TV news headline of the decade
- Thread starter Shannow
- Start date
- Status
[ June 15, 2005, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: Gary Allan ]
http://www.ewg.org/farm/
There yah' go.
Take a peek at the corporate welfare payments.
I looked up my uncle's two-bit hobby farm and he receives a bit over $30,000 yearly for nuthin'.
Mom married a corporate farmer when I was 21. I stayed aloof instead of sucking up. He sold out, became a multi-millionaire overnight, moved to Rancho Mirage, joined the PGA West country club and lives the lifestyle of the rich and famous. I'm happy for Mom but was saddened by how little he paid his workers. The taxpayer paid for the worker's medical care, subsidized their housing, etc. He reaped the windfall.
Surprisingly, he didn't get much in federal handouts.
You can use the database to look up individual and corporate farmers/ranchers.
There yah' go.
Take a peek at the corporate welfare payments.
I looked up my uncle's two-bit hobby farm and he receives a bit over $30,000 yearly for nuthin'.
Mom married a corporate farmer when I was 21. I stayed aloof instead of sucking up. He sold out, became a multi-millionaire overnight, moved to Rancho Mirage, joined the PGA West country club and lives the lifestyle of the rich and famous. I'm happy for Mom but was saddened by how little he paid his workers. The taxpayer paid for the worker's medical care, subsidized their housing, etc. He reaped the windfall.
Surprisingly, he didn't get much in federal handouts.
You can use the database to look up individual and corporate farmers/ranchers.
That sucks - mainly because it craps on the idea of free enterprise. I, for one, think we should try 5 years without farm shenanigans...I mean welfare....er money for not growing.....er....subsidies.....
Looks like Arkansas is the winner!
Looks like Arkansas is the winner!
There was an article in New scientist a year or so ago that was highlighting the subsidies that the west give farmers...which artificially keeps produce costs down.
Upshot was that if we stopped subsidies, then farmers in thrid world countries might be able to produce competetively (more labour intensive, meaning more local employment too).
They reckoned that it would save us a heap in terms of humanitarian aid, as well as saving us the subsidy payments.
Upshot was that if we stopped subsidies, then farmers in thrid world countries might be able to produce competetively (more labour intensive, meaning more local employment too).
They reckoned that it would save us a heap in terms of humanitarian aid, as well as saving us the subsidy payments.
Dang.
- Status
