Replies

Another compromise would be to make sure that agricultural lands which have not claimed federal crop subsidies or other federal payments are "not taken", whereas those which have such claims on record are "at the top of the list".

I would suspect that such a creature is both rare and elusive.

I come from agricultural stock, families with small farms. A few years a go I looked up the farm subsidies received in the area. Subsidies as small a $250 were received.

If farmers where willing to navigate the Federal red tape to receive such tiny checks I doubt that there very many farms out there that are not dipping in to the federal till.

Socialism is an insidious force. If your competition’s costs are being subsidized by the government dime, do you dare to go it alone?

The U.S. Department of Agriculture almost single handedly drove black farmers off their land. Socialism brings out the worst tribal instincts in people. In Capitalism you assess the worth of an offer in dollars in cents. In Socialism you assess the worth of an offer in terms of ethnicity, culture, and how many packs of smokes they bribe you with. Black farmers were less likely to get government hand outs from the Socialist Racist Bureaucrats at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. They used to own about 10% of the agricultural land in the U.S.A. and now are almost gone.

The Ugly face of Socialism. Good link to how socialism leads to racism. As the author points out, racism has a financial cost, but socialism helps to subsidize racism.

“The Socialist Roots of Modern Antisemitism”

http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=359

Which, of course, should make it easy for all of us to imagine that as part of our stake in their wellbeing is the privilege of selecting their farm to be turned into highway rightofway.

Those who are not sticking their snouts into the swill bucket should, of course, not be asked to make the first sacrifice.