I'm gonna have to think about how borrowing to pay current bills is investing in the future. I'm totally not getting this concept.

While looking up farm subsidies I came across a database of them, which included who they went to and what kind of subsidy was paid. I found it interesting that the top receiver in Michigan received what looks like all sorts of subsidies for the same crops. Here's the database: EWG || Farm Subsidy Database

Look up Michigan, then click on the top receivers 1995-2004. Click on "Berrybrook Enterprises", then click on "Programs" and you'll see a detailed listing of the subsides this farm/corporation received.

Companies do this all the time. Farmers do this all the time.

Any person, and any business, that does NOT have a "regular paycheck" does this all the time.

In addition, borrowing money in order to make money is not dumb. It's smart.

You might want to be aware that EWG is not, in any way, an unbiased source.

But my point, all along, has been that Farm Subsidies and Welfare are NOT anywhere near the same thing. And FoundIt66 and Katzinksy don't even know what they are - therefore, their verbose rhetoric exposes their ignorance.

I'm not sure there is such a thing as an unbiased source...

I just found it interesting that there are at least 3 kinds of subsidies and that they seemed to overlap. I recall my neighbor was paid not to grow corn on his land, which I thought was strange, but now that I think about it, he must have gotten a conservation subsidy... I never really asked him for the details. Not sure I really want to dig much deeper, I'm still thinking about that borrowing issue, and that vote 'n' vax issue... too many issues, not enough time!

Well... simply stated, the Farm Subsidy issue is multi-faceted and complicated. And it is NOT AT ALL like Welfare.

A farmer who pays $4000.00 per acre for land is NOT "getting welfare" if he's paid to let the land sit idle - for wildlife & conservation purposes - as opposed to crop-farming it.

That's just the tip of the iceberg.



On the "borrowing" issue... Many times, over the years, I have borrowed money in order to buy a "re-builder" car. I've done the work on the car, sold it, and made money. (That's how I actually paid off the hospital bill after our 2nd son was born 20 years ago.) Between the time I borrow the money and sell the car, my bottom line looks pretty danged bad. But borrowing the money was what actually enabled me to make money.

I have to admit; the low unemployment and the moving economy have(or should have)everyone more optimistic about the future. Now; all we need to do is fix our mess in Iraq and we will really move forward. I am a rabid debater; so I invite any and all feedback to any of my posts, people!

Apparently you can't read, or rather comprehend. Stating that "farmers get welfare" is not saying I disagree or I agree with it at all. How retarded do you have to be?

Yet you have not presented any factual evidence that would lead us to believe that we know nothing about farm subsidies, and you know more. All you have been doing is insulting us. Not surprising, actually.

That doesn't prove that I am ignorant when it comes to farm subsidies; what would expose any ignorance of mine would to be for you to actually prove to me that farm subsidies are very unlike welfare. All you have been engaged in (in the entire forum actually) is insulting and continuous unsubstantiated opinions. Likewise, despite the fact that you have no evidence what so ever that all recipients of welfare are "inner-city breeder-sluts who gets welfare to lay around not working", it only proves your stupid bigotry and, yes, racism (or prejudice of city/lower class life rather). The only thing that you have proven (yet again) was reincarnation, because there is no possible way someone can get that stupid and obnoxious in one life time.

No, your point doesn't stand because it has no foundation. The point of farm subsidies is to give farmers funding so that they may put that money to their lives or work so that they produce more, and are more successful, correct? That is exactly the same philosophy of welfare. It's just that you can't get through your thick plebeian skull the concept of moving the same philosophy to a different setting.

And for future reference, usually when I ignore your questions it is because you are being rude and obnoxious. I only responded this time because you were being just totally ridiculous, and something had to be said. But this is a debate forum, if you want to flame do it elsewhere.

Simply comparing farm subsidies to welfare, and calling it "welfare for farmers" makes your hatred of it clear.

Just admit it, city boy, you got caught with your pants down. Again.

You don't know JACK CRAP about Farm Subsidies, and you should have kept your ignorant blow-hole shut in the first place.

So maybe the only thing that is similar between farm subsidies and welfare is that both are spending US taxpayer dollars.... Like I said, I don't have the time to really get into them, even if they do seem interesting (to me).

I get your borrowing example, where you borrow to buy something that you then improve. I also get investing in oneself by borrowing to go to school, or investing in a house. Theoretically you have something in the future that will produce more dollars. The part I don't get is what the US is investing in when we borrow to pay to keep the country running? I think I'm still missing something...