66gardeners
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2013
- Messages
- 1,651
- Reaction score
- 418
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
66gardeners;1061843032 [U said:[/U]Welfare for Me - But Not for Thee!
Well I am glad you finally learned the democratic motto.
This message not sent from an Obamaphone
Didn't that program actually start under Reagan? :lamo
Did cellphones exist when Reagan was President? :2wave:
He led the charge to allow Alzheimer's to be the standard Republican performance mantra. You know, screw 'em all, just gimme mine. And the 1% was born.
Actually it was Lincoln.Didn't that program actually start under Reagan? :lamo
He led the charge to allow Alzheimer's to be the standard Republican performance mantra. You know, screw 'em all, just gimme mine. And the 1% was born.
The 1% has existed since the dawn of civilization. Stop saying stupid crap.
House Agriculture Committee Republicans who vocally supported billions in cuts to federal food assistance are big-time recipients of government help in the form of farm subsidies. Reps. Stephen Fincher (R-Tenn.) and Doug LaMalfa (R-Calif.) both cited the Bible last week to argue that while individual Christians have a responsibility to feed the poor, the federal government does not. "We're all here on this committee making decisions about other people's money," Fincher said. LaMalfa said that while it's nice for politicians to boast about how they've helped their constituents, "That's all someone else's money."
Yet both men's farms have received millions in federal assistance, according to the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit that advocates for more conservation and fewer subsidies. LaMalfa's family rice farm has received more than $5 million in commodity subsidies since 1995, according to the group's analysis of data from the U.S. Agriculture Department. Fincher's farm has received more than $3 million in that time. Last year alone, Fincher's farm received $70,574 and LaMalfa's got $188,570.
Spokespeople for the congressmen did not respond to requests for comment, but both LaMalfa and Fincher have defended their right to receive subsidies in the past when challenged by conservatives during primary elections. LaMalfa told a California paper that the subsidy system is needed to keep struggling farmers "on life support."
Fincher has said his farm would have shut down without the subsidies, which he argued protect American farmers from more heavily subsidized foreign competition. "We would be all for not having government in our business," Fincher told the Washington Post in 2010, "but we need a fair system." The federal government's complex system of farm subsidies is supposed to shield farmers from some of the uncertainties inherent to the industry, but critics like the Environmental Working Group say the safety net unfairly benefits the biggest farms at the expense of smaller ones.
"Fincher's $70,000 farm subsidy haul in 2012 dwarfs the average 2012 SNAP benefit in Tennessee of $1,586.40, and it is nearly double of Tennessee's median household income," Carr wrote in a blog on The Huffington Post. "After voting to cut SNAP by more than $20 billion, Fincher joined his colleagues to support a proposal to expand crop insurance subsidies by $9 billion over the next 10 years."
Food Stamp Cuts Backed By Farm Subsidy Beneficiaries
Welfare for Me - But Not for Thee!
Are you implying a long term conspiracy to empower the 1%? Continuous power in the familial hands? Who's hands?
People at the top of a power structure isnt anything new. Its existed as long as there has been a power structure. Nor did I say it passes evenly from one hand to the next. Not everything is a conspiracy.
Having a boogey man to blame everything on doesnt even resemble critical thinking. It resembles a way of alleviating yourself of finding ways to better your own life.
Did cellphones exist when Reagan was President? :2wave:
No, but telephones did. The switch to cell phones from landlines under this program happened under Bush. I guess Republicans do support entitlements!
You imply that everyone should want to participate in a systematic plunder of the planet and measure their success in dollars/pesos/euros/yen etc. Some want to participate in the greening of the planet and that is not compatible with contemporary corporatism on this planet.
Except the 1% control that movement, too. Check Al Gore's net worth, it tells a story of green investment and corporatism that coincides remarkably with what you say you're against.
I didn't say anything about Al Gore. You did.
You imply that everyone should want to participate in a systematic plunder of the planet and measure their success in dollars/pesos/euros/yen etc. Some want to participate in the greening of the planet and that is not compatible with contemporary corporatism on this planet.
I didn't say anything about Al Gore. You did.
"Greening the planet" leads to a 1% as well, just a different one and not one that is particularly as concerned about greening the planet as greening their bank accounts.
That's a rationale and rationales are not the result of logic and facts, just rationalizations. Poor practice and the fodder of the intellectual impersonators, or so I have been told, eh?
That's a rationale and rationales are not the result of logic and facts, just rationalizations. Poor practice and the fodder of the intellectual impersonators, or so I have been told, eh?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?