Waste of Farm Subsidies and Will Get Worse With More Dems in Congress

[Damocles]

Dear Stupid Fuck,

. . . .

Oh how I loathe you... Your opinion makes you stupid, because it is not mine. This means that you are stupid and I am a genius, you stupid fuck.

Yours truly,

Not Stupid Fuck.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Excuse me: "Well, a veto is fundamentally different than a veto."

HOW???????

lol...

A VETO is fundamentally different from a VOTE. I actually typed "vote" as "veto" a few times and had to correct it. I guess I missed one. It's a very simialar word.

A veto is supposed to be used more deliberatively than a vote. If executives went zany with it to try and get their legislation through all the time then it would be a clear violation of seperation of powers.

Am i one of the few people who believe it's GOOD that we have a president who doesn't veto very often?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Hmm check with the USDA and such, you are saying that wee need to do away with about 20% of our jobs ? that is about how many are linked either directly or indirectly to agribusiness.

you got cranial anal itis or something ?

Why don't we abolish mass production? Imagine how many "jobs" we'll create then!

Don't piss yourself trying to make jobs. The government can make all the jobs it wants, if these jobs don't produce anything it's not helping out the economy.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I think that USCitizen should get the "pulling numbers out of ass" award for the year. He hasn't even looked at a textbook in 50 years and he tries to tell ME how much of our economy is based in agricultural. Ever heard of mechanization, you dumb fuck? Yeah, it happened. It means that we need less people to produce just as much. It increases quality of life, money, and total jobs in the economy.


According to nationmaster.com, 3% of our men our employed in agriculture.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lab_agr_wor_mal-labor-agricultural-workers-male

Less than 1% of our women are employed in agriculture:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lab_agr_wor_fem-labor-agricultural-workers-female

Since women actually make up more of the population than men, I'd say that about 1 and a half percent of our population is employed in agriculture, close to what I originally proposed. Kentucky probably has very few farmers. Try reading a textbook from the last 60 years, you dumb fuck.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I guess "related with agriculture" includes the cashiers in the food department and the people who put stamps on food, and maybe for good measure the occasional passerby who walked by the person who counts these things. Those people arent' actually helped by the food subsidies though.

 

[Prakosh]

I think that USCitizen should get the "pulling numbers out of ass" award for the year. He hasn't even looked at a textbook in 50 years and he tries to tell ME how much of our economy is based in agricultural. Ever heard of mechanization, you dumb fuck? Yeah, it happened. It means that we need less people to produce just as much. It increases quality of life, money, and total jobs in the economy.


According to nationmaster.com, 3% of our men our employed in agriculture.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lab_agr_wor_mal-labor-agricultural-workers-male

Less than 1% of our women are employed in agriculture:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lab_agr_wor_fem-labor-agricultural-workers-female

Since women actually make up more of the population than men, I'd say that about 1 and a half percent of our population is employed in agriculture, close to what I originally proposed. Kentucky probably has very few farmers. Try reading a textbook from the last 60 years, you dumb fuck.

Funny you recommend reading textbooks, yet all your information comes from the web...why the discrepancy...shouldn't he be surfing the web instead???

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Funny you recommend reading textbooks, yet all your information comes from the web...why the discrepancy...shouldn't he be surfing the web instead???

All I can think of that he'd get a 20% number from would be 50 year old textbooks. Current information on the web is OK, and is usually better than what you find in textbooks, and more up to date. An irrelevant point in any case, you make.

 

[Care4all]

Why don't we abolish mass production? Imagine how many "jobs" we'll create then!

Don't piss yourself trying to make jobs. The government can make all the jobs it wants, if these jobs don't produce anything it's not helping out the economy.

Are the people operating the machines that wash the fruit/vegies, packaging the fruit/vegies part of the agriculture/produce business or are they separate categories of employment that relate but are not measured in the same category?

care

 

[Prakosh]

All I can think of that he'd get a 20% number from would be 50 year old textbooks. Current information on the web is OK, and is usually better than what you find in textbooks, and more up to date. An irrelevant point in any case, you make.

Do you think that the only books that contain relevant information are textbooks, how about Almanacs, Encyclopedias and books written on the subject that aren't necessarily ever used as textbooks and aren't written to be used as textbooks. Most people over estimate several numbers as a matter of course. One is the number of people employed in farm labor as you so astutely showed, another is the percentage of Jews in in America. They do this not because of some information in some textbook somewhere, but because they simply think or have heard that the number is more. All I'm saying is your statement about textbooks is age specific and in this case doesn't even reflect where you got your own numbers. And given that it would seem that you might suggest that he surf the web. Of course many sites on the web contain a lot of BS, so I would go farther and suggest that if one was going to quote farming statistics one would use a University Website to ensure a higher probability and degree of accuracy. But that's just a personal preference. I find the web worthless (as in untrustworthy) except for the occasional quotation.

Testbooks are mostly written to the standards of the Texas school districts which are overwhelmingly manned by Christian fundamentalists and are therefore horribly inaccurate and suspect. In order to be printed nearly all new textbooks have to pass through this microscope and are generally edited in accordance with the demands of these Christian fundamentalists. But that is a whole other argument. The point is decent teachers shouldn't rely on textbooks for much of anything beyond general information--dates and such. And neither should students.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Are the people operating the machines that wash the fruit/vegies, packaging the fruit/vegies part of the agriculture/produce business or are they separate categories of employment that relate but are not measured in the same category?

care

If we import fruits and vegetables, we still have to wash them whenever we get them to make them clean. I believe supermarkets package them.

Still, if it's a fact that the job doesn't produce, it simply doesn't produce. Having it as a majorly domestic industry isn't going to make it produce more, it's just going to divert labor away from things we do produce well.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Do you think that the only books that contain relevant information are textbooks, how about Almanacs, Encyclopedias and books written on the subject that aren't necessarily ever used as textbooks and aren't written to be used as textbooks. Most people over estimate several numbers as a matter of course. One is the number of people employed in farm labor as you so astutely showed, another is the percentage of Jews in in America. They do this not because of some information in some textbook somewhere, but because they simply think or have heard that the number is more. All I'm saying is your statement about textbooks is age specific and in this case doesn't even reflect where you got your own numbers. And given that it would seem that you might suggest that he surf the web. Of course many sites on the web contain a lot of BS, so I would go farther and suggest that if one was going to quote farming statistics one would use a University Website to ensure a higher probability and degree of accuracy. But that's just a personal preference. I find the web worthless (as in untrustworthy) except for the occasional quotation.

Testbooks are mostly written to the standards of the Texas school districts which are overwhelmingly manned by Christian fundamentalists and are therefore horribly inaccurate and suspect. In order to be printed nearly all new textbooks have to pass through this microscope and are generally edited in accordance with the demands of these Christian fundamentalists. But that is a whole other argument. The point is decent teachers shouldn't rely on textbooks for much of anything beyond general information--dates and such. And neither should students.

Yeah...

The quality of textbooks in America is atrocius. I can't tell you how many tmes I've read through a textbook and been able to say for certain that something it said was bullshit.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I watched the 700 club one time, and they said that there were two kinds of textbooks in America - the Texas ones, and the California ones. Of course, they critisized the California textbooks for a number of "innacuracies", such as not going out of their way to show that Muslims hate everyone and oppress women, and not painting a rosy enough picture of everything Christians have ever done. Then they went on to complement the Texas schoolbooks, which all went through two old fart married Christian fundamentalists who apparently didn't know anything but how to censor them to fit the radical theocratic view of the world, and had very little knowledge on the subjects. I mean, that's ridiculous, in my opinion.