Jefferson and alias, you seem to be confusing the definition of welfare with your own perceptions of what it really is. Perhaps that is your opinion on welfare, and okay, but that's a different debate. The point of welfare is that it would help out needy families so that they can both provide for their families at the same time of giving them a chance to excel in their area of work and therefore produce more outcomes. This is the same philosophy behind farm subsidies. Give funding to farmers so that the outcomes of their production are greater.

Again, neither foundit nor I have actually voiced an opinion on whether we agree with farm subsidies or not. We have only established that there is a hypocrisy with some people that they would tolerate large sums of farmer subsidies (and even corporate welfare), yet they whine and complain about taking the same philosophy to the inner city and to needy families. That's something you two seem to be confused on. So in other words, we don't have to substantiate anything. It is you that needs to substantiate your claims on farming subsidies that you say you know much more than we do.

Also, just because there are people who would abuse welfare does not change the definition of it.

Plus, there seems to be a hypocrisy with you, Jefferson. You say that because I live in a city (suburbs actually), that I would not know about farm life...yet, going by your logic, what makes you so much of a greater guru on farming when you say that you live in an urban area?

You seem to like to throw around insults and then restate your opinions. All I have seen from you is such.

And please, stop butchering my screen name; not because I take offense (which I don't), it just makes you look like a dumbass...especially considering what it's in reference to (of which I'm sure you're totally oblivious).

Do you agree that without farm subsidies you would pay a lot more for food?

Did you read?

This is irrelevant. The topic of discussion is those which have hypocrisy. I never said I don't support farm subsidies.

Actually, welfare includes a variety of forms, and also includes forms for people who are working but cannot sufficiently support themselves, like with dependents.

Am I to understand then that you support welfare as long as the recipient works?

Sooo....
In order to pay less for food, I need to pay more in taxes to subsidize farmers.
I pay the government more so they can fork over BILLIONS a year to farmers, so that I can pay the farmers less.

Wow! That makes no sense whatsoever.
Why not just pay the farmers more directly?
Free trade? Jefferson's a big fan of it?

The farm subsidies help poor people the most. It is the poor who benefit from lower prices. If you really want to help the poor, then you should be against the states that charge sales tax on food. That is what really hurts poor people. Instead you focus on the one who works to provide the food. Another case of liberal misdirection.

What I would do is encourage more distribution of the subsidies to the farmers who are poor. I agree that a lot of the subsidies go to corporations, but you have to remember that those corporations provide jobs. If you cut the subsidies, people lose jobs.

How do I put this so it'll actually sink into your skull.
I HAVE NOT GIVEN my opinion on farm subsidies.
I am talking about YOUR hypocrisy.

What you are talking about is the equivalent of socialism. "helping the poor"...
Why do you support THIS program that "helps the poor" and not other programs?
Why do you support THIS welfare program, and not others.


So the government PAYS corporations to employ people?
Again, what happened to FREE TRADE???

If these companies don't have the capacity to stay afloat, then WHY do we have to give them money to do so???

You call it welfare. I do not. In my world, welfare is a gift for doing nothing in return. Do you get benefits on your job? I do. I get vacation pay, sick pay, holiday pay, retirement. Is that welfare in your mind?

What a liar!

BOTH you and your little liberal buddy FoundIt have repeatedly spouted off about "farmers getting welfare".

Here's a quote of YOURS:
Now... considering the FACT that YOU do not know JACK CRAP about farm subsidies (as evidenced by your refusal to answer any of my questions), you should keep your ignorant, Democrat blow-hole SHUT.

Again, for you to compare farm subsidies to an inner-city breeder-slut, who gets welfare to lay around not working, getting screwed and having babies proves that your idiocy knows no limits.

Quotes exposing FoundIt's ignorance:

Yet again, the point stands: KATZINSKY AND FOUNDIT66 HAVE NO IDEA WHAT FARM SUBSIDIES ARE, yet you compare them to welfare. In so doing, you not only expose your total ignorance, but loudly put it on display for everyone to see. Congratulations!

So... when YOU borrow money in order to invest in your future it's one thing. When a country borrows money to invest in the future it's a totally different thing.

Yeah, sure. I get it.


Debt is not always a bad thing!