 PM

“Böhm-Bawerk was also one of the first economists to discuss Karl Marx’s views seriously. He argued that interest does not exist due to exploitation of workers. Workers would get the whole of what they helped produce only if production were instantaneous. But because production is roundabout, he wrote, some of the product that Marx attributed to workers must go to finance this roundaboutness, that is, must go to capital. Böhm-Bawerk noted that interest would have to be paid no matter who owned the capital. Mainstream economists still accept this argument.”

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/BohmBawerk.html

ebrown2 on June 18, 2013 at 2:11 PM

How do you propose to do that when the vast majority of our media outlets want us to buy things, not save our resources. How do propose producing a culture that constantly reiterated and valued personal responsibility while maintaining corporations right to do what they want over the airwaves?
 
libfreeordie on June 18, 2013 at 12:54 PM

 
Hey, here’s a fun game for the readers.
 
The first one to pick out the poster who believes in (and demonstrates) trying to produce a culture that constantly reiterates and values personal responsibility wins 100 hotair points (redeemable at any local hotair.com near you, void where prohibited by law).
 
Since it’s trickier, the first to identify the poster who doesn’t believe in the value of cultivating that same culture wins 150 hotair points.
 
Ready?
 

We rib you a lot, but, as this headline shows, financial knowledge and your personal/financial well-being is important, and I wanted to be sure you saw it:
 
You’re around 30, right? Even $100/month at a pessimistic 6% for the next 30 years will give you over $100K for retirement. Starting young is the best time to begin so that interest has time to work its magic, especially since SS won’t be able to float you when you’ve retired.
 
rogerb on June 22, 2012 at 11:55 AM

 
Rogerb, its true. But some folks don’t have a natural head or disposition to save. I’m more the adventurous, lets make a memory kind of person. My guy is a level headed, sensible type so he handles the finances and that’s fine by me. In return I made an amazing bacon wrapped meatloaf tonight, win-win!
 
libfreeordie on June 25, 2012 at 11:20 PM

 
Go!

rogerb on June 18, 2013 at 2:12 PM

Consumerism isn’t the problem. People buying granite countertops are not the cause of government spending. As long as people are spending their own money that they have earned, then let them spend it as they will.

Sure, marketing exists to encourage people to spend money. And sometimes they spend more than they have. But if they only have their own money to spend, then it’s inherently self-limiting. Don’t get me wrong: some people have gotten themselves in a lot of trouble by overspending. But that doesn’t cause economic hard times or government spending. The government spends too much, not because they want a bunch of nice things, but because they can just print money, they can rationalize by saying government spending stimulates the economy, and handing out free money is obviously going to be very popular with the people getting the free money.

Right now, the government is in the business of wrecking the healthcare economy by essentially dictating to every insurance company what kind of insurance they can sell, and to every insurance consumer what kind of insurance they have to buy.

The government has already taken a wrecking ball to education by giving money grants to students to pay for tuition, thereby enabling the universities to raise tuition rates. Even textbooks are astronomically priced these days. And when that is still not enough money, the government offers guaranteed student loans to ensure that people graduate in heavy debt.

The free market looks heartless, but every time you try to improve on it, you just make a bigger hash than ever.

There Goes the Neighborhood on June 18, 2013 at 2:13 PM

How do you propose to do that when the vast majority of our media outlets want us to buy things, not save our resources. How do propose producing a culture that constantly reiterated and valued personal responsibility while maintaining corporations right to do what they want over the airwaves?

libfreeordie on June 18, 2013 at 12:54 PM

Am I the only one whose mother said, “If everybody else was jumping off the bridge would you do it too?”

Didja never learn to think for yourself?

2L8 on June 18, 2013 at 2:14 PM

If you give blink those points, I am going to defacate all over your car to protest the uneqal distribution of hotair points only to those who frequent the site and post responses to your questions.

There are ~150 posts in this thread at the moment; at the very least, a hotair point should go to all of its participants to account for the idea that the labor that went into typing responses to this particular article is the capital on which the entire website was built.

The Schaef on June 18, 2013 at 2:49 PM

Proggies like libslave just won’t be happy until everyone is FORCED to live in a 20′x20′ hovel and lives on arugula they grow in their window. Oh how wonderful when everyone will be exactly the same. Well…except for the elites like Obama, who can tell us the max we can have at retirement is $3 Million, but of course, he needs $6 Million, because he is so much more important than anyone else.

kirkill on June 18, 2013 at 2:51 PM

If not, then that’s the problem, and libfreeordie is right.

blink on June 18, 2013 at 2:22 PM

I KNEW my mom was wrong! Darnit, I want a do over of my adolescence!

2L8 on June 18, 2013 at 3:07 PM

Hey, wait just a dang minute! I happen to be hungry at the moment. Very hungry. Sure, the reason is because it’s noon and I haven’t had lunch yet, but I’m hungry, and since evidently it’s y’all’s responsibility to make me not hungry,I expect to have food arrive post haste.

Bob's Kid on June 18, 2013 at 3:07 PM

I’ll take “Kulaks” for $1000, Alex.

rogerb on June 18, 2013 at 12:49 PM

I knew the troll was a Marxist pinko. The unknown is how much of a hard core commie it is. And how much of a Leninist and/or Stalinist it is.

How much reeducation of the population is necessary, to stamp out things like “consumerism” (Marx called it something else)? And what to do when reeducation is too expensive? Or doesn’t work fast enough? Or doesn’t work at all?

And what happens if the government run school conditioning and indoctrination doesn’t take K-12? College level re-education camps?

farsighted on June 18, 2013 at 3:18 PM

This is the kind of thing that I just don’t get about the Republican party today:

You have a trillion dollar farm bill with huge subsidies to big business to the tune of tens of billions of dollars and the big problem we are supposed to have with it is…food stamps?

I get that we don’t want our fellow citizens dependant on the state, and these programs are ripe for fraud and abuse, and I’m all for taking measure to wring that our of the system, but the hill we want to fight on when we’re talking about reducing the deficit is the tiny amount we use to feed hungry Americans…?

I don’t get it.

blue13326 on June 18, 2013 at 11:23 AM

STOP CALLING IT A FARM BILL. 77% OF IT IS TO FUND FOOD STAMPS.

portlandon on June 18, 2013 at 11:37 AM

Quite right, portlandon.

cptacek on June 18, 2013 at 3:22 PM

BTW, the Marxist troll hi-jacked another thread.

farsighted on June 18, 2013 at 3:23 PM

Wiki is not the best of sources but a good start.

Anti-consumerism

Critics have linked the rise of anti-consumer sentiment to Marxist and socialist ideologies. In 1999, the libertarian magazine Reason attacked anti-consumerism, claiming Marxist academics are repackaging themselves as anti-consumerists. James Twitchell, a professor at the University of Florida and popular writer, referred to anti-consumerism arguments as “Marxism Lite.”[4] Similarly, philosopher Stephen Hicks[5] argues that anti-consumerist thought comes, in part, from a drastic volte face in Marxist theory: “[Marxism] presupposed that capitalism would drive the proletariat into economic misery, which capitalism had failed to do. Instead, capitalism had produced great amounts of wealth and-— here is the innovation -— capitalism had used that wealth to oppress the proletariat…”

farsighted on June 18, 2013 at 3:33 PM

Not only that, the marxist hypocrite apparently has no idea how many corporations were involved in creating that computing device he keeps fouling threads with.

Come on, marxist hypocrite. Take the stand you claim to take. Walk the walk, don’t just talk the talk.

Stop using anything created by, built by, or marketed by any corporation. Let’s see you actually live up to the idiotic ideals you claim to hold dear.

runawayyyy on June 18, 2013 at 3:37 PM

How do you propose to do that when the vast majority of our media outlets want us to buy things, not save our resources. How do propose producing a culture that constantly reiterated and valued personal responsibility while maintaining corporations right to do what they want over the airwaves?

libfreeordie on June 18, 2013 at 12:54 PM

Oh I got it! Let’s empower the govt to tell all media outlets what they are allowed to tell us! And while they’re at it, they can outlaw all corporations!

Wow, you leftists are so enlightened. All we really had to do was agree to be slaves to leftists and all our problems will be solved!

Moron.

runawayyyy on June 18, 2013 at 3:41 PM

consumerism is humanity. as some say, we are the gold. the value of our money comes from our ability to labor and reason. not everybody has the same ability to labor and reason, therefore they do not create the same level of value. people who have changed the world with their inventions did so not out of altruism, but out of their creativity, reason, and labor. we have a fiat currency that we can exchange in place of the fruits of our ability to reason and labor. I grow wheat and you make plows. I don’t need to give you 150 bushels of wheat in exchange of a plow, although I could if that was our agreement. I trade fiat currency.
no system in the world can eradicate markets. they can oppress them, they can exploit them, they can punish them, or they can enforce contracts and apply the rule of law impartially. all but the last are progressive approaches to the markets and the last is the conservative approach to the markets.

eradicating consumerism means eradicating humanity, which is consistent with the goals of sibling ideologies islamism and Marxism.

tom daschle concerned on June 18, 2013 at 3:50 PM

Well, I now know that “Schaef” isn’t the answer to roberb’s 100 point question.

blink on June 18, 2013 at 3:47 PM

Hey, man, don’t harsh my buzz, or I am going to occupy the snot out of you!

Down twinkles!

The Schaef on June 18, 2013 at 3:54 PM

The Economist notes that in the last 20 years 1 billion people have been taken out of extreme poverty.

What saved these 1 billion people from the grip of extreme poverty and gifted them with the promise of a better life?

Capitalism.

itsspideyman on June 18, 2013 at 4:03 PM

eradicating consumerism means eradicating humanity, which is consistent with the goals of sibling ideologies islamism and Marxism.

tom daschle concerned on June 18, 2013 at 3:50 PM

It should be also noted that it comes hand-in-hand with the eradication of value.

itsspideyman on June 18, 2013 at 4:09 PM

Good post, Erika. The takeaway here is that even if we put aside all the pork for another discussion… the food stamp program has doubled in size and Barack Obama is threatening a veto at the prospects of a miniscule cut of 3%, all the while he and his lackeys continue trying to convince us that the economy is improving.

It’s too bad that there’s not more coverage of this.

Murf76 on June 18, 2013 at 4:12 PM

White House threatens to veto House farm bill because it isn’t expensive enough

As long as its vetoed…

Iblis on June 18, 2013 at 4:26 PM

Quite right. In a sense, this is why I wouldn’t mind if the tea party got all that it wanted, lets see people really try and survive without government as we currently know it. I think the move to the left would be swift.

libfreeordie on June 18, 2013 at 12:24 PM

No surprise that our low-information perfesser brought a strawman to a thread about a farm bill.

slickwillie2001 on June 18, 2013 at 4:35 PM

Good post, Erika. The takeaway here is that even if we put aside all the pork for another discussion… the food stamp program has doubled in size and Barack Obama is threatening a veto at the prospects of a miniscule cut of 3%, all the while he and his lackeys continue trying to convince us that the economy is improving.

It’s too bad that there’s not more coverage of this.

Murf76 on June 18, 2013 at 4:12 PM

While this is true, the sad thing is that it does not end up as cutting off his nose to spite his face. If he vetoes the bill, spending stays at current levels, he keeps all his spending, and he gets to ride the Obstructionist Republican pony around the barn one more time.

However, the fact that these bills can languish in Congress for months and years and the country manages to stagger on, that really seems to take a lot of bite out of the What Would You Do Without Our Glorious Government argument.

The Schaef on June 18, 2013 at 4:41 PM

Slave is good for HA Capitalism.

Schadenfreude on June 18, 2013 at 4:52 PM

Of course they will. Good veto it stinky.

mmcnamer1 on June 18, 2013 at 6:43 PM

This is very easy to do – but politically impossible, which is why we are going broke and there is little we can do about it. Libfree has no desire to reduce govt spending and a fair number of GOP types don’t either.

How do you fix it? Means test eligibility for farm aid. Do the same with medicare under a subsidy/defined contribution model with very limited spending increases per year – less than 1%. Privatize SS, and forbid any comingling of funds paid into the currently fictitious trust.

Eliminate the deduction for taxes and mortgage expense, spin off Fannie and Freddie and get the govt out of the home loan business, as well as the student loan racket.

Block grant medicaid, create a 30 day waiting period for all unemployment benefits, with a max 6 month window of eligibility. Food stamps fall under this as well.

Eliminate the tax free status of govt bonds, and do not increase payments for aids to dependent mothers or whatever they call that program now once you have ever been in the program.

Do I expect any of this to happen? Nope. The current farm bill is evidence of that.

WE are going broke, enjoy the ride. If you are smart, you will work on being more responsible starting right now in order to weather what is coming.

Zomcon JEM on June 18, 2013 at 7:08 PM

Debating consumerism is an exercise in silliness. It doesn’t matter. If you are concerned about it, you must shrink govt drastically.

There are no other methods.

Zomcon JEM on June 18, 2013 at 7:10 PM

Conservatives want to limit the spaces where that thinking happens and its a shame.

libfreeordie on June 18, 2013 at 12:41 PM

You’re an idiot.

Solaratov on June 18, 2013 at 7:21 PM

Conservatives want to limit the spaces where that thinking happens and its a shame.

libfreeordie on June 18, 2013 at 12:41 PM

You’re an idiot.

Solaratov on June 18, 2013 at 7:21 PM

NO strike-through on that.

Solaratov on June 18, 2013 at 7:22 PM

Our worldview allowed my wife and I to overcome the cultural and marketing pressures for ourselves and train our children to be resistant to it. If we could do it why can’t others also? Perceptions are everything.

chemman on June 18, 2013 at 1:15 PM

Kudos to your family, and thanks for pointing out the obvious.

Very interesting discussion in the thread; thanks to all who shared their concerns and considerations.

AesopFan on June 18, 2013 at 7:51 PM

Whether you’re thinking about classical western civ or you’re thinking about poststructural critique you’re thinking, and it is good for you. Conservatives want to limit the spaces where that thinking happens and its a shame.

libfreeordie on June 18, 2013 at 12:41 PM

Herbert Marcuse sends warm regards from the nether regions of Hades…

The ones advocating against diversity in thought in the academy are not American conservatives.

ebrown2 on June 18, 2013 at 8:48 PM

Modernity was a critique of feudalism, post-modernism is a critique of modernity, no doubt there will be another intellectual trend. People do sometimes take it too far in getting emotional about these things, but they are simply different intellectual trends. Conservatives spend far, far, FAR too much time getting caught up in that stuff. Whether you’re thinking about classical western civ or you’re thinking about poststructural critique you’re thinking, and it is good for you. Conservatives want to limit the spaces where that thinking happens and its a shame.

libfreeordie on June 18, 2013 at 12:41 PM

And yet, you don’t dispute the point, do you? When the “spaces where that thinking happens…” becomes a detriment to the common good, Conservatives are correct, and well within their rights to try to limit. But let me ask you a question, Einstein…name Post-Modernism’s three greatest contributions to American society. Then, after you’re unable to do it, tell us why we should waste public money on things designed to destroy what we’ve built. “Thinking” is a good thing, when all “thought” is encouraged and considered. The Post-Mofernist, Leftist Academie is the furthest thing from a forum for open discourse as ever there’s been.

If you were honest (which you cannot afford to be), you’d say what everyone knows…Post Modernism is the study of methods to demean, deligitimize and destroy Western Civ. If you’re too cowardly to admit that, admit, at least, you’re a coward.

Kenz on June 18, 2013 at 9:28 PM

If you give blink those points, I am going to defacate all over your car to protest the uneqal distribution of hotair points only to those who frequent the site and post responses to your questions.
 
There are ~150 posts in this thread at the moment; at the very least, a hotair point should go to all of its participants to account for the idea that the labor that went into typing responses to this particular article is the capital on which the entire website was built.
 
The Schaef on June 18, 2013 at 2:49 PM

 
Don’t make us give your farm to the women’s studies department, kulak consumer.

rogerb on June 19, 2013 at 6:40 AM

Then, after you’re unable to do it, tell us why we should waste public money on things designed to destroy what we’ve built. “Thinking” is a good thing, when all “thought” is encouraged and considered. The Post-Mofernist, Leftist Academie is the furthest thing from a forum for open discourse as ever there’s been.

Kenz on June 18, 2013 at 9:28 PM

It reminds me a bit of Gandalf’s line in Lord of the Rings: “Kings made tombs more splendid than the houses of the living and counted the names of their descent dearer than the names of their sons. Childless lords sat in aged halls musing on heraldry or in high, cold towers asking questions of the stars. And so the people of Gondor fell into ruin.”

Don’t make us give your farm to the women’s studies department, kulak consumer.

rogerb on June 19, 2013 at 6:40 AM

So long as I get to keep my Obamaphone and my OccupIpad.

The Schaef on June 19, 2013 at 9:17 AM

Capitalism oppressed the proletariat by allowing them to accumulate an excessive amount of consumer goods.

/ something libfreeordie would write

blink on June 18, 2013 at 3:58 PM

As usual, slavenowordie is parroting his “betters”:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repressive_Tolerance

ebrown2 on June 19, 2013 at 9:44 AM

Our worldview allowed my wife and I to overcome the cultural and marketing pressures for ourselves and train our children to be resistant to it. If we could do it why can’t others also? Perceptions are everything.

chemman on June 18, 2013 at 1:15 PM

As a marketer, can we please dispense with the idea of the helpless consumer? We discussed this in 1978 and it’s as much true today as ever.

The fact is that with the Internet consumers are more savvy than ever when it comes to purchasing and consumption. Furthermore the marketing of items in a discrete transaction situation have been over since the 50′s. More than ever firms don’t wish to satisfy you for a single transaction, they wish to satisfy your needs again and again. Why? Because it costs 5 times as much to add a new consumer as it does to retain a current one. Why do you think you’re being bombarded with consumer surveys every time you finish a transaction? Businesses need to know when you are being serviced successfully or not.

Which leads to the ultimate power of the consumer: complain. I tell my students it is your right and power as a consumer to let businesses know when you haven’t been serviced properly. A business needs to know when they fail their customers, otherwise they will ultimately fail in today’s hypermarket. If a business can compensate you, they will. If they can’t or won’t, you become a walking advertisement against the business. And that’s the one thing businesses can’t control.

itsspideyman on June 19, 2013 at 11:28 AM

Go for it! We don’t need a 10 year spending bill anyway. We need a Constitutional amendment that no congress can obligate a following year past the current fiscal year. What they are doing now is grabbing money now and securing a future supply of graft and corruption. This is the farm bill. Get us some pitchforks!

Old Country Boy on June 19, 2013 at 12:36 PM

This is the farm bill. Get us some pitchforks!

Old Country Boy on June 19, 2013 at 12:36 PM

Can’t we all just get along?…./
Really – since the bill isn’t expensive enough for Obumble, how about they add a few million more for me to NOT grow any crops?
I promise – if they give me a few million I’ll kill off the pepper plant I just planted and I won’t grow anything else….

That’s all I need, that and my chair, that’s all I need, and my lamp – and a bamaphone….

dentarthurdent on June 19, 2013 at 5:06 PM

I believe the best concept for able bodied people (men, womyn, libruls, artists) is “work or die.”

Old Country Boy on June 20, 2013 at 12:54 PM

Comment pages: 1 2