Area Farmers React to SNAP Being Left Out of Farm Bill

Full story: NBC29 Charlottesville

Kyle Gardiner helps families supported by the SNAP program buy groceries at the Charlottesville Farmer's Market through the non-profit market central.
Comments
1 - 20 of 62 Comments Last updated Jul 22, 2013
First Prev
of 4
Next Last
Bubbles

Charlottesville, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Jul 13, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

3

This article calls the SNAP program to be costly. It's so costly it's not even mentioned in this article how much it cost? Sounds like selfish Republicans hard at work. I spend $10 a week with my SNAP card at the Farmer's Market. When I have the cash, I will spend that at the Market as well. Using the funds for the local market is better than using a chain grocery store. The grocery chains are after the money generated by using the cards and as a collective it's big bucks, but their food and goods are generally not the best this area has to offer.

Since: Oct 12

Nashville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Jul 13, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

And the Revolution draws nearer...
GCV

Charlottesville, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Jul 13, 2013
 

Judged:

7

4

4

Don't worry, I'm still buying your food. They just want to get SNAP out of the farm bill and on it's own, as it should be. With snap the farm bill would have been $940 BILLION, taking it out leaves the farm bill with $196 billion. I'll keep working and you keep stuffing your face, nothing will change.
Soledad

Charlottesville, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Jul 13, 2013
 

Judged:

6

4

4

GCV wrote:
Don't worry, I'm still buying your food. They just want to get SNAP out of the farm bill and on it's own, as it should be. With snap the farm bill would have been $940 BILLION, taking it out leaves the farm bill with $196 billion. I'll keep working and you keep stuffing your face, nothing will change.
Wow angry much! You do realize that SNAP helps veterans and their families along with helping to feed the hungry children of Virginia? BTW they are not "stuffing their faces" on SNAP, they are EATING vital nutrients especially when they buy from local farmers!

“Don't Drink The Obama Kool-Aid”

Since: Aug 09

You don't need to know, Va.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Jul 13, 2013
 

Judged:

7

6

3

From the article,"Some farmers say that would hurt people who rely on food stamps to buy farm fresh products."

If these people are so poor that they have to rely on food stamps, why are they not growing their own food?

When I was growing up,(extremely poor I might add)I spent my summer vacation working in our family's vegetable and fruit garden. My Dad feed 5 kids from this garden and NEVER sought Gub'mint assistance.

I guess the adults of today are too lazy to even bother with a vegetable garden. And before you stupid liberals start in with the poor not having enough ground to grow a garden, ask yourself WHY we as taxpayers are paying to have the grass cut around the complexes in which the poor live.
Bubbles

Charlottesville, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Jul 13, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

3

Im Ya Huckleberry wrote:
From the article,"Some farmers say that would hurt people who rely on food stamps to buy farm fresh products."
If these people are so poor that they have to rely on food stamps, why are they not growing their own food?
When I was growing up,(extremely poor I might add)I spent my summer vacation working in our family's vegetable and fruit garden. My Dad feed 5 kids from this garden and NEVER sought Gub'mint assistance.
I guess the adults of today are too lazy to even bother with a vegetable garden. And before you stupid liberals start in with the poor not having enough ground to grow a garden, ask yourself WHY we as taxpayers are paying to have the grass cut around the complexes in which the poor live.
Actually, plants and seeds can be purchased with SNAP cards so the user can choose to grow their own food. There are many responsible people using SNAP to produce their own.
huck

Charlottesville, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Jul 13, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

2

Im Ya Huckleberry wrote:
I guess the adults of today are too lazy to even bother with a vegetable garden.
lazy, lazy, lazy
get out and water from your high rise project in december
frmr

Meadows Of Dan, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Jul 13, 2013
 

Judged:

6

4

3

Last year I heard a presentation by a person in charge of a farmer's market in a county close by. She was telling us about the grant they had received that allowed them to have the machines so people with SNAP and EBT cards could have the fresh produce. I agree that is a wonderful idea. However, she was over the moon because their group had figured a way to double whatever the SNAP and EBT card users spent. If they spent $10 in SNAP, they could get another $10 worth of products free. Cash buyers did not get matching amounts. That seems to punish the people who are able to pay for their own food. Didn't seem quite right to me.
cvillemom

Rustburg, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Jul 13, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

5

The SNAP program was merely separated from the Farm Bill, it wasn't defunded, for crying out loud. The two items should have never been linked together in the first place. The reason that they were historically joined in one piece of legislation was to get more support for both issues, rather than have to get sufficient support from either issue based solely on its own merits. Congress has been doing this for many years, and that is how we end up funding a lot of pork that wouldn't otherwise get funded - they just tack it on to some bill that has popular support.
No one is going to starve, no one who is truly needy will lose their food stamps. So all the Chicken Littles can stop crying that the sky is falling just because the liberal Dems have told you to panic. I see the separation of the two items as the beginning of a trend which will cut our spending on frivolous items and force sponsors of legislation to justify funding each and every project. That's the way it should be if we are going to get our spending under control.
huck

Charlottesville, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Jul 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

cvillemom wrote:
The SNAP program was merely separated from the Farm Bill, it wasn't defunded, for crying out loud. The two items should have never been linked together in the first place. The reason that they were historically joined in one piece of legislation was to get more support for both issues, rather than have to get sufficient support from either issue based solely on its own merits. Congress has been doing this for many years, and that is how we end up funding a lot of pork that wouldn't otherwise get funded - they just tack it on to some bill that has popular support.
No one is going to starve, no one who is truly needy will lose their food stamps. So all the Chicken Littles can stop crying that the sky is falling just because the liberal Dems have told you to panic. I see the separation of the two items as the beginning of a trend which will cut our spending on frivolous items and force sponsors of legislation to justify funding each and every project. That's the way it should be if we are going to get our spending under control.
Iagree it never should have been part of the farm bill (southern farmers wanted it this way), but dems are rightly concerned that the GOP wants to separate this just so they can severely cut back on food stamps. No question about it.
Meanwhile, the GOP continues to pass legislation to benefit big ag who pays for their votes by throwing in this little tidbit:
" $9 billion increase in crop insurance programs that would protect farms against not only natural disasters but also inconvenient market movements at a time when U.S. agriculture is enjoying record profits."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-ho...
Ibattp

Charlottesville, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Jul 13, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

cvillemom wrote:
The SNAP program was merely separated from the Farm Bill, it wasn't defunded, for crying out loud. The two items should have never been linked together in the first place. The reason that they were historically joined in one piece of legislation was to get more support for both issues, rather than have to get sufficient support from either issue based solely on its own merits. Congress has been doing this for many years, and that is how we end up funding a lot of pork that wouldn't otherwise get funded - they just tack it on to some bill that has popular support.
No one is going to starve, no one who is truly needy will lose their food stamps. So all the Chicken Littles can stop crying that the sky is falling just because the liberal Dems have told you to panic. I see the separation of the two items as the beginning of a trend which will cut our spending on frivolous items and force sponsors of legislation to justify funding each and every project. That's the way it should be if we are going to get our spending under control.
This is the most correct statement I have seen on this site. You have hit the nail on the head. One of things that I have read is that once a person qualified for what ever help the next place they are steered in Charlottesville is to the food stamp office. No wonder the cost of this program has doubled over the past 5 years.
cvillemom

Rustburg, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Jul 13, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

huck wrote:
<quoted text>
"....at a time when U.S. agriculture is enjoying record profits."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-ho...
Huck, the Wash Post needs to clarify that statement. I personally do not know of any farmers that are getting filthy rich, either here in Virginia or in the Midwest where most of my extended family farms. Are they talking about the wealth to be had on the futures market? ConAgra? the huge corporate farms? or the family farmer? "U.S. agriculture" is composed of many entities, and not all entities see equal returns on their investments. The article you quote is an Opinion piece, and may not be completely factual in its arguments.
Personally, I don't like the whole concept of subsidies. However, I also understand why market stability is desirable economically. And as far as crop insurance, well, let's just say that any business should be able to buy insurance to protect its investments in the event of natural disasters so that one storm doesn't shut you down permanently. Last year when there was record drought throughout the farm belt, many farmers would have gone under if their crops hadn't been insured. That would have affected not only last year's crops and the food supply, but the food supply for years' to come. Besides, supporting farmers is one of the best economic stimulus programs - give a farmer a dollar, and he will always spend two!

P.S. The definition of a farmer: a man who feeds the world in exchange for enough money to starve his family.
Keeping em straight

Crozet, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Jul 13, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Food Stamps, let's call it what it really is, is a bloated, mis managed, mis used waste of hard working tax payers money. By separating it we create a whole nother departmaent for Osama bin Obama to bloat with cronies and fakes and claim more false jobs created.So by moving it out of the already bloated farm bill the Re-dumbicans are playing right into the Dumbocrats poker hand. The game they are playing is called who will bankrupt America first...
hondacivic

Staunton, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Jul 13, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

cvillemom wrote:
<quoted text>
Huck, the Wash Post needs to clarify that statement. I personally do not know of any farmers that are getting filthy rich, either here in Virginia or in the Midwest where most of my extended family farms. Are they talking about the wealth to be had on the futures market? ConAgra? the huge corporate farms? or the family farmer? "U.S. agriculture" is composed of many entities, and not all entities see equal returns on their investments. The article you quote is an Opinion piece, and may not be completely factual in its arguments.
Personally, I don't like the whole concept of subsidies. However, I also understand why market stability is desirable economically. And as far as crop insurance, well, let's just say that any business should be able to buy insurance to protect its investments in the event of natural disasters so that one storm doesn't shut you down permanently. Last year when there was record drought throughout the farm belt, many farmers would have gone under if their crops hadn't been insured. That would have affected not only last year's crops and the food supply, but the food supply for years' to come. Besides, supporting farmers is one of the best economic stimulus programs - give a farmer a dollar, and he will always spend two!
P.S. The definition of a farmer: a man who feeds the world in exchange for enough money to starve his family.
Seperating the SNAP program out of the Farm Bill has one purpose. To try and kill the program. The GOP pushed by the Tea Party would love to get rid of all social programs. They truely hate the poor with their "I got mine" attitude. They have successfully pushed their "the poor are lazy and don't deserve anything". There is no way that any funding for the SNAP program will ever come out of the House. The food stamp program is one of the most successful programs to help the poor.

The subsidies for farmers are to farmers who's income is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and some are getting money to plant absolutely nothing. Crop insurance not only protects farmers from natural disasters, it also gives farmers automatic prices for their crops and diary products. If the prices drop below certain prices, the government pays the difference to the farmers.

If you really think that the House will come up and approve funding for the SNAP program, all you need to do is look at the previous farm bill that failed last month. The House's bill that failed was about 5 times the amount of cuts over the Senate's cuts. Most of the Tea Party reject it because it didn't cut enough. The reason it failed was the amendment added to the bill from Rep.Steve Sutherland from Florida. His amendment put a work requirement on the Food Stamp program. It gave the states the ability to kick people off food stamps who don't work a minimum of 20 hours per week, including the disabled or even if the person can't find a job. So why would a state do that if it is federal money? Because the state gets to keep a share of the money that is saved. You don't think that greedy states wouldn't kick people off of food stamps left and right so they can keep the money? Another Congressman, Stephen Fincher, from Tennessee voted for the cuts. Yet he has received almost $3.5 million in farm subsidies. He has also given speeches stating "the poor will always be among us" and "if you don't work, you don't eat".
George S

Birmingham, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Jul 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Soledad wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow angry much! You do realize that SNAP helps veterans and their families along with helping to feed the hungry children of Virginia? BTW they are not "stuffing their faces" on SNAP, they are EATING vital nutrients especially when they buy from local farmers!
The point is that the farm bill and SNAP are glued together when they should be seperate.

There is sense in people going hungry, simply because SNAP is stuck inside of another program.
huck

Charlottesville, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Jul 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

cvillemom wrote:
<quoted text>
Are they talking about the wealth to be had on the futures market? ConAgra? the huge corporate farms?
of course, who do you think elects them?
$$$ buys votes
G Luv

Charlottesville, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Jul 14, 2013
 
cvillemom wrote:
<quoted text>
Huck, the Wash Post needs to clarify that statement. I personally do not know of any farmers that are getting filthy rich, either here in Virginia or in the Midwest where most of my extended family farms. Are they talking about the wealth to be had on the futures market? ConAgra? the huge corporate farms? or the family farmer? "U.S. agriculture" is composed of many entities, and not all entities see equal returns on their investments. The article you quote is an Opinion piece, and may not be completely factual in its arguments.
Personally, I don't like the whole concept of subsidies. However, I also understand why market stability is desirable economically. And as far as crop insurance, well, let's just say that any business should be able to buy insurance to protect its investments in the event of natural disasters so that one storm doesn't shut you down permanently. Last year when there was record drought throughout the farm belt, many farmers would have gone under if their crops hadn't been insured. That would have affected not only last year's crops and the food supply, but the food supply for years' to come. Besides, supporting farmers is one of the best economic stimulus programs - give a farmer a dollar, and he will always spend two!
P.S. The definition of a farmer: a man who feeds the world in exchange for enough money to starve his family.
Chuckle. Bashing 'liberal spending' on the one hand. Other one outstretched for government funds.

“Don't Drink The Obama Kool-Aid”

Since: Aug 09

You don't need to know, Va.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Jul 14, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

hondacivic wrote:
<quoted text>
He has also given speeches stating "the poor will always be among us" and "if you don't work, you don't eat".
You really don't get it do you? When you give a man a fish, he eats for the day. When you teach a man to fish he eats for a lifetime. The problem with all these food giveaways without a work requirement is that it robs a man of the dignity of providing for his family.
The Dude

Bumpass, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Jul 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

G Luv wrote:
<quoted text>
Chuckle. Bashing 'liberal spending' on the one hand. Other one outstretched for government funds.
YOu noticed that, too, eh?
The Dude

Bumpass, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Jul 14, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Im Ya Huckleberry wrote:
<quoted text>You really don't get it do you? When you give a man a fish, he eats for the day. When you teach a man to fish he eats for a lifetime. The problem with all these food giveaways without a work requirement is that it robs a man of the dignity of providing for his family.
The vast majority(97%)of people on food stamps are seniors(8%), minors (41%), or actually work (47%).

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/...

Why is it that BigAg, National Association of Convenience Store Operators, and the National Restaurant Association are the biggest lobbies FOR food stamps?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Food Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Why do I often crave eating clay? (Jan '09) 2 hr crazy 4 stuff 8,030
Wally's Frozen Custard in St. Clair Shores (Feb '14) 6 hr SCS Dairy Queen 170
Poland asks US to buy apples banned by Russia 7 hr Odin of Ossetia 23
George Martin's Grillfire opens Monday in Syosset 9 hr Neil Farbstein 1
Buffalo wings turn 50 with a hot and saucy fest... 9 hr Gaelic Parm wings... 1
Webkinz Clothing Machine Recipes (Oct '09) 11 hr baby177536 472
Video: Old Greenwich Farmer's Market Helps Feed... 12 hr eric 1

Search the Food Forum:
•••