Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was raised on a farm and believe me, when the government started interferring with farmers and their livlihoods, nobody was more pissed off about it than the farmers. You have NO CLUE!
Since farmers are PREVENTED from farming their own land the way they see fit, I see nothing wrong with taking subsidies. They didn't ask for them, they didn't want them, but since they were forced upon them, they had to do what it took to support their families.
Welfare subsidies, on the other hand, are given to those who refuse to support their families.
Huge difference, and one I wouldn't expect a brainless liberal to understand.
If that is the case, than why don't republicans raise the issue that farmers should be allowed to use the farm the way they see fit, instead of getting subsidies from the government. When the farm bill was being voted on earlier this summer, I didn't hear one farm lobbyist complain about the subsidies being given to them. At the end of the day, you guys are happy to give out massive welfare to farmers, but will whine when welfare is given to the poor. Hypocrites is all you are.
All is see on these threads is people talking the abuses of EBT cards for people on welfare, yet i never a see a republican whine about the massive subsidies given to farmers. Doesn't this sound a little hypocritical?
I usually vote Republican. But I would vote against farm subsidies if I had the chance. No one in Congress votes against farm subsidies. It is absurd to prop up produce prices.
I would also vote against oil and gas subsidies. And solar panel manufacturing. And loans to bailout automakers. And keeping military bases open that should be closed. But there is nothing more reliable than a Congress member voting to keep something that is in their district.
Why is food stamps in a farm bill, and why is like 80% of funding in the "Farm Bill" going to food stamps? Why not call it the Food Stamps Bill? Is it to hide the tens of millions of new poor people on food stamps, which illustrates the colossal failure of the president's economic policies?
BTW, Food Stamps is a program to help those people in the most dire of financial circumstances, to ensure they get enough food, so as not to starve. But like every government social welfare program, liberals keep expanding it to cover more and more, and more people, to buy votes.
Then, when costs for Food Stamps go over budget and services and funds are cut because of it, we end up harming the very people programs like Food Stamps were supposed to help. All to cater to the freeloaders the libs added to the program.
When will the left realize that expansion of these programs for the needy end up under-serving and harming the people they are intended to help?
the two were connected so they both could pass the house and senate. Urban democrats have no reason to support farm subsides and Rural republicans have no reason to support welfare for the poor, so to get it passed they merged the two. i notice how you also again do what republicans always do, rail against food stamps, but say nothing about the giveaways to farmers.
I usually vote Republican. But I would vote against farm subsidies if I had the chance. No one in Congress votes against farm subsidies. It is absurd to prop up produce prices.
I would also vote against oil and gas subsidies. And solar panel manufacturing. And loans to bailout automakers. And keeping military bases open that should be closed. But there is nothing more reliable than a Congress member voting to keep something that is in their district.
you are in the 1% percent of republicans who would vote against it. Everybody else seems to be ok with government money to farmers, but poor people, thats a no-no.
When are you liberals going to get your head out of your A__ and quit blindly following the Dem party ? You have no solutions to anything, just ***** about whatever the Republicans do or think. It's time to realize that BOTH parties are the same, none of the subsidies would exist if both parties didn't go along. Wake up and look at both sides of an issue instead of being so single minded. It amazes me that the blacks and low income people have been loyal to the Dems for 50+ years while they've done nothing for them but keep them down.
i am looking at both sides of the issue. Republicans hate welfare to poor people, but say nothing about welfare to farmers. I'm calling them hypocrites.
OP, you should watch the documentary called "Food, Inc." That film reinforces what Dale Cooper said here in post #8.
And there are lots of welfare recipients who are simply cheating the system. Able-bodied people who simply don't wanna work. A few months ago I saw a documentary filmed in a ghetto part of my city in which a bunch of grown men were just sitting around and one proudly flashed his foodstamp card, and he even had a disability card(!). If I find a link to that I'll post it.
and once again, republicans are talking about how awful it is to give subsidies to poor people, but you completely ignore the massive give away to wealthy farmers.
No, it doesn't. Farm subsidies are given to limit the crops that are grown. They are an economic strategy, not welfare.
It's like this. If a farmer could grow a crop worth $10,000 you tell him to only grow $5,000 worth of the crop and you'll give him the other $5,000. You do this because the US has lots and lots of highly productive farmland. If all the farmers squeezed all the production they could out of all of it, then prices would crash.
We learned this from cotton in the 1800s. The US was the world's supplier of cotton. Then the cotton gin was invented which allowed cotton production to skyrocket. The result was a crash of cotton prices with hundred of bales of cotton rotting away because supply started to far exceed demand. Once the price of cotton got so low, it took a huge plantation of it to make any money at it. The price per bale dropped so far that a small scale crop wouldn't produce enough profit to support the farmer growing it. We ended up ruining a profitable market that had been one of the main drivers of our economy. We killed the goose that laid the golden egg.
We are at this point with food. Agricultural science has advanced to a point where we have the capacity to produce more than the market demands at sustainable prices. So we subsidize farmers to leave portions of their land fallow in order that the overall market remains stable.
This is the conditions any business operates under, why should farms be different?
If the president's economic policies are a failure, why are we gaining jobs each month?
If we lose a million solid full time middle class jobs and then add a million and one part time minimum wage jobs running the cash register at McDonald's then partisans like you like to claim that as a resounding success for your policies. Sorry, but it doesn't work like that.
Quote:
It's ironic to hear a conservative call Obama's economic policies a failure.
It's not ironic, it's reality. Some Democrats like to pretend that the last 2 years of the Bush administration are the point from which economic history originated so that they can disingenuously claim that Republicans are the cause of all economic problems that exist. They also like to ignore the contributions to the economic collapse that the Democrats themselves made, and lay it all on Bush.
i am looking at both sides of the issue. Republicans hate welfare to poor people, but say nothing about welfare to farmers. I'm calling them hypocrites.
Democrats are not going to vote against farm subsidities; never have.
You know what is funny about this thread? Liberals are getting all huffy about Republicans helping the poorest Americans while taking issue with republicans for not (in their liberals fake world) being for programs that help the poorest Americans.
It’s surreal.
Farm subsidies help to keep food costs low.
Welfare as intended by liberals has proven to cause generational poverty.
Liberals are against the farm subsidies which actually help poor people climb out of poverty by limiting the percentage of their income that goes to feeding themselves, while at the same time support government programs that have PROVEN to cause people to get stuck in dependent cycles that last for multiple generations.
How sick can you be?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
