<DIV>Why are we paying farmers subsidies again? To keep food prices higher? The price of my chicken when up 25% in the last few days, there are millions, if not billions of people unable to afford enough calories to survive, and we are about trying to keep food prices higher?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Humm, I say we pay the farmer to grow more food, not the other way around.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Best Regards,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Donovan<BR><BR><B><I>Tom Ivie <the_ivies3@yahoo.com></I></B> wrote:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Wouldn't doing away with farm subsidies (although a Federal USDA program) hurt some of your potential constituents, assuming you run for office again?<BR><SPAN class=highlight><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold"><BR></SPAN></SPAN>There are<SPAN class=highlight><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold"> </SPAN>1,369 farmers in Latah County that received
subsidies from 1995-2006.<BR></SPAN> <DIV>Recipients of <B>Total USDA Subsidies</B> from farms in Latah County, Idaho totaled <B>$7,733,000</B> in in 2006 alone.</DIV>http://farm.ewg.org/farm/top_recips.php?fips=16057&progcode=total&yr=2006<BR><BR><B><I>lfalen <lfalen@turbonet.com></I></B> wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid">I am all for getting the rich off welfare, including farm subsidies. Some incentives to business may be in order when the will legitimately stimulate the economy or advance research in areas that with improve the future such as new energy sources.<BR>Roger <BR>-----Original message-----<BR>From: Tom Hansen idahotom@hotmail.com<BR>Date: Fri, 09 May 2008 06:24:13 -0700<BR>To: "g. crabtree" jampot@roadrunner.com, Andreas Schou ophite@gmail.com<BR>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] rebate checks<BR><BR>> It is not the banking industry, g-ster.<BR>> <BR>> The
S&L bailout concerned a considerable amount of savings and loans companies that made some serious unwise investments that (surprise!) failed.<BR>> <BR>> >From the March 18, 1991 edition of the New York Times at:<BR>> <BR>> http://tinyurl.com/47952d<BR>> "The lawmakers [Congress] have refused to give the [Bush] Administration open-ended financing for the savings and loan rescue, feeling burned by the experience of 1988, when savings regulators, facing a shortage of funds, bailed out almost 200 savings associations in deals now seen as giveaways. Those deals are expected to cost taxpayers more than $69 billion. "<BR>> <BR>> And . . .<BR>> <BR>> "The track record of the Resolution Trust Corporation is hardly reassuring. It has sold only about a quarter of the $120 billion in assets that it held at the end of last year from the 352 savings associations that it had seized, auditors at the General Accounting Office said. Its task has been
complicated because the portfolio includes many undesirable investments, like raw land and high-risk 'junk bonds.'"<BR>> <BR>> Maybe it's about time we got the rich off of welfare, dontcha think? Or dontcha think?<BR>> <BR>> Seeya round town, Moscow<BR>> <BR>> Tom Hansen<BR>> Moscow, Idaho<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> From: jampot@roadrunner.comTo: ophite@gmail.comDate: Fri, 9 May 2008 06:09:42 -0700CC: vision2020@moscow.comSubject: Re: [Vision2020] rebate checks<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> I am, for the most part, not a fan of corporate bail outs either. But since your question is how is bailing out the banking industry any less "welfare" than giving poor people money to spend on food a reply is in order. The banking industry pays huge amounts in taxes and employees many, many people. Poor people pay no taxes and employee no one. The government in its bail out of selected banks is returning a small percent of the tax money it received to the
organization that has paid in significant amounts in the past and will pay more in the future. Poor people not so much. Banks kept open will continue to provide jobs. Poor people subsidized will only create more poor people. An argument can also be made that a portion of the banks problems were brought on by the government forcing them to extend credit to a much riskier pool of borrowers in the name of "fairness." The government, for all its faults, does not create poor people. It might encourage them to stay that way bu!<BR>t it<BR>generally doesn't put them there in the first place.<BR>> <BR>> g<BR>> <BR><BR>=======================================================<BR>List services made available by First Step Internet, <BR>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <BR>http://www.fsr.net <BR>mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>=======================================================<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>Tom & Liz Ivie <DIV> <HR SIZE=1> Be a
better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. <A href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ">Try it now.</A>=======================================================<BR>List services made available by First Step Internet, <BR>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <BR>http://www.fsr.net <BR>mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>=======================================================</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><p>