So the peeps are trying to pay for food and these jackasses give the richest of the rich farmers MONEY?

Bush rightfully Veto'd it and then now the House and Senate (Dems and Reps)are going to override the veto.

This is what those fucking theives do up there with our money.

I don't completely understand this thing, but thats what I'm getting so far.

Most of it is garbage. Some of it (school lunch) is significant.

It's the same farm bill we've had for decades. Decades. Farm subsidies didn't just magically appear with this go-round. Bush veto'd it because that's his only response when congress isn't his lapdog.

Also worth noting is the fact that this veto will be overridden because a large number of republicans in congress oppose him on it.

It's the same farm bill we've had for decades. Decades. Farm subsidies didn't just magically appear with this go-round. Bush veto'd it because that's his only response when congress isn't his lapdog.

Also worth noting is the fact that this veto will be overridden because a large number of republicans in congress oppose him on it.

Well, maybe the bill hasn't changed much, but what a farm/farmer is, and their relative wealth has. Food prices have been a boon....farmers and agribusiness don't need much help right now. Consumers do.

And Tahoe mentioned it was bipartisan support in his post.

He also mentioned he didn't know much about it (nor do I) and I think a general principle of "the President is typically not looking out for Americans but more so special interests and big business" is a valid one to use in assuming Bush isn't the lone person getting this one right.

Quite fair, but temper that with the "Congress is always willing to spend your money to buy themselves votes" rule.

Also valid.

I don't really understand the relationship of farm income to costs and actual money earned. How does a high farm income relate to profit and standard of living? Like gas stations, I'd expect farm income to go up across the board, but increased gas prices to eat up most of that, so what does that mean for the bottom line? AFAICT, we've had similarly high limits on farming income for subsidy purposes for a long time, but the bill expanded in other ways.

I'm amused by the printing error that resulted in their having to revote on the bill. The bill given to the president was missing an entire segment. He could have veto'ed it on the grounds that Democrats were stupid. McCain being on Bush's side on this can't help in him places like Iowa.