It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

GOPer Who Got Millions in Farm Subsidies Thinks the Poor Should Starve Rather Than Get Food Stamps

page: 7
43
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2013 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by roberthsiddelljr
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
 

Gov't should not provide aid to businesses but if TPTB do hand taxpayer money to a business, it should be a loan with interest. As for higher standards for welfare maggots than workers, I'd like to suggest some things to you that would get me kicked off this site but I'll just repeat the obvious: Most people would not be stupid enough to work if socialism paid more.


And people wouldn't need help if Capitalism paid more.




posted on May, 24 2013 @ 06:14 PM
link   
I found this commentary and felt it was appropriate


The correct answer for a Christian to give when asked, “Who bears the responsibility for doing charitable deeds?” is “I do.” Answers such as “the rich” or “society” are evasions of individual responsibility. It is not a Christian duty or prerogative to force others to join us in charitable endeavors. It is erroneous for us to suppose that we are doing God’s will by compelling or trying to compel others to do good deeds. We are accountable to God and we receive our heavenly reward for what we do, not for what we make others do. Paul teaches each of us to “work out [our] own salvation” (Phil. 2:12).



Eventually, we (meaning all Americans, not just Christians) need to dismantle the welfare state that is bankrupting our country. We should not, however, begin to balance the budget on the backs of the poor. Let us first eliminate the myriad federal programs that redistribute money to the rich and powerful. Using government force to redistribute wealth is never justifiable on biblical grounds, but the greater moral outrage is the obscene practice of what we economists call “rent-seeking,” whereby well-connected and well-funded special interests use the power of government to divert money into their own pockets.


catholiclane.com...



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


whereby well-connected and well-funded special interests use the power of government to divert money into their own pockets.

Yes. Exactly!!!
So
why do you defend 'special interests' that take jobs AWAY from Americans?



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 04:18 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 02:43 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


whereby well-connected and well-funded special interests use the power of government to divert money into their own pockets.

Yes. Exactly!!!
So
why do you defend 'special interests' that take jobs AWAY from Americans?



What special interest did I defend? If we listed everything in Washington that we support or don't support, I bet my list is shorter.

Let's see, if you were to get rid of lobbyists and special interests, would you get rid of La Raza and Maldef, seeing as how they are helping all those downtrodden illegals? No of course you wouldn't and I knew that in the first thread of yours I read. Ok so farm subsidies to this Republican is so horrible, but would you cut farm subsidies to Organic Farms? No, I bet not because Organic Farmers are better in your mind than Republican Reps because they are more "sustainable" because you buy into all that "Sustainability" bs. You see you will justify everything that you believe in, even if you have to hack up everybody and everything you don't like. You are so partisan you would never cut things in budgets that Democrats would support, like Organic farming. I mean I like organic veggies too, and if one farm gets it than the others should too right? But the point is, if you don't support a Republican Congressman getting farm subsidies than you better be prepared to cut Organic farm subsidies too.
In other words, you want the welfare state freebie thing to only work for your particular special interests and you believe in your mind that you know which special interests deserve our tax dollars and which ones don't.
You obviously want some welfare stuff that you believe is important but if you think it is not than the budget knife comes out.
My point is that the whole welfare thing institutionalized is wrong and yours is that only the stuff you don't like is wrong.

See that's the difference between you and me. You still want the welfare state but you want it only for those things you choose and I want to eliminate the welfare state as much as possible(though not in an extreme fashion).
Further, if you really wanted to combat this thing the way it should, then we have to have another look at farm subsidies in general and not just complain that some Republican got some and you hate him because he's Republican and you think that you have more right to tell us how tax payer dollars should go.
So why don't we start with the Great Depression hmmm

The United States currently pays around $20 billion per year to farmers in direct subsidies as "farm income stabilization"[9][10][11] via U.S. farm bills. These bills pre-date the economic turmoil of the Great Depression with the 1922 Grain Futures Act, the 1929 Agricultural Marketing Act and the 1933 Agricultural Adjustment Act creating a tradition of government support



"Direct payment subsidies are provided without regard to the economic need of the recipients or the financial condition of the farm economy. Established in 1996, direct payments were originally meant to wean farmers off traditional subsidies that are triggered during periods of low prices for corn, wheat, soybeans, cotton, rice, and other crops."[14]


The subsidy programs give farmers extra money for their crops and guarantee a price floor. For instance in the 2002 Farm Bill, for every bushel of wheat sold, farmers were paid an extra 52 cents and guaranteed a price of 3.86 from 2002–03 and 3.92 from 2004–2007.[15] That is, if the price of wheat in 2002 was 3.80 farmers would get an extra 58 cents per bushel (52 cents plus the $0.06 price difference).


Farm subsidies have the direct effect of transferring income from the general tax payers to farm owners. The justification for this transfer and its effects are complex and often controversial.



Although some critics and proponents of the World Trade Organization have noted that export subsidies, by driving down the price of commodities, can provide cheap food for consumers in developing countries,[25][26] low prices are harmful to farmers not receiving the subsidy. Because it is usually wealthy countries that can afford domestic subsidies, critics argue that they promote poverty in developing countries by artificially driving down world crop prices.[27] generally, developing countries have a comparative advantage in producing agricultural goods][citation needed], but low crop prices encourage developing countries to be dependent buyers of food from wealthy countries. So local farmers, instead of improving the agricultural and economic self-sufficiency of their home country, are instead forced out of the market and perhaps even off their land. This occurs as a result of a process known as "international dumping" in which subsidized farmers are able to "dump" low-cost agricultural goods on foreign markets at costs that un-subsidized farmers cannot compete with.


en.wikipedia.org...

So who knew that farm subsidies was such a complicated issue. But of course you hate Republicans and they must all be schmucks in your mind and you have not gone beyond your limited scope of things. In the meantime, you believe that illegals can all come here, have bunches of kids, and we must pay for that because in your mind, what you think is right must be right and what you think is wrong must be wrong.
Oh and one more thing, though you think the Republican is just some selfish schmuck, you have not taken into consideration that while his need may be greater than Con-Agra's need, he may actually need it just to survive while Con Agra will survive anyway. So much for your discrimination between big and small corporations. If said Republican doesn't survive that's one more win for Big Agra isn't it. And Con-Agra is what is called an Oligopoly, since you may have not gotten that in econ 101 or something(or if you did you are ignoring it because of that self righteous welfare idea you have in your head)
If you want farm subsidies gone for your hated Republican than it has to be gone for organic farms and Con -Agra too, don't you agree? It is going to affect world food prices, see? Not to mention all those little children in foreign third world countries who will be affected by your decision. .
edit on 25-5-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   
While I am thinking of this whole welfare state thing, Obamacare is going to bankrupt us further and then they will unionize healthcare workers. Private doctors will no longer want to be in that business. But of course you hate all things Republican and Capitalist, so likely you don't care about those private doctors because public unions are more your thang anyways right?

While we are talking about special interests, let's talk about the union lobbies shall we.... lets start with healtlh care workers


In a book set for publication Tuesday, a politics and government professor at The Citadel claims President Obama’s 2009 health care reform law was, in part, a union-driven effort to organize 21 million health care workers.That memo outlined a legislative proposal calling for “increasing the capacity of the health care workforce” as part of a larger health care reform initiative.

Read more: dailycaller.com...



In ”Shadowbosses: Government Unions Control America and Rob Taxpayers Blind,” Mallory Factor describes a December 9, 2008 memo from Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Healthcare president Dennis Rivera to the Obama-Biden transition team.



The SEIU and the Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Factor writes, later coordinated with other public-sector unions to spend “literally hundreds of millions of dollars promoting Obamacare.”


oh woops did you support special interest groups in Washington like SEIU and healthcare workers?

OH yah and I nearly forgot, the whole low crop prices driving farmers off their land(whether here or abroad) fits very nicely into the Agenda 21 model of driving people off their private lands and into the bigger cities where TPTB can more easily manage the population.



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 04:25 PM
link   
So what's it gonna be? Are we cutting farm subsidies or not? Are we getting rid of special interests or not?



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
 





And people wouldn't need help if Capitalism paid more.


Would that be Al Gore's Capitalism or Bill Gates??? Did you complain to ol Bill when you had to pay more for that Word license? Did you know that the extra money you paid to ol Bill's Microsoft paid for Bill to push Common Core Standards in the schools and not just here but abroad? DId you know Microsoft partnered with UNESCO, the educational arm of the UN to push Common Core globally? Hate globalism? Maybe not as much as you think.
Or how about Obama's Solyndra. I mean they got taxpayer bucks and still failed. The problem isn't Capitalism but crony Capitalism.
edit on 25-5-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 05:08 PM
link   
This is all wrong these elitist are going insane but that's the power of money when you have enought to not know effort. It's unfair to the USA not many are allowed to break away from their inherited class , rarely do some slip tru the cracks who opposes these people but most are bought out , I know how the rich say we don't work so were lazy , no, we just don't have the money to pay others for work and put our names to it and say we earn it with hard work.. Seriously we need to limit these filthy rich ( they obviously think they can buy the world and people are failing to realize that when its in plain sight). I can understand wanting people to work but unequally I mean I've known people who worked their whole lives and have nothin to show but screw overs or lay offs .. I think the true infiltrators are the RICH (R.eally I.nconsiderate-to-C.ause-or-H.arm)



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
 





And people wouldn't need help if Capitalism paid more.


Would that be Al Gore's Capitalism or Bill Gates??? Did you complain to ol Bill when you had to pay more for that Word license? Did you know that the extra money you paid to ol Bill's Microsoft paid for Bill to push Common Core Standards in the schools and not just here but abroad? DId you know Microsoft partnered with UNESCO, the educational arm of the UN to push Common Core globally? Hate globalism? Maybe not as much as you think.
Or how about Obama's Solyndra. I mean they got taxpayer bucks and still failed. The problem isn't Capitalism but crony Capitalism.
edit on 25-5-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)


I've never actually purchased a Microsoft product, but that's beside the point.

Capitalism works GREAT... for a few hundred years. Then, you get a group that has all of the capital, and a group that has nothing. Crony capitalism IS capitalism, my friend. The free market doesn't need to favor the best products or services if the person with the most capital stifles all competition.

Also.. Compulsory education in the United States is a product of socialism, not capitalism.



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


Exactly. This is totally correct. But that is probably the motivation for all of the drones, surveillance, etc. To allow the corporations and government to abuse people and not fear retaliation. But there will always be retaliation. It will just have to scale up to match the drone and surveillance usage.



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Microsoft is a very good example of how to stifle competition. They work in the shadows. The objective is to create a class of super-elites who control virtually all wealth.

The argument between capitalism and socialism is irrelevant. The argument is between monarchists and people.

The democratic governments (of either capitalistic society or Communist society) will care for people to a certain degree. However it is the Monarchs or dictators who do not care for people welfare at all.

The scheme is to seize the power of all democratic governments and install a worldwide dictator. This plan is called NWO or New World Order. NWO has secretly taken over the control of the United States.

What people should be discussing is NWO and not socialism. Just think what will happen to you if all government doles disappear and you can fall into hunger and despair just due to a simple event like losing your job.


edit on 25-5-2013 by GargIndia because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 03:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Tru3NugMaster
 





This is all wrong these elitist are going insane


I've already pointed out a few things about farm subsidies. I suggested we just get rid of them across the board, but as long as Con Agra gets it then why leave out the smaller guy so he can lose his land and lose one more family farm? See what I mean? The OP is a typical hit piece from DemocratLand and these people specialize in trying to smear Republicans to push an agenda.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by GargIndia
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Microsoft is a very good example of how to stifle competition. They work in the shadows. The objective is to create a class of super-elites who control virtually all wealth.

The argument between capitalism and socialism is irrelevant. The argument is between monarchists and people.

The democratic governments (of either capitalistic society or Communist society) will care for people to a certain degree. However it is the Monarchs or dictators who do not care for people welfare at all.

The scheme is to seize the power of all democratic governments and install a worldwide dictator. This plan is called NWO or New World Order. NWO has secretly taken over the control of the United States.

What people should be discussing is NWO and not socialism. Just think what will happen to you if all government doles disappear and you can fall into hunger and despair just due to a simple event like losing your job.


edit on 25-5-2013 by GargIndia because: (no reason given)


Thank you. I think you have a knowledgeable grasp of the very complex situation. As you said, the NWO is not necessarily a particular economic system, because through Hegelian dialectic, it creates a new synthesis. This is what Antony Sutton teaches.
However, socialism is part of the mechanism for the NWO, as well as crony capitalism. The end result will be a very Totalitarian system with the Elites at the top of the pyramid.
Yes. losing your job is devastating, and our unemployment rate is the highest now since the Great Depression. But, again, the Elites engineered the recession and all the rest of the ills. They engineered these things in their think tank situation rooms. Problem/reaction/solution exactly as Antony Sutton explains. The NWO is their solution.
Oh yes, and I agree with you about Microsoft and their monopolistic practices. The Occupy movement claims it hates corporations, but I guess they have no problem with Microsoft and Bill Gates buying the PTA and the National Governor's association. This Common Core thing is a perfect example of a public/private partnership that has a far reaching consequence and way too much centralized power in the hands of a few people(I mean the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Obama administration). The Federal Reserve system is in fact a similar thing.
edit on 26-5-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
 





Capitalism works GREAT... for a few hundred years. Then, you get a group that has all of the capital, and a group that has nothing. Crony capitalism IS capitalism, my friend.


I didn't say it wasn't Capitalism. But there is a difference between crony Capitalism and true free enterprise and the free market. Karl Marx does not acknowledge there is any difference because in his mind all Capitalism is evil. But in the end, Lenin and Stalin created a slave system far worse. And we know this because Alexsander Solzhenitsyn wrote about the Gulags.




Also.. Compulsory education in the United States is a product of socialism, not capitalism.


Well it has been a product of socialism yes, in that all taxpayers have to pay for it regardless if they have children or not, so it is a form of redistribution and also some centralized control. But now we have Bill Gates pumping his money into this to buy control through the PTA and the NGA. Again, as I have said this is called a public/private partnership.
The problem I have with the education system is that bureaucratic elites and unions are controlling the outcome using such tools as values clarification, and most of it is designed to turn the kids into little automatons to fit into the wheel of social unity. That is the vision John Dewey had. And John Dewey was definitely a Statist. He believed children existed for the State and belonged to the State. We heard recently a woman state very clearly that the children don't belong to the parents. A perfect example of a Dewey style Statist if I ever heard one.

here is that woman

freedomoutpost.com...

And now Bill Gates has pumped 5 billion dollars into what can only be described as unconstitutional and highly centralized control, seizing power from the individual states, and also as an indoctrination tool for the Elites.
edit on 26-5-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


You know what? I started at the bottom of the thread and worked my way back to here. I was going to thank you for your civility and tone while you discussed things with GargIndia.Tru3, & Michael, and THEN i came to this reply to me.
Funny how it's quite a far cry from civil and productive.

So, once again, since you've already made your mind up about me (and my views), I can't discuss it with you.
Why do you keep doing that, ThirdEye?

Because you know I'm a Progressive, so you're sure I have 'cooties'?
Or because you think you're smarter?
Or because I speak Spanish and worked with immigrants to help them with THEIR BABIES AND TODDLERS?
Or (again since I speak Spanish), I was a supervisor for 75 of them working in a major hotel who were getting SCREWED by Corporate, and I supported their dignity and fair treatment?
They were ALL paying taxes, by the way.
Or because I ignore Glenn Beck?

Oh well, so much for trying. I guess we're too divided to EVER be able to talk. Hmmm. Sounds like CONGRESS.
The difference between us is that you are taking a hard party line ONLY, and talking about political platforms ONLY, and think everything is a communist conspiracy, and I am talking about MORALS, GREED, and social JUSTICE for the disenfranchised all over the world.



edit on 26-5-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


This is not about cooties, or babies and toddlers. It's about ideologies and agendas. And you have a Progressive one, You're right I knew that on our first encounter. Why should I be civil when you are poking me in the ribs with non-factual statements, like that I endorse "Special interests". In fact, I doubt you can refute that you endorse special interests yourself, and you do so proudly, thinking that you are more caring and tender and compassionate. That is the special way of Progressives, and you are no different from what I can tell.
Would you care to address anything of substance, such as the special interests which I delineated, including Organic farms and organizations which promote illegal immigration? If you want a healthy debate here, then why not address farm subsidies, since the Republican gets them.
I understand that as a social worker, your focus is always going to be on what you believe is child advocacy, but like all Progressives, your focus is always a Big Govt Nanny State solution.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


I think most of us get where you are coming from, wildtimes.

This whole matter is about profound and embarrassing hypocrisy, and not in the way it is being spun by some.

Suppose I owned a horse & carriage company just prior to the advent of the automobile. I imagine business would be pretty good. Once the Model T's came rolling out, not so much. It would be a signal to me that I need to find something else to do.

I would not approach the government asking them to pick up the slack for my loss in revenues - what would be my grounds for asking? National security? Artistic merit? What sort of intrinsic value would my horse & carriage company offer that would warrant the intervention of the state in my favor? I can think of none.

In fact, if my interests were hit pretty hard and I ended up losing everything, and the market was not able to bear myself and my employees due to something that was unseen and unpredictable, we might just end up in the same predicament of all those unwashed masses that we had erstwhile turned our noses up at.

This does not mean that all of us are worthless and have nothing to offer, we simply need a bit of time for market forces to shift and for things to settle back down. This is a fundamental concept of control systems which, thankfully, I've had a lot of exposure to as an engineer. Sometimes the response can be overdamped, sometimes it is grossly underdamped, but we do the best we can given the conditions and the information we have at the time.

Not everyone is afforded the luxury of being able to store away vast sums in the event an unpredictable event occurs. In an ideal world, sure, but first give me this ideal world as I would like to see it.

No, instead we must do the best with what we have. I think we can do a lot better, wouldn't you agree?



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 



like all Progressives, your focus is always a Big Govt Nanny State solution.

Nope, again!
You're the one pigeon-holing, here ThirdEye.....
You decided I was "attack-worthy" from our first interaction, and you're the one claiming that I "hate all Republicans". It's ridiculous.

Wow. Projection much?

I understand that as a social worker, your focus is always going to be on what you believe is child advocacy

Nope also. As a SOCIAL WORKER my focus is always going to be on JUSTICE FOR ALL PEOPLE. It isn't just 'child advocacy', ThirdEye. I don't care what color, what nationality or ethnicity or 'class' a person is in, or their age. I care about justice and the common good.

But I get you. You're not the first "I hate social workers"-type to take me to task. It doesn't change ANYTHING about what I believe. If people are starving, out of work, being abused and exploited, I will fight for their best interests.
You say I 'think I'm more caring and compassionate'? It seems to me that I AM more caring and compassionate. About PEOPLE, not MONEY.
edit on 26-5-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join