Congress screws up again. They sent the incorrect bill to President Bush and then planned to override the incorrect bill after he vetoed it. Morons!
Bush was right to veto this crappy bill. If one reads the details they can see how much fluff and pork is in this bill. One thing that makes no sense to me is the following:
“$30 billion is allocated for payments to farms to keep land idle and other environmental programs.”
We are paying them to keep their land idle? WTF? How about growing food for starving people or grow extra corn to offset the corn being sold to make ethanol? Congress is stupid.
UPDATE: It appears it was a clerk that “dropped” a section of the bill. Bet that clerk is fired, the good news is now it appears President Bush will allow the bill to die over Memorial Day weekend!
Another crazy thing in the bill “House and Senate negotiators tucked in an annual authorization of $15 million to help ‘geographically disadvantaged farmers’ in Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico.”
WHY ARE YOU FARMING IN ALASKA?!?!?!?! And why are we going to give you $15 MILLION dollars to be an idiot? And when have Puerto Rico and Hawaii ever been associated with being “geographically disadvantaged”? It is f’ing paradise there! Hey here is $15 Million dollars for being disadvanted for never having to see snow, and having resort weather year round.
Filed under: Current Events, Politics
Very interesting… Not that we have it much better here. I read the article you linked to -
“Two-thirds of $300 billion bill would go for nutrition programs such as food stamps”
Sounds like you should take more issue with that then you should the measly 15 million for “idiot farmers.” At least the “idiot farmers” have jobs and are not complete free loaders.
Wow. I guess the Stig is not a supporter of social welfare programs.
Interesting you decide to attack the Stig instead of defending your boy Obama http://ctucker.wordpress.com/2008/05/20/obama-clinton-take-dive-on-shameful-farm-bill-vote/
Who defends the crappy farm bill. and does more talk rather than doing….
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/opinion/20brooks.html?em&ex=1211601600&en=2ca98b1132734284&ei=5087
I am yet to look at those links but before I do, I just want to point out that Fang in no way attacked the Stig. He made an observation and inference: a pretty reasonable observaton i think.
That said, John you should form your own GOP 527 group because you have an interesting way of twisting statements.
I think he is attacking the Stig, because he took one comment from the Stig and assumed that represented all of the Stig’s views, where as the Stig may or may not be for social welfare programs, one cannot tell that based upon the Stig’s comments. Either way I found it interesting that both you and Fang (HUGE OBAMA SUPPORTERS) are avoiding the real topic of how Obama is all talk and no action.
1. I am avoiding nothing. As I stated earlier, I had not read the links you posted so I did not wish to comment until I had.
2. Secondly, your boy used rather inflammatory language, suggesting that those who use government “nutrition programs such as food stamps” are “free loaders.” It seems to me that the logical inference is that he is against these programs. Unless perhaps, his intention was simply to denegrate people who use these programs. Either way, based on his comments, neither conclusion is an unfair attack.
First, I do not know who the Stig is. Second, Logical inference? to assume based upon one statement? Is that how biases and generalizations are made? If anything the Stig used the term “free loaders” as someone who gets something for free. Or defined by urban dictionary as the following:
Freeloader – Noun. Someone who lives off other people’s lives. They don’t pay for anything and never pay you back.
Are people on food stamps going to eventually pay the US taxpayers back? I would say the majority will not, therefore will “never pay you back” Are they living “off of other people’s lives”? Yes they are getting food stamps which are paid for by tax payers. So yes they are freeloaders. Now to take that comment that the Stig made and assume he is against ALL social welfare programs is a gross generalization. He or she may just be against food stamps, I do not know, all I am saying is do not assume and judge someone by one comment.
OK. Where to begin.
First, I will concede this much. It would be dumb to assume that the Stig is against any and all forms of social welfare. That was not the assumption I made and I assumed that was also not what Fang meant to imply. What I did assume from his comments was that he or she takes issue with the extent to which the government gives aid to those “freeloaders” and would be in favor of restricting that aid, perhaps even severely so.
Secondly, while your definition of “freeloader” is technically correct, indulge me for a sec and let’s go back to middle school English class. Every word has a denotation and a connotation. Denotation: the basic dictionary meaning of a word. Connotation: the emotional implications and associations that words may carry. This is the reason why you might call someone lean or slim as opposed to scrawny or skinny. My point is that, while you can go through a point by point analysis and justify to yourself or anyone else why it’s OK to call someone a freeloader, the term freeloader is one that carries with it a very negative connotation.
Furthermore, I would argue that not everyone who receives something without any explicit plan for restitution, can or should be called a freeloader. Your parents fed and clothed you for many years without any expectation of payback, but you were not a freeloader. I am not suggesting that the government has parental obligations to everyone in this country, but I do think there are certain social responsibilities that we all must embrace because it is in all of our interests. But anyway, I suppose that is a philosophical discussion for another day.
I thought this post was about a farm bill. Save your hair pulling and name calling for the playground. You should change the name from “a thinking person’s blog” to “Chicks who like to argue over semantics instead of things that are really important.”