Cross posted from Facebook because (When 2 people love each other…) everyone:
So lets say there's a Federal Program, we'll call it the Farm Program, because that's what it's called. Anyway, say this program is a subsidy program (cause it is in part), that IS NOT WELFARE CAUSE THAT'S ENTIRELY DIFFERENT EVEN THOUGH IT'S A SUBSIDY AND DAMNIT IT'S DIFFERENT OKAY, IT'S JUST DIFFERENT!, and so, lets pretend this Program that isn't a form of Welfare pays out your subsidy based on your crop yield and lets further pretend that the lower your yield the higher your NON WELFARE SUBSIDY (cause Welfare is in no way intended to act as a buffer between what you make and what it takes to live, nope, not at all). Now lets pretend that in the portions of your field you irrigate you get a really high yield, therefore lower subsidy. Now, lets say you don't irrigate parts of your field and you never have, but you tell the Federales that you do in fact irrigate those parts even though you don't because that lowers your overall yield and nets you MORE NON WELFARE SUBSIDY! Isn't this EXACTLY the definition of fraud? You know, making erroneous claims in order to get money that isn't due to you?
Now, pretend we did exactly the same thing but substituted something like, oh, children maybe, and instead of applying it to farmers we applied to...oh, I dunno, inner city poor folks.
So yeah, basically one is cool and the other isn't? That's the lesson here right, that fraud in certain instances is okiedokie and turrible in others?
My plan, get rid of all subsidies, either make it on your own or die and decrease the surface population.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."
– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)