We often hear the phrase, 'some topics should not be discussed', and I suspect we hear this because of associated subject discomfort, and potential harm to a relationship.
Farm subsidies might be one of those topics.
I recently heard from a good friend, who is in a feud with a former classmate over farm subsidies, and the potential for these handouts to dry up, if the Obama administration plans go forward with the 9.7 billion dollar overhaul of the system.
My friend's ultra-conservative Republican classmate is a wealthy banker, who just happens to own farm land, which is handsomely subsidized by the government . . . U.S. taxpayers. He thinks the proposed Obama overhaul is a large step toward becoming a socialist nation. This can be a confusing subject. Couldn't one perceive farm subsidies, which the banker is enjoying, to be a form of socialism? Perhaps one could look at the subsidies as a form of welfare, something conservatives abhor. These same folks, with their fingers in the farm-subsidy cookie jar, bitch and complain openly about people on welfare. What's the difference? Oh, I know, they are the elitist types living in big homes, driving around in new cars and trucks, enjoying comfortable vacations, and pretending that they are 'poor' and 'entitled' to the help the taxpayers are providing, while looking down their noses and condemning the 'fat' and 'lazy' welfare recipients, because they don't work, and scam the government. Is there a difference? Yes, in perception, only!
This banker-farmer (farmer is a loosely used term) isn't alone. Billions (that's with a B) of taxpayer dollars are distributed annually to farmers in the form of subsidies.
These subsidies were initiated years ago (in the 1930s) to help farmers avoid poverty, and it probably worked then. But, today, the majority of the subsidies are enjoyed by large commercial farmers, whose annual incomes are greater than $200,000, and whose net worths are greater than $2-million. Sure, there are those farmers that need subsidies, and that's OK! But, the majority of the farmers could live quite nicely without taxpayer's handouts. But, when you challenge the reasonableness of the subsidy programs, farmers cry 'entitlement', and whine like unfed babies with dirty diapers. Is there a difference? What are they entitled to? They are entitled to an opportunity to succeed in their business, and if they don't they should find something else to do. But, they are not entitled to be proped up by taxpayers, anymore than banks, insurance companies, or any other entity that has failed to perform, and in some cases stolen from taxpayers.
If you're curious to learn more about these subsidies and to learn who is benefiting from these federal handouts, just fire up your computer; type 'farm subsidies' into the Google search window; when search options appear, click on 'EWG Farm Subsidy Database'; you can search by state, county, zip code, or name, to learn where your money is going.
Perhaps you'll learn like I did, about acquaintenances and family members who purport to be 'poor' and 'disadvantaged', while accepting millions of dollars from taxpayers who really do work for a living.
I suppose this post will piss off any farmers I know. Oh, well, that's life. If they're really entitled, they won't be pissed.
