If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   House of Representatives considers separating food stamps from agriculture subsidies in the Farm bill so both can die in the Senate   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 37
    More: Asinine, House of Representatives, Senate, farm bills, food stamps, agriculture committee, House Majority Leader, lows, House GOP  
•       •       •

585 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Jul 2013 at 1:35 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



37 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-07-10 01:36:25 PM  
We need to kill agriculture subsidies.
 
2013-07-10 01:39:58 PM  
They say nothing gets done in DC
 
2013-07-10 01:40:23 PM  
No food stamps, no agribusiness subsidies.
 
2013-07-10 01:41:52 PM  
Food stamps are ok and so are agribusiness subsidies, I just don't like giving poor people access to food or big business farms money for not growing food.
 
2013-07-10 01:43:46 PM  

vygramul: We need to kill agriculture subsidies.


no you fool! if we kill aggie welfare, those "farmers" will have to leave manhattan and actually grow shiat!
 
2013-07-10 01:44:37 PM  
You see, libs, when we said government handouts were bad because they lead to laziness, we were only referring to people and not agricultural corporations because corporations are not people except for when they donate to political campaigns.  Why is this so hard for you stupid libs to understand?
 
2013-07-10 01:51:07 PM  

vygramul: We need to kill agriculture subsidies.


It's not that simple. While I recognize that farm subsidies are ripe for abuse and misuse, they were put in place to address a serious problem - erratic market pricing of agricultural goods. Before the current system was instituted, prices fluctuated wildly, leaving consumers in a lurch when prices soared, then leaving farmers impoverished when prices plummeted. I'm old enough to remember the pre-subsidy regime, and it wasn't pretty.

Nixon gave Earl Butz the task of addressing the problem with a very particular goal in mind - he wanted food prices to be taken completely off the table as a political issue. Think about it. Throughout human history, food prices have consistently been one of the most important political issues, but not in America since the Nixon administration. It's an extraordinary thing, really.
 
2013-07-10 01:52:46 PM  

BMulligan: Nixon gave Earl Butz the task of addressing the problem with a very particular goal in mind


*snert*
 
2013-07-10 01:59:23 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: BMulligan: Nixon gave Earl Butz the task of addressing the problem with a very particular goal in mind

*snert*


Remember Earl Butz? He's the guy who had to resign when he publicly remarked, "I'll tell you what the coloreds want. It's three things: first, a tight pussy; second, loose shoes; and third, a warm place to shiat."
 
2013-07-10 02:01:23 PM  

BMulligan: food prices have consistently been one of the most important political issues, but not in America since the Nixon administration. It's an extraordinary thing, really.


Until now. Thanks a lot, Obama.
 
2013-07-10 02:04:04 PM  

BMulligan: Philip Francis Queeg: BMulligan: Nixon gave Earl Butz the task of addressing the problem with a very particular goal in mind

*snert*

Remember Earl Butz? He's the guy who had to resign when he publicly remarked, "I'll tell you what the coloreds want. It's three things: first, a tight pussy; second, loose shoes; and third, a warm place to shiat."


He did NOT say that....

**returning from google**

Holy shiat he DID say that! And we think our politicians are nasty.
 
2013-07-10 02:09:38 PM  
Why even bother calling it the "Farm Bill"? By the time a piece of legislation works it's way through the hallowed bowels of Congress there is so many little line items tacked to it that you could call it the "Shave Your Hairy Balls Act of 2013" and it would make just as much sense.
 
2013-07-10 02:09:43 PM  
clowns.
 
2013-07-10 02:16:18 PM  
The idea of food stamps makes me sick.  People pay taxes their whole life and find themselves in a bad situation and the Government says they can't trust them with cash because they will spend it on hookers and blow.  Disgraceful and humiliating.

I'd like to pay my taxes in vouchers that can be used to kill brown people with bombs but unfortunately, I have to trust them.
 
2013-07-10 02:16:32 PM  

Ambivalence: BMulligan: Philip Francis Queeg: BMulligan: Nixon gave Earl Butz the task of addressing the problem with a very particular goal in mind

*snert*

Remember Earl Butz? He's the guy who had to resign when he publicly remarked, "I'll tell you what the coloreds want. It's three things: first, a tight pussy; second, loose shoes; and third, a warm place to shiat."

He did NOT say that....

**returning from google**

Holy shiat he DID say that! And we think our politicians are nasty.


Sheeittt, the only thing that's changed is that Republicans have learned to speak in code while in public...welfare queen, 47%, free stuff, etc.
 
2013-07-10 02:17:09 PM  

Ambivalence: BMulligan: Philip Francis Queeg: BMulligan: Nixon gave Earl Butz the task of addressing the problem with a very particular goal in mind

*snert*

Remember Earl Butz? He's the guy who had to resign when he publicly remarked, "I'll tell you what the coloreds want. It's three things: first, a tight pussy; second, loose shoes; and third, a warm place to shiat."

He did NOT say that....

**returning from google**

Holy shiat he DID say that! And we think our politicians are nasty.


The best part was that he said it to Pat Boone.
 
2013-07-10 02:49:24 PM  

vernonFL: No food stamps, no agribusiness subsidies.


Works for me. ConAgra, ADM, et al., can burn in Hades.

I will feel bad for the people on food stamps.
 
2013-07-10 02:54:59 PM  

BMulligan: vygramul: We need to kill agriculture subsidies.

It's not that simple. While I recognize that farm subsidies are ripe for abuse and misuse, they were put in place to address a serious problem - erratic market pricing of agricultural goods. Before the current system was instituted, prices fluctuated wildly, leaving consumers in a lurch when prices soared, then leaving farmers impoverished when prices plummeted. I'm old enough to remember the pre-subsidy regime, and it wasn't pretty.

Nixon gave Earl Butz the task of addressing the problem with a very particular goal in mind - he wanted food prices to be taken completely off the table as a political issue. Think about it. Throughout human history, food prices have consistently been one of the most important political issues, but not in America since the Nixon administration. It's an extraordinary thing, really.


I wasn't saying there wasn't a good reason for them. Maybe so. But today, no reason for them.
 
2013-07-10 03:00:30 PM  
Both ag-subsidies and food stamps are security issues of a sort.  Subsidies theoretically keep farming profitable enough that we have home grown supplies in case of some sort of international calamity and food stamps keep there from being riots in the streets.

While both could use signifigant reform, to cut either cold turkey would be cutting off our nose to spite our face.
 
2013-07-10 03:01:45 PM  

vygramul: BMulligan: vygramul: We need to kill agriculture subsidies.

It's not that simple. While I recognize that farm subsidies are ripe for abuse and misuse, they were put in place to address a serious problem - erratic market pricing of agricultural goods. Before the current system was instituted, prices fluctuated wildly, leaving consumers in a lurch when prices soared, then leaving farmers impoverished when prices plummeted. I'm old enough to remember the pre-subsidy regime, and it wasn't pretty.

Nixon gave Earl Butz the task of addressing the problem with a very particular goal in mind - he wanted food prices to be taken completely off the table as a political issue. Think about it. Throughout human history, food prices have consistently been one of the most important political issues, but not in America since the Nixon administration. It's an extraordinary thing, really.

I wasn't saying there wasn't a good reason for them. Maybe so. But today, no reason for them.


I'm not entirely sure about that. It still acts as a leveling factor and given the nature of companies that control a large portion of the current food supply I'm not entirely comfortable taking the combination doggie treat with leash combo off of them. I think it still serves the same purpose that it was intended to. That said I don't really worry about being hungry if food prices skyrocket or otherwise fluctuate randomly.
 
2013-07-10 03:08:35 PM  

BMulligan: vygramul: We need to kill agriculture subsidies.

It's not that simple. While I recognize that farm subsidies are ripe for abuse and misuse, they were put in place to address a serious problem - erratic market pricing of agricultural goods. Before the current system was instituted, prices fluctuated wildly, leaving consumers in a lurch when prices soared, then leaving farmers impoverished when prices plummeted. I'm old enough to remember the pre-subsidy regime, and it wasn't pretty.

Nixon gave Earl Butz the task of addressing the problem with a very particular goal in mind - he wanted food prices to be taken completely off the table as a political issue. Think about it. Throughout human history, food prices have consistently been one of the most important political issues, but not in America since the Nixon administration. It's an extraordinary thing, really.


Your lawn: I am off it.
 
2013-07-10 03:23:20 PM  

Ambivalence: BMulligan: Philip Francis Queeg: BMulligan: Nixon gave Earl Butz the task of addressing the problem with a very particular goal in mind

*snert*

Remember Earl Butz? He's the guy who had to resign when he publicly remarked, "I'll tell you what the coloreds want. It's three things: first, a tight pussy; second, loose shoes; and third, a warm place to shiat."

He did NOT say that....

**returning from google**

Holy shiat he DID say that! And we think our politicians are nasty.


Let's be honest here. Who really *doesn't* want those three things.
 
2013-07-10 03:25:38 PM  
Bankers rock world economy. Whipping boy: food stamps.
 
2013-07-10 03:36:04 PM  

vygramul: BMulligan: vygramul: We need to kill agriculture subsidies.

It's not that simple. While I recognize that farm subsidies are ripe for abuse and misuse, they were put in place to address a serious problem - erratic market pricing of agricultural goods. Before the current system was instituted, prices fluctuated wildly, leaving consumers in a lurch when prices soared, then leaving farmers impoverished when prices plummeted. I'm old enough to remember the pre-subsidy regime, and it wasn't pretty.

Nixon gave Earl Butz the task of addressing the problem with a very particular goal in mind - he wanted food prices to be taken completely off the table as a political issue. Think about it. Throughout human history, food prices have consistently been one of the most important political issues, but not in America since the Nixon administration. It's an extraordinary thing, really.

I wasn't saying there wasn't a good reason for them. Maybe so. But today, no reason for them.


So you would advocate returning to market pricing?
 
2013-07-10 03:39:09 PM  

Aarontology: Let's be honest here. Who really *doesn't* want those three things.


loose shoes?
 
2013-07-10 03:39:26 PM  

Aarontology: Ambivalence: BMulligan: Philip Francis Queeg: BMulligan: Nixon gave Earl Butz the task of addressing the problem with a very particular goal in mind

*snert*

Remember Earl Butz? He's the guy who had to resign when he publicly remarked, "I'll tell you what the coloreds want. It's three things: first, a tight pussy; second, loose shoes; and third, a warm place to shiat."

He did NOT say that....

**returning from google**

Holy shiat he DID say that! And we think our politicians are nasty.

Let's be honest here. Who really *doesn't* want those three things.


Same reason that the fried chicken and watermelon stereotypes are stupid.  Who doesn't like fried chicken and watermelon?
 
2013-07-10 03:45:09 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Why even bother calling it the "Farm Bill"? By the time a piece of legislation works it's way through the hallowed bowels of Congress there is so many little line items tacked to it that you could call it the "Shave Your Hairy Balls Act of 2013" and it would make just as much sense.


Seems we have moved away from "patriotic" sounding bills at least.  a decade ago this bill would have been called (or maybe was):

Defense of the Farmland bill  or Protecting our Farmland Bill or War on Brocolli Bill or Ensuring Freedom Fries for All Bill.
 
2013-07-10 03:52:50 PM  

Stile4aly: Aarontology: Ambivalence: BMulligan: Philip Francis Queeg: BMulligan: Nixon gave Earl Butz the task of addressing the problem with a very particular goal in mind

*snert*

Remember Earl Butz? He's the guy who had to resign when he publicly remarked, "I'll tell you what the coloreds want. It's three things: first, a tight pussy; second, loose shoes; and third, a warm place to shiat."

He did NOT say that....

**returning from google**

Holy shiat he DID say that! And we think our politicians are nasty.

Let's be honest here. Who really *doesn't* want those three things.

Same reason that the fried chicken and watermelon stereotypes are stupid.  Who doesn't like fried chicken and watermelon?


Watermelon is vile.

And I don't like my shoes to be too loose.
 
2013-07-10 03:54:11 PM  

BMulligan: Ambivalence: BMulligan: Philip Francis Queeg: BMulligan: Nixon gave Earl Butz the task of addressing the problem with a very particular goal in mind

*snert*

Remember Earl Butz? He's the guy who had to resign when he publicly remarked, "I'll tell you what the coloreds want. It's three things: first, a tight pussy; second, loose shoes; and third, a warm place to shiat."

He did NOT say that....

**returning from google**

Holy shiat he DID say that! And we think our politicians are nasty.

The best part was that he said it to Pat Boone.


Not just Boone; it was Butz, Boone, Sonny Bono, and John Dean.  They were flying to the RNC, and everyone knew Dean was going to write a piece about the Convention for Rolling Stone.  That wasn't the first time Butz stuck his foot in his mouth, either.

In 1974, a reporter asked Butz about Pope Paul VI's opposition to using artificial contraception as a means to assuage world hunger. Butz replied, in effect, that the pope's rejection of this approach was of little interest because Pope Paul had already stated, in a 1968 encyclical, that artificial contraception violated church law under any circumstances. Here's how he put it: "He no play-a da game, he no make-a da rules."
 
2013-07-10 03:55:08 PM  
Government handouts are good as long as you work for them.
 
2013-07-10 03:58:43 PM  
Good.

Then kill the subsidies, and fix food stamps creep.
 
2013-07-10 05:16:20 PM  

BMFPitt: Good.

Then kill the subsidies, and fix food stamps creep.


What's food stamp creep? When people buy pervy crackers with an EBT card?
 
2013-07-10 05:23:12 PM  
The GOP just wants women to have the babies, not feed the babies.
 
2013-07-10 07:58:54 PM  

xaldin: vygramul: BMulligan: vygramul: We need to kill agriculture subsidies.

It's not that simple. While I recognize that farm subsidies are ripe for abuse and misuse, they were put in place to address a serious problem - erratic market pricing of agricultural goods. Before the current system was instituted, prices fluctuated wildly, leaving consumers in a lurch when prices soared, then leaving farmers impoverished when prices plummeted. I'm old enough to remember the pre-subsidy regime, and it wasn't pretty.

Nixon gave Earl Butz the task of addressing the problem with a very particular goal in mind - he wanted food prices to be taken completely off the table as a political issue. Think about it. Throughout human history, food prices have consistently been one of the most important political issues, but not in America since the Nixon administration. It's an extraordinary thing, really.

I wasn't saying there wasn't a good reason for them. Maybe so. But today, no reason for them.

I'm not entirely sure about that. It still acts as a leveling factor and given the nature of companies that control a large portion of the current food supply I'm not entirely comfortable taking the combination doggie treat with leash combo off of them. I think it still serves the same purpose that it was intended to. That said I don't really worry about being hungry if food prices skyrocket or otherwise fluctuate randomly.


Large companies do not need subsidies.
 
2013-07-10 08:00:04 PM  

BMulligan: vygramul: BMulligan: vygramul: We need to kill agriculture subsidies.

It's not that simple. While I recognize that farm subsidies are ripe for abuse and misuse, they were put in place to address a serious problem - erratic market pricing of agricultural goods. Before the current system was instituted, prices fluctuated wildly, leaving consumers in a lurch when prices soared, then leaving farmers impoverished when prices plummeted. I'm old enough to remember the pre-subsidy regime, and it wasn't pretty.

Nixon gave Earl Butz the task of addressing the problem with a very particular goal in mind - he wanted food prices to be taken completely off the table as a political issue. Think about it. Throughout human history, food prices have consistently been one of the most important political issues, but not in America since the Nixon administration. It's an extraordinary thing, really.

I wasn't saying there wasn't a good reason for them. Maybe so. But today, no reason for them.

So you would advocate returning to market pricing?


Yep. Cut taxes and increase food stamps, and we'd all still come out ahead.
 
2013-07-10 08:53:18 PM  

vernonFL: No food stamps, no agribusiness subsidies.


Deal.
 
2013-07-11 04:24:25 AM  

Ambivalence: BMulligan: Philip Francis Queeg: BMulligan: Nixon gave Earl Butz the task of addressing the problem with a very particular goal in mind

*snert*

Remember Earl Butz? He's the guy who had to resign when he publicly remarked, "I'll tell you what the coloreds want. It's three things: first, a tight pussy; second, loose shoes; and third, a warm place to shiat."

He did NOT say that....

**returning from google**

Holy shiat he DID say that! And we think our politicians are nasty.


Yeah, nowadays our top politicians can't even remember the third thing.
 
Displayed 37 of 37 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report