tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27951078.post9024495982644051768..comments2024-02-02T05:45:33.724-06:00Comments on Incoming: John Phippshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03245790061133614986noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27951078.post-68054339400980283272008-05-29T07:02:00.000-06:002008-05-29T07:02:00.000-06:00Do you even understand the definition of SUBSIDY. ...Do you even understand the definition of SUBSIDY. A subsidy is supposed to artificially encourage production of a specified commodity irrespective of who is growing it. What you keep hoping for and eluding to is WELFARE.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27951078.post-20512909325552377002008-05-26T20:33:00.000-06:002008-05-26T20:33:00.000-06:00Hi from New Zealand. Yes, I'm afraid that pic has ...Hi from New Zealand. Yes, I'm afraid that pic has been photoshopped. Even New Zealand is not that manicured. The pic was noted as digitally enhanced in the Sunday Star Times newspaper in which it ran with that story. I do agree that the US could save a lot of money by axing the farm bill. What are the figures? Eighty per cent of subsidies going to five per cent of farmers, and they the US's richest and often corporate farmers? John, you would be most welcome to visit NZ and see life without subsidies first hand. Meantime, you might like to keep up with farm news here http://www.ruralnetwork.co.nzAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com