Ski Iowa

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Vote for me and Farmers will have to work for a living again.

I'd like you to try to say that straight to a farmer's face. They work 10X harder than you've ever thought of working.

You call being on the government dole hard work???

:laugh:

Have you ever worked on a farm? Obviously you haven't. Farmers work atleast 10X harder than you've ever worked in your life. You are one miserable POS if you think Farmers don't work hard for the little reward they get.

Yup, paying mexicans is "hard work."

:laugh: I love how the extreme leftists here seem to think that farming is easy. I'd love to see them try a week or two on a farm.
You people are hilarious.

Haha far left. I'm sure your support of farm subsides would make your old buddy karl marx proud. Nothing like paying people money based on how "hard" they work instead of what a free market will support.

The fact of the matter is that farmers are not getting enough from their crops to survive, thus requiring subsidies. Large companies that farm huge amounts of land have less need of these (as they are able to drive their costs much lower through mass production), but they still get the same amount (meaning they get larger profits and most small farms can't even survive).

So what if a few small farms go under. Cry me a river businesses go under ever day why should I support small farmers? And massive farmers

Yeah, and then who cares about the small towns destroyed, and who cares about the small farm dealers who have these farmers as their customers, who cares about the small repair businesses that service their equipment. Who cares that corporate farming will take over and dictate everything. Yeah, who cares :roll:

I know I don't care about some piss ant town in the middle of Iowa that is collective on the dole. Cleary you don't support the free market unless the free market is in an area that doesn't hit close to home. Corporations control everything else why not farming?

Clearly you not only can not read, you don't understand Farming or farm subsidies. I don't support subsidies, never have but you can't just pull the rug out from under a whole industry like that and expect things to be fine. It'll cause massive problems throughout our economy, not just the "piss ant town". Please present your plan for removing subsidies from farming without saying to just cut them because it's unrealistic.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey


Clearly you not only can not read, you don't understand Farming or farm subsidies. I don't support subsidies, never have but you can't just pull the rug out from under a whole industry like that and expect things to be fine. It'll cause massive problems throughout our economy, not just the "piss ant town". Please present your plan for removing subsidies from farming without saying to just cut them because it's unrealistic.

Do a 5 year phase out. There plan stated. Not that I think you would accept any plan.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey


Clearly you not only can not read, you don't understand Farming or farm subsidies. I don't support subsidies, never have but you can't just pull the rug out from under a whole industry like that and expect things to be fine. It'll cause massive problems throughout our economy, not just the "piss ant town". Please present your plan for removing subsidies from farming without saying to just cut them because it's unrealistic.

Do a 5 year phase out. There plan stated. Not that I think you would accept any plan.

Phase out? How? It's obvious it would need to be phased out if you trying to get rid of them. But I guess I'm not surprised you don't have a clue about how to phase them out because from what I've seen, you don't have a clue what they are even.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey


Clearly you not only can not read, you don't understand Farming or farm subsidies. I don't support subsidies, never have but you can't just pull the rug out from under a whole industry like that and expect things to be fine. It'll cause massive problems throughout our economy, not just the "piss ant town". Please present your plan for removing subsidies from farming without saying to just cut them because it's unrealistic.

Do a 5 year phase out. There plan stated. Not that I think you would accept any plan.

Phase out? How? It's obvious it would need to be phased out if you trying to get rid of them. But I guess I'm not surprised you don't have a clue about how to phase them out because from what I've seen, you don't have a clue what they are even.

Ugh pay 80% one year 60% then next 40% the next then 20% then 0% is that good enogh for you?

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey


Clearly you not only can not read, you don't understand Farming or farm subsidies. I don't support subsidies, never have but you can't just pull the rug out from under a whole industry like that and expect things to be fine. It'll cause massive problems throughout our economy, not just the "piss ant town". Please present your plan for removing subsidies from farming without saying to just cut them because it's unrealistic.

Do a 5 year phase out. There plan stated. Not that I think you would accept any plan.

Phase out? How? It's obvious it would need to be phased out if you trying to get rid of them. But I guess I'm not surprised you don't have a clue about how to phase them out because from what I've seen, you don't have a clue what they are even.

Ugh pay 80% one year 60% then next 40% the next then 20% then 0% is that good enogh for you?

80% of what? Do you even know what farm subsidies consist of or how they work? Obviously not. :laugh:

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey


Clearly you not only can not read, you don't understand Farming or farm subsidies. I don't support subsidies, never have but you can't just pull the rug out from under a whole industry like that and expect things to be fine. It'll cause massive problems throughout our economy, not just the "piss ant town". Please present your plan for removing subsidies from farming without saying to just cut them because it's unrealistic.

Do a 5 year phase out. There plan stated. Not that I think you would accept any plan.

Phase out? How? It's obvious it would need to be phased out if you trying to get rid of them. But I guess I'm not surprised you don't have a clue about how to phase them out because from what I've seen, you don't have a clue what they are even.

Ugh pay 80% one year 60% then next 40% the next then 20% then 0% is that good enogh for you?

80% of what? Do you even know what farm subsidies consist of or how they work? Obviously not. :laugh:

80% of that ever is paid this year.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Vote for me and Farmers will have to work for a living again.

I'd like you to try to say that straight to a farmer's face. They work 10X harder than you've ever thought of working.

If he is getting Govt subsidies, I absolutely would say that to any of their faces.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Vote for me and Farmers will have to work for a living again.

Vote for you, and there won't be anymore farmers, only more corporations like ADM.

I'd appreciate it if you'd back up your statement by telling us about your farming experience.

The Country was built on farmers long before the Government gave them a free ride with subsidies.

 

[smack Down]

So, whats wrong with the plain to eliminate the subsides that you don't support. If my plan of cutting current funding by 20% a year isn't acceptable why not and what are your requirements for a plan to be succesfull?

 

[sixone]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Vote for me and Farmers will have to work for a living again.

I'd like you to try to say that straight to a farmer's face. They work 10X harder than you've ever thought of working.

If he is getting Govt subsidies, I absolutely would say that to any of their faces.

My husband gets gov't subsidies - and you wouldn't say that to his face. You have no idea how much he works - probably more than you do.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Vote for me and Farmers will have to work for a living again.

I'd like you to try to say that straight to a farmer's face. They work 10X harder than you've ever thought of working.

If he is getting Govt subsidies, I absolutely would say that to any of their faces.

My husband gets gov't subsidies - and you wouldn't say that to his face. You have no idea how much he works - probably more than you do.

I most certainly would. I don't care how "hard" he works.

Apparently not hard enough that he needs to suck on the Government tit.

I see no difference between farmers getting these subsidies Vs people like the low life's in New Orleans that never worked a day in their lives sucking the Govt tit.

This crap is not written in the Constitution.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Vote for me and Farmers will have to work for a living again.

I'd like you to try to say that straight to a farmer's face. They work 10X harder than you've ever thought of working.

If he is getting Govt subsidies, I absolutely would say that to any of their faces.

You better shy away from anyone in the Agriculture industry during your little Presidential run. :laugh:

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Vote for me and Farmers will have to work for a living again.

I'd like you to try to say that straight to a farmer's face. They work 10X harder than you've ever thought of working.

If he is getting Govt subsidies, I absolutely would say that to any of their faces.

You better shy away from anyone in the Agriculture industry during your little Presidential run. :laugh:

You should know better that I don't shy away from anyone.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: smack Down
So, whats wrong with the plain to eliminate the subsides that you don't support. If my plan of cutting current funding by 20% a year isn't acceptable why not and what are your requirements for a plan to be succesfull?

Do you know how subsidies work? Do you know what they consist of? Until you address that you won't know how silly your "plan" is. Sure, we could just cut funding to 80% but is that an across the board every program at 80%? or are only 80% of the programs going to be active? Again, until you show you understand what subsidies are and how they work, your little "plan" is worthless.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: smack Down
So, whats wrong with the plain to eliminate the subsides that you don't support. If my plan of cutting current funding by 20% a year isn't acceptable why not and what are your requirements for a plan to be succesfull?

Do you know how subsidies work? Do you know what they consist of? Until you address that you won't know how silly your "plan" is. Sure, we could just cut funding to 80% but is that an across the board every program at 80%? or are only 80% of the programs going to be active? Again, until you show you understand what subsidies are and how they work, your little "plan" is worthless.

80% of every program. Of course you already knew that and your just trolling. One doesn't need to know or care how subsides work because of the magic of precentages 80% will always be less then 100%.

 

[sixone]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Vote for me and Farmers will have to work for a living again.

Vote for you, and there won't be anymore farmers, only more corporations like ADM.

I'd appreciate it if you'd back up your statement by telling us about your farming experience.

The Country was built on farmers long before the Government gave them a free ride with subsidies.

It's no free ride - you're only demonstrating your own ignorance. When you have some knowledge in this area, please feel free to share.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Vote for me and Farmers will have to work for a living again.

Vote for you, and there won't be anymore farmers, only more corporations like ADM.

I'd appreciate it if you'd back up your statement by telling us about your farming experience.

The Country was built on farmers long before the Government gave them a free ride with subsidies.

It's no free ride - you're only demonstrating your own ignorance. When you have some knowledge in this area, please feel free to share.

It doesn't take knowledge in an area to know that when the goverment is providing subsidies are not earning there wages.

 

[sixone]

Originally posted by: smack Down
It doesn't take knowledge in an area to know that when the goverment is providing subsidies are not earning there wages.

Do you even know what it takes to get those subsidies paid by the gov't? My guess is no - impress me.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: smack Down
It doesn't take knowledge in an area to know that when the goverment is providing subsidies are not earning there wages.

Do you even know what it takes to get those subsidies paid by the gov't? My guess is no - impress me.

Like I said it doesn't matter. he didn't earn them.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: smack Down
So, whats wrong with the plain to eliminate the subsides that you don't support. If my plan of cutting current funding by 20% a year isn't acceptable why not and what are your requirements for a plan to be succesfull?

Do you know how subsidies work? Do you know what they consist of? Until you address that you won't know how silly your "plan" is. Sure, we could just cut funding to 80% but is that an across the board every program at 80%? or are only 80% of the programs going to be active? Again, until you show you understand what subsidies are and how they work, your little "plan" is worthless.

80% of every program. Of course you already knew that and your just trolling. One doesn't need to know or care how subsides work because of the magic of precentages 80% will always be less then 100%.

Yes you do, because subsidies aren't some big pool of money being dished out. Ofcourse you would understand this better if you even remotely understood subsidies. But since you don't, I'll let you think your little "plan" will work somehow.:laugh:

Maybe this will help you see that it's more complex than just some big pot of money that can be reduced.

 

[sixone]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: smack Down
It doesn't take knowledge in an area to know that when the goverment is providing subsidies are not earning there wages.

Do you even know what it takes to get those subsidies paid by the gov't? My guess is no - impress me.

Like I said it doesn't matter. he didn't earn them.

Well here's a newsflash for you - the subsidies are based on production - the more you produce, the more you get. Now you've learned something new today. Pray continue pretending to be an expert. :roll:

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: smack Down
It doesn't take knowledge in an area to know that when the goverment is providing subsidies are not earning there wages.

Do you even know what it takes to get those subsidies paid by the gov't? My guess is no - impress me.

Like I said it doesn't matter. he didn't earn them.

Well here's a newsflash for you - the subsidies are based on production - the more you produce, the more you get. Now you've learned something new today. Pray continue pretending to be an expert. :roll:

Yeah and welfare is based on how many kids you pump out. So are going to say they earned there welfare because they poped out 7 kids? No it doesn't matter. He didn't earn the money.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: smack Down
So, whats wrong with the plain to eliminate the subsides that you don't support. If my plan of cutting current funding by 20% a year isn't acceptable why not and what are your requirements for a plan to be succesfull?

Do you know how subsidies work? Do you know what they consist of? Until you address that you won't know how silly your "plan" is. Sure, we could just cut funding to 80% but is that an across the board every program at 80%? or are only 80% of the programs going to be active? Again, until you show you understand what subsidies are and how they work, your little "plan" is worthless.

80% of every program. Of course you already knew that and your just trolling. One doesn't need to know or care how subsides work because of the magic of precentages 80% will always be less then 100%.

Yes you do, because subsidies aren't some big pool of money being dished out. Ofcourse you would understand this better if you even remotely understood subsidies. But since you don't, I'll let you think your little "plan" will work somehow.:laugh:

Maybe this will help you see that it's more complex than just some big pot of money that can be reduced.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is required by law to subsidize over two dozen commodities. Between 1996 and 2002, an average of $16 billion/year was paid by programs authorized by federal legislation dating back to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, the Agricultural Act of 1949, and the CCC Charter Act of 1948, among others.

The beneficiaries of the subsidies have changed as U.S. agriculture changes. In the 1930s, about a quarter of the U.S. population resided on the nation's six million small farms. By 1997, 157,000 large farms accounted for 72% of farm sales, with only 2% of the U.S. population residing on farms.

Congress has made dozens of changes to the program over the years, as agricultural policy and the economy has changed. One of the more recent acts was the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, which is in effect until 2007.

Well that explained alot.

to quote Harvey
YOU'RE ALL MOUTH!

Would you like to give an example of a subsidity that you can't cut by 20%. I really don't care about welfare for corn farmers enough to go look them up. All you seem to want to do in this thread is protended you can't cut the welfare.

 

[sixone]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: smack Down
It doesn't take knowledge in an area to know that when the goverment is providing subsidies are not earning there wages.

Do you even know what it takes to get those subsidies paid by the gov't? My guess is no - impress me.

Like I said it doesn't matter. he didn't earn them.

Well here's a newsflash for you - the subsidies are based on production - the more you produce, the more you get. Now you've learned something new today. Pray continue pretending to be an expert. :roll:

Yeah and welfare is based on how many kids you pump out. So are going to say they earned there welfare because they poped out 7 kids? No it doesn't matter. He didn't earn the money.

According to the US government, he did.

Where the subsidies go is really irrelevant, anyway. The money will still be coming out of the consumer's pocket - either in taxes for subisidies or in higher prices for the products made from those commodities. If the subsidies are eliminated, those commodities can't be produced in America. Either the taxpayers fund subsidies, or everyone pays more for foreign products - which hurts low-income families much harder than increased taxes.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: smack Down
It doesn't take knowledge in an area to know that when the goverment is providing subsidies are not earning there wages.

Do you even know what it takes to get those subsidies paid by the gov't? My guess is no - impress me.

Like I said it doesn't matter. he didn't earn them.

Well here's a newsflash for you - the subsidies are based on production - the more you produce, the more you get. Now you've learned something new today. Pray continue pretending to be an expert. :roll:

Yeah and welfare is based on how many kids you pump out. So are going to say they earned there welfare because they poped out 7 kids? No it doesn't matter. He didn't earn the money.

According to the US government, he did.

Where the subsidies go is really irrelevant, anyway. The money will still be coming out of the consumer's pocket - either in taxes for subisidies or in higher prices for the products made from those commodities. If the subsidies are eliminated, those commodities can't be produced in America. Either the taxpayers fund subsidies, or everyone pays more for foreign products - which hurts low-income families much harder than increased taxes.

If the subsideses where to help the poor why not just increase food stamps? Then tax payers don't have to pay to grow massive amounts of corn no one wants.