White House threatens to veto House version of farm bill

Jun 17, 2013 Read more: USA Today 14

The White House is threatening to veto the House version of a five-year farm bill, saying that its proposed cuts to the food stamp program will leave some Americans hungry.

Read more
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#1 Jun 18, 2013
House members have filed more than 200 amendments to the bill, which is expected to come to the floor later this week.

That's what's wrong with it.

They know their POS "amendments" would never pass by themselves.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#2 Jun 18, 2013
To counteract riders, 43 of the 50 U.S. states have provisions in their state constitutions allowing the use of line item vetos so that the executive can veto single objectionable items within a bill, without affecting the main purpose or effectiveness of the bill. In addition, the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 was passed to allow the President of the United States to veto single objectionable items within bills passed by Congress, but the Supreme Court struck down the act as unconstitutional in Clinton v. City of New York.

Riders are often completely irrelevant to the bill they are attached and are commonly used to introduce unpopular provisions. For example, a rider to stop net neutrality was attached to a bill relating to military and veteran construction projects.

In Canada, because of the rigid system of party control both in the federal Parliament and in provincial legislatures, the use of riders is rare. Furthermore, Canadian convention prohibits anyone other than a Minister from proposing a bill or an amendment to a bill that would require the government to spend money ("money bill").

The Constitutional Council of France has taken an increasingly hard view against riders, which it considers unconstitutional and contrary to the rules of procedure of the parliamentary assemblies. In 1985 the Council started striking down amendment to laws because they were unrelated to the subject of the law. Two special categories of riders merit mention: the "budgetary riders", attached to budget bills, and "social riders", attached to the budget bill for social security organizations,: clauses that have no link to the budget or to the social security budgets, respectively.

In some legislative systems, such as the British Parliament, riders are prevented by the existence of the long title of a bill that describes the full purpose of the bill. Any part of the bill that falls outside the scope of the long title would not be permitted. However, legislators often bypass this limitation by naming a bill vaguely, such as by appending "and for connected purposes" to the name.

In 2005, the Constitutional Court of Hungary struck down the yearly national budget law in its entirety, because almost half of the paragraphs were not related to state fiscals at all, but modified 44 other existing pieces of legislation, which concerned health regulations, public education and foreign relations. This judicial ruling restricted the government's future options in bypassing due parliamentary debate and imposing certain reforms unilaterally.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#3 Jun 18, 2013
Last week, Congress and the president managed to avoid a government shutdown with a continuing resolution that funds the federal government for the next six months.

Unbeknownst to most lawmakers, a last-minute rider, nicknamed the "Monsanto Protection Act," found its way, anonymously, into the continuing resolution before President Obama signed it last Tuesday.

Senator Jon Tester, Democrat from Montana, was outraged. "These provisions are giveaways worth millions of dollars to a handful of the biggest corporations in this country and deserve no place in this bill," he said.

As Tom Philpott, food and agriculture correspondent for Mother Jones, explains, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has to approve genetically-modified crops before companies could sell the seeds to farmers. In 2008 and 2009, the Center for Food Safety, along with other environmental groups, sued the USDA in federal court, claiming that the USDA approved two genetically engineered crops without a detailed environmental impact statement.

The Center for Food Safety won the suit in both cases, but the rider on this year's continuing resolution would bar environmental groups from suing the USDA for these purposes.

We will never know who attached this to the bill.

Monsanto?

The paperboy?

A bought and paid for politician?

"These provisions are giveaways worth millions of dollars to a handful of the biggest corporations in this country and deserve no place in this bill,"

Exactly.

“Open your eyes”

Since: Sep 09

Central Florida

#5 Jun 18, 2013
Has the President veto'd anything? Nope. You put something in front of the guy and he will rubber stamp it.

The WH said the same shit with the NDAA. I remember Obama saying publicly that if the NDAA included Americans that he would veto it. Made it very well known that is what he was going to do. But, behind the scenes the WH was pushing for language to be changed so that it DID include Americans. And SURPRISE!!!!! He signed it into law.

Or how about a young 2008 Obama who was against GMO foods. Saying the people had a right to know what was in their food. What happened? Oh yeah, signed a law that gave Monsanto (who is banned in Europe) immunity from prosecution for GMO crops.

So all you Obamabots out there. Just because the guy says it, it does not mean a damn thing. Everything you could hate about the farm bill will become law. Why? Because the guy is bought and paid for. He does not represent you, he represent multi-national corporations that give him $$$$$$$$$.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#7 Jun 18, 2013
Kahoki wrote:
Has the President veto'd anything? Nope. You put something in front of the guy and he will rubber stamp it.
The WH said the same shit with the NDAA. I remember Obama saying publicly that if the NDAA included Americans that he would veto it. Made it very well known that is what he was going to do. But, behind the scenes the WH was pushing for language to be changed so that it DID include Americans. And SURPRISE!!!!! He signed it into law.
Or how about a young 2008 Obama who was against GMO foods. Saying the people had a right to know what was in their food. What happened? Oh yeah, signed a law that gave Monsanto (who is banned in Europe) immunity from prosecution for GMO crops.
So all you Obamabots out there. Just because the guy says it, it does not mean a damn thing. Everything you could hate about the farm bill will become law. Why? Because the guy is bought and paid for. He does not represent you, he represent multi-national corporations that give him $$$$$$$$$.
"Congress and the president managed to avoid a government shutdown with a continuing resolution that funds the federal government for the next six months".

"Unbeknownst to most lawmakers, a last-minute rider, nicknamed the "Monsanto Protection Act," found its way, ANONYMOUSLY, into the continuing resolution before President Obama signed it last Tuesday".

See post #2 above.

I do agree with the rest.

Obama is a good republican.

“Open your eyes”

Since: Sep 09

Central Florida

#8 Jun 18, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>

"Unbeknownst to most lawmakers, a last-minute rider, nicknamed the "Monsanto Protection Act," found its way, ANONYMOUSLY, into the continuing resolution before President Obama signed it last Tuesday".
See post #2 above.
I do agree with the rest.
Obama is a good republican.
So..........he signed documentation without knowing what was in it..........

Yeah, that's smart.

So it goes back to what I said. He will sign and rubber stamp anything that is put in front of him.

So in other words, he is an idiot.

Can't pass blame for someone doing something stupid. Like all of those people who signed interest ballooning loans for houses while not understanding what they were getting into.

What's the old saying? Always read the fine print.

“Open your eyes”

Since: Sep 09

Central Florida

#9 Jun 18, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>

"Unbeknownst to most lawmakers, a last-minute rider, nicknamed the "Monsanto Protection Act," found its way, ANONYMOUSLY, into the continuing resolution before President Obama signed it last Tuesday".
Can we say Ron Burgundy. Go F yourself San Diego.

Exact same thing.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#11 Jun 18, 2013
Kahoki wrote:
<quoted text>
So..........he signed documentation without knowing what was in it..........
Yeah, that's smart.
So it goes back to what I said. He will sign and rubber stamp anything that is put in front of him.
So in other words, he is an idiot.
Can't pass blame for someone doing something stupid. Like all of those people who signed interest ballooning loans for houses while not understanding what they were getting into.
What's the old saying? Always read the fine print.
Maybe he did know what was in it.

So he should have shut down the government?

We should be able to identify the scum that puts crap into bills.

Congress should be able to call these people out.

OR, they just won't.

It would be removed in hours.

“Open your eyes”

Since: Sep 09

Central Florida

#12 Jun 18, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe he did know what was in it.
So he should have shut down the government?
We should be able to identify the scum that puts crap into bills.
Congress should be able to call these people out.
OR, they just won't.
It would be removed in hours.
I am along the lines of he knew exactly what was in it. And the perfect example of it is the NDAA. Same thing.

And yes, if he opposed, shut it down. That would have called upon the people to raise up and start asking serious questions. Instead of all of the people standing up, only a portion is.

Then they can deflect that portion back into the argument of R versus D.

It's a disgusting game.

But, it is another perfect example of how nobody up there has any true principles anymore. They are all corrupt. Both sides.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#13 Jun 18, 2013
Kahoki wrote:
<quoted text>
I am along the lines of he knew exactly what was in it. And the perfect example of it is the NDAA. Same thing.
And yes, if he opposed, shut it down. That would have called upon the people to raise up and start asking serious questions. Instead of all of the people standing up, only a portion is.
Then they can deflect that portion back into the argument of R versus D.
It's a disgusting game.
But, it is another perfect example of how nobody up there has any true principles anymore. They are all corrupt. Both sides.
The NDAA includes money for our armed forces.

Only congress can "shut it down".

The Act authorizes $662 billion in funding, among other things "for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad." In a signing statement, President Obama described the Act as addressing national security programs, Department of Defense health care costs, counter-terrorism within the U.S. and abroad, and military modernization. The Act also imposes new economic sanctions against Iran (section 1045), commissions appraisals of the military capabilities of countries such as Iran, China, and Russia, and refocuses the strategic goals of NATO towards "energy security." The Act also increases pay and healthcare costs for military service members and gives governors the ability to request the help of military reservists in the event of a hurricane, earthquake, flood, terrorist attack or other disaster.

Who do you suppose put all that crap in there?
Far Away

Anchorage, AK

#14 Jun 18, 2013
No one in this country would ever--EVER--go hungry for lack of a food stamp. There are too many charitable organizations for that to happen. Scale it back, BIG-TIME!
Billy Ringo

Forest Hills, NY

#15 Jun 18, 2013
Far Away wrote:
No one in this country would ever--EVER--go hungry for lack of a food stamp. There are too many charitable organizations for that to happen. Scale it back, BIG-TIME!
Elections have consequences. If you can't win the election .....

TS..........
See the Light

El Paso, TX

#16 Jun 18, 2013
Since Obama came to office(45million Americans on FoodStamps) some people really need them, others to darn lazy to work, and then there's all the illegals from Mexico whom Obama asked to come over.Obama's bankrupting this Country fast and that is is plan, sadly.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#18 Jun 19, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
House members have filed more than 200 amendments to the bill, which is expected to come to the floor later this week.
That's what's wrong with it.
They know their POS "amendments" would never pass by themselves.
Obama threatens to veto many bills, but Harry Reid won't bring to the floor for an up or down vote, so Obama won't have to take a real stand and veto it or take the chance to have it over ridden.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Republican Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 1 min Ari son of Anarchy 178,121
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 9 min Subduction Zone 159,598
News Thought We had a Deal: Iran leaders blast Us, m... 22 min woodtick57 241
News Which presidential hopefuls would attend a gay ... 27 min Lawrence Wolf 68
News Race motive seen in delay to vote in Loretta Ly... 1 hr DRX 27
News Sharpton expected to preach, attend shooting vi... 1 hr barefoot2626 20
News U.S. corporations pressure two states accused o... 1 hr doty 788
More from around the web