• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Spendin on the poor in need BAD - spending on rich in homes GOOD

Our government has been paying farmers not to produce for decades now. This is nothing new. Back in the 60's, one of my uncles closed his dairy farm, because he was subsidized by the government to do so. It sucks, and there is no way in hell I can agree with it as a legitimate government function, but this has been happening as a means to control ag prices for many years now. It frankly has nothing to do with the poor in need.
 
That is a 2006 article. I think they ended that soil bank check program after it was revealed that a lot of rich people like either Tom Brokow or Ted Koppel were getting subsidies--I think it was Ted.
 
http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/agriculture/subsidies

Both parties are guilty. Democrat voters too often allow themselves to be played for suckers. Republicans crumble under the pressure of the farm lobbies because they depend on support from social conservatives and there is a lot of crossover. Maybe a libertarian party could achieve something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom