"Trump Money"

This article is very much worth reading especially in view of the recent cuts in the SNAP program. Also be aware, and you probably are not, that much of this money goes to conglomerate farms, not the family farmer.


https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/...dZ3X-VASVAzXgM


Wow, I know there is a way to shorten this, but I forget how.

Cuts in SNAP also affect retailers. So many Dollar Stores as well as Wal-Mart and etc get their profits daily metrics made off of SNAP Benefits.

Cuts in SNAP also affect retailers. So many Dollar Stores as well as Wal-Mart and etc get their profits daily metrics made off of SNAP Benefits. Originally Posted by Agent220

AGreed ! Yes Sir you are Very Much Correct in the Dollar Stores and Walmart’s. Oh SNAP!

If you ever feel the need to get into a fist fight, just tell a farmer that subsidies should be cut because it's welfare bullshit. That gets their blood up really quick.

You did see that that Yoo-Hoo link was to their Entertainment section. Right? You might try out the math as well. $5B from SNAP is about 25% of the $19B the farmers have received. Most of the other 75% has come from mainly Chinese tariffs.


Notwithstanding, most farms these days are 'corporate' farms, very few small 'family' farms these days - as there is very little margin, high cash flow and ultra high risk in farming. That said: American farms are the absolute envy of the world and a critical National resource - deserving of protection.


Tune in to next weeks Yoo-Hoo sports section for a bombshell article covering how TRUMP2020 is stealing the Union vote with USMCA.

You did see that that Yoo-Hoo link was to their Entertainment section. Right? You might try out the math as well. $5B from SNAP is about 25% of the $19B the farmers have received. Most of the other 75% has come from mainly Chinese tariffs.


Notwithstanding, most farms these days are 'corporate' farms, very few small 'family' farms these days - as there is very little margin, high cash flow and ultra high risk in farming. That said: American farms are the absolute envy of the world and a critical National resource - deserving of protection.


Tune in to next weeks Yoo-Hoo sports section for a bombshell article covering how TRUMP2020 is stealing the Union vote with USMCA. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Doesn't matter where it came from if it is true, and I know it is because I have some family that is receiving some of this money. And , true, they are one welfare as much as anyone on welfare is on welfare except it is disguised as CCC payments for not planting wheat and so on.


The 68B that has been paid to farmers over the past two years has come out of the taxpayers pockets, not from tarifs as T. so famously proposed one time. Dude, get a brain. I hear that he Wizard of Ox might be passing them out.

Dude, get a brain. Originally Posted by stikiwikit

What good is getting one if ya just don't know how to use it?!? Numbers I quoted came from the article, I just added the basic math for you.



Go on with your entertainment and sports articles. All $ is taxpayer $, not gubbmint $. I choose to invest it AMERICAN farms as being worthy as most anything. Otherwise, I got's to grow it my fine self.


But if you were to find and acquire a brain, then read the manual to figure out how to use it - you might find that farm subsidies did not start on Jan 20, 2017. And if you keep reading, you might discover that payments can go to not grow things and have for decades - for multiple reasons.



Then who knows, you could even pick up a book (or read the internets) and read about the dust bowl days and what caused that to happen. In short, quit reading entertainment articles from dubious sources and try to see the big picture all by your own fine self.

OP's link was practically verbatim from the NPR piece:

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt...nyone-objected

Here's a pretty good overview. There are pros and cons to everything, and farm subsidies are no different:

https://www.thebalance.com/farm-subsidies-4173885

Think of it as support for the junk food industry, with the added advantage of also draining aquifers. But it's popular in the heartland, and has been for a long time, so no chance of it going away anytime soon.

link was practically verbatim from the NPR Originally Posted by Dev Null

Well... if NPR says so, I would expect it to be in the CNN chyron 5 minutes before they even publish it then. With just as much credibility as CNN itself.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/npr/

"Overall, we rate NPR (National Public Radio) Left-Center Biased based on story selection that leans slightly left and Very High for factual reporting due to thorough sourcing and very accurate news reporting."

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/

Overall, we rate CNN left biased based on editorial positions that consistently favors the left, while straight news reporting falls left-center through bias by omission. We also rate them Mostly Factual in reporting, rather than High due to misleading information presented by guests as well as a few failed fact checks by TV hosts. However, news reporting on the website tends to be be properly sourced with minimal failed fact checks.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news/

"Overall, we rate Fox News strongly Right-Biased due to editorial positions and story selection that favors the right. We also rate them Mixed factually and borderline Questionable based on poor sourcing and the spreading of conspiracy theories that later must be retracted after being widely shared. Further, Fox News would be rated a Questionable source based on numerous failed fact checks by hosts and pundits, however straight news reporting is generally reliable, therefore we rate them Mixed for factual reporting."

Here's how Americans rate bias in their news sources:



Full story here:

https://www.businessinsider.com/most...america-2018-6

Dev, find me the rating for OAN.
I LOVE to watch them. Like to know what the Pro Trumpers listen to.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/one-a...-news-network/

"Overall, we rate One America News Far right biased based on story selection that consistently favors the Right and Mixed for factual reporting due to promotion of conspiracies, lack of sourcing and a few failed fact checks."

Easy to find these ratings, just Google "media bias fact check" and the name of the news outlet. It will be the top hit.

Even though I don't read it anymore, I seriously question the results that place the WSJ in that position. Do any of you folks remember what they used to print about Clinton?

Even though I don't read it anymore, I seriously question the results that place the WSJ in that position. Do any of you folks remember what they used to print about Clinton? Originally Posted by stikiwikit

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/wall-street-journal/

"Overall, we rate the Wall Street Journal Right-Center biased due to low biased news reporting in combination with a strongly right biased editorial stance. We also rate them Mostly Factual in reporting rather than High, due to anti-climate, anti-science stances and occasional misleading editorials."

I used to click through on some of their news stories before they went behind a paywall. I don't think Rupert Murdoch needs my money.

Speaking of the WSJ:

https://www.vox.com/2020/1/10/210599...ment-soleimani

"The administration has made a slapdash case for why it chose to assassinate Soleimani, but the main arguments have been that he was planning to attack Americans within days, and that the US would always respond forcefully after US citizens were killed. In December, an Iranian-backed militia killed an American contractor in Iraq.

"But the Wall Street Journal on Thursday night included an eye-popping tidbit in its story about how Trump came to green-light the Soleimani operation: “Mr. Trump, after the strike, told associates he was under pressure to deal with Gen. Soleimani from GOP senators he views as important supporters in his coming impeachment trial in the Senate, associates said.”

"In other words, the president felt the need to shore up support from some unnamed Republican lawmakers ahead of his imminent Senate impeachment trial."

Food for thought since Trump was against our "endless wars" in the Middle East, until he took steps that were likely to start another one. This could explain the "why now" question, since Soleimani has been a known instigator of ugly shit for ages, and a very easy target all that time.

There's a link to the original WSJ article in the Vox link, if you're a WSJ subscriber. Too bad about the paywall.