War on The Rich: Dumbest Idea in History of Man

[rightwinger]

and save as much as $21 billion over 10 years.

LMFAOooo.... So, it saves $2.1 billion per year?

That should just about cover Obama's green fees!

So you REALLY don't want ONE law that benefits the 'job creators' after all. You ae a tool Bubba

No, I had rather get rid of laws which hinder the job creators and encourage them to create more jobs. The OPPOSITE of what you stupidly want to do.


Again, YOU are the consummate tool. You've embarked on a war you cannot win against an enemy you can never defeat. You continue to fire volleys of cannonballs into your hull in the vain attempt to get the 'greedy rich bastards' who remain two steps ahead of you. You're convinced your efforts are paying off but the actuality of the results are dismal. Wealthy people continue to gain wealth, poor and middle income people continue to struggle, stifled by your idiotic policies which prevent them from obtaining wealth.

Dumbest idea in the history of man! No question about that!

Job creators huh?

How bout we cut taxes on those who actually create jobs and **** over every rich son of a ***** who doesn't?

 

[Boss]

80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power

The middle class has been eviscerated

What a bad job of 'war'

What a bad job of 'war'
Oh, I know... Dumbest idea ever in the history of man! It is a war that can never be won against an enemy you can never defeat, led by idiots who keep blowing holes in their own boat and deny they are at war.

 

[occupied]

That doesn't even begin to make any sense. Where do you build a railroad without the free the land provided by the US government?

Again, the land was not "free" (as is nothing in this universe.) It was stolen from the indigenous people who lived there. It did not belong to the US Government. Now they did give this stolen land to the capitalists who built the railroad, but the capitalists still built it, not the government.

The building of the railroads were a naked exercise in political cronyism that still stands as one the worst cases of human misery caused by pursuit of wealth in US history.

 

[Discombobulated]

That doesn't even begin to make any sense. Where do you build a railroad without the free the land provided by the US government?

Again, the land was not "free" (as is nothing in this universe.) It was stolen from the indigenous people who lived there. It did not belong to the US Government. Now they did give this stolen land to the capitalists who built the railroad, but the capitalists still built it, not the government.

The building of the railroads were a naked exercise in political cronyism that still stands as one the worst cases of human misery caused by pursuit of wealth in US history.

"Picking winners and losers"

 

[Dad2three]

to add to that Skull Pilot, you can't have people gaining wealth when their opportunities become limited by policies designed only to help that top 1%.

What policy exactly has stopped you from making more or adding to your net worth?

we are not talking about MY earnings or net wroth. I am fine. unlike you, I have a societal interest in assuring a strong middle class.

and you know very well what rightwing policies have destroyed the middle class and left people with the same wages they earned basically thirty years ago, while goods cost so much more.

I don't know any right wing anything.

All I know is for my entire life no one, no policies, no rich guy, no CEO has ever stopped me from earning more, saving more, or anything else i wanted to do to improve my financial position.

I guess I don't see cabals and conspiracies to use as excuses.

The battle lines are pretty much drawn at those who have benefited from the American economic/tax system, and those who have not. A lot of those who have benefited have such a knee-jerk, arrogant, and defensive reaction that there is just no getting through to them.

Those who benefit love to crow about how hard they worked.

If anything THAT is the great American myth.


There are so many variables in to financial success that I laugh when I hear people extolling the virtues of their “hard work”. Yes, hard work is necessary, but it is not the path to goodness and wealth.

From your standpoint hard work means:

1- voting early and often
2- determining who will provide more welfare-type benefits Hillary or Elizabeth
3- producing new neologisms such as zero-sum game in order to hide your parasitic/socialist tendencies

.

Conservatives just ignore facts and reality. They have "faith" that their ideology is correct.


You know what happens when you have a very static and simplistic view of a very dynamic and complex system? You find yourself being wrong almost all the time.


Libertarians are frauds and parasites but unfortunately have been successful in hiding their dangerous disease under war hating, and freedom loving. Sadly their freedom isn't freedom, it is chaos and opens the door to a real loss of democracy.

They unwittingly use the protections, benefits and accomplishments government has to offer to create their fortunes, while pompously declaring they did it all on their own.

Clueless igets, everyone.

 

[Boss]

Job creators huh?

How bout we cut taxes on those who actually create jobs and **** over every rich son of a ***** who doesn't?

Well the problem with your plan is, you're too stupid to **** over the rich sons of bitches. They are much smarter than you will ever be. The more you attempt to **** them, the more you end up ******* yourself and wondering what went wrong. That's what makes this such a dumb idea at the very core.

Now, I am all FOR cutting taxes for those who create new jobs. I think that is an excellent way to motivate the rich sons of bitches to let go of some of that wealth and invest in capitalist projects which create new jobs and enterprise. That would be a move in the right direction at least. But you don't want to declare a cease fire. You want to keep firing the cannons into your own hull in a mad fit of rage against the rich sons of bitches.

 

[Dad2three]

Actually, that transcontinental railroad to California did help the 1% gain more wealth

Another fine example of a government sellout to the rich

But the government had little to do with it. The railroad was built by free market capitalists. Yep, the wealthiest men who paid for building it did benefit a lot.... that's WHY they did it. You see, they were motivated to build the railroad. But now, last time I checked, the railroad was not exclusively used by only the wealthiest 1%. Seems like an awful lot of people who were not among the wealthiest 1% used the railroad and gained a benefit from it. Seems like a lot of middle-income and poor people were able to use the railroad to gain prosperity and wealth. In the end, even though it helped the rich get richer, it was a good thing for all.

Actually, that transcontinental railroad to California did help the 1% gain more wealth

Another fine example of a government sellout to the rich

But the government had little to do with it. The railroad was built by free market capitalists. Yep, the wealthiest men who paid for building it did benefit a lot.... that's WHY they did it. You see, they were motivated to build the railroad. But now, last time I checked, the railroad was not exclusively used by only the wealthiest 1%. Seems like an awful lot of people who were not among the wealthiest 1% used the railroad and gained a benefit from it. Seems like a lot of middle-income and poor people were able to use the railroad to gain prosperity and wealth. In the end, even though it helped the rich get richer, it was a good thing for all.

Not much of a historian are you. How do you imagine the railroads acquired the land?

Did the land build the railroad?

Are you serious or what?

Uhm, yes... why would I be anything but serious?
Did the land build the railroad? Yes or no?

You see... I said "...the government had little to do with it. The railroad was built by free market capitalists."

The response to this was regarding land the railroad was built on. I didn't mention the land, only the building of the railroad. Now the actual LAND belonged to indigenous tribes of North America and was stolen by the US Government. So the US Government actually made no real contribution to the railroad... other than military protection against the people the land was stolen from. Capitalists built the railroad.

Let's follow this thought process of yours

So the land that the 'job creators' have belongs to the indigenous tribes of NAmerica too? LOL

Or it's OK, for 'capitalists' to take things?

You stated earlier capitalists, NOT Gov't built the RR's? lol


Between 1850 and 1871 the United States government used a portion of the public domain (federally owned land) to assist and encourage the building of railroads. In all, during that twenty-one year period approximately 1.31 million acres of land were transferred to private ownership. This represented 9.5 percent of the public domain as it stood in 1850 (1.39 billion acres).


The law provided that companies agreeing to undertake the construction of transcontinental railroad lines would be eligible for loans ranging from $16,000 to $48,000 per mile of track laid. The precise amount of the loan was determined by the difficulty of the terrain through which the construction passed. The government loaned a total of $64,623,512 to the transcontinental companies

The states added another 50 million acres of land grants. Local communities also subsidized railroad companies by giving them land for depots and rights of way and tax exemptions


The total of public land grants given to the railroads by states and the federal government was about 180 million acres. At the time, the value of this land was about one dollar per acre

Railroads Federal Land Grants to Issue FREE Railroads Federal Land Grants to Issue information Encyclopedia.com Find Railroads Federal Land Grants to Issue research

 

[The Rabbi]

So a new paradigm in the US, where only the Rich can vote, where only the Rich can hold positions of power, and where all opposition to, criticism of, and disagreement with the Rich is punishable under the law,

how soon would that make life better for the rest of us?

It seemed to work pretty well in the early years of the Constitution. Because people didnt have to pander to ignorant assholes who couldn't hold a job and resented anyone with a bigger house. Like you.

They used to just let em die. Life expectancy was in the 40s

Our government cares more about the people now

Damn. Had o idea our very lives depended on government.
Thanks, Nutsucker!

 

[francoHFW]

just the greedy idiot GOP sons of bitches...who've been screwing us for 30 years...

 

[The Rabbi]

and save as much as $21 billion over 10 years.

LMFAOooo.... So, it saves $2.1 billion per year?

That should just about cover Obama's green fees!

So you REALLY don't want ONE law that benefits the 'job creators' after all. You ae a tool Bubba

No, I had rather get rid of laws which hinder the job creators and encourage them to create more jobs. The OPPOSITE of what you stupidly want to do.


Again, YOU are the consummate tool. You've embarked on a war you cannot win against an enemy you can never defeat. You continue to fire volleys of cannonballs into your hull in the vain attempt to get the 'greedy rich bastards' who remain two steps ahead of you. You're convinced your efforts are paying off but the actuality of the results are dismal. Wealthy people continue to gain wealth, poor and middle income people continue to struggle, stifled by your idiotic policies which prevent them from obtaining wealth.

Dumbest idea in the history of man! No question about that!

Job creators huh?

How bout we cut taxes on those who actually create jobs and **** over every rich son of a ***** who doesn't?

There ya go! That's the Democrat spirit: **** them over! Thanks. Maybe the most honest post you've ever made.

 

[Boss]

What policy exactly has stopped you from making more or adding to your net worth?

we are not talking about MY earnings or net wroth. I am fine. unlike you, I have a societal interest in assuring a strong middle class.

and you know very well what rightwing policies have destroyed the middle class and left people with the same wages they earned basically thirty years ago, while goods cost so much more.

I don't know any right wing anything.

All I know is for my entire life no one, no policies, no rich guy, no CEO has ever stopped me from earning more, saving more, or anything else i wanted to do to improve my financial position.

I guess I don't see cabals and conspiracies to use as excuses.

The battle lines are pretty much drawn at those who have benefited from the American economic/tax system, and those who have not. A lot of those who have benefited have such a knee-jerk, arrogant, and defensive reaction that there is just no getting through to them.

Those who benefit love to crow about how hard they worked.

If anything THAT is the great American myth.


There are so many variables in to financial success that I laugh when I hear people extolling the virtues of their “hard work”. Yes, hard work is necessary, but it is not the path to goodness and wealth.

From your standpoint hard work means:

1- voting early and often
2- determining who will provide more welfare-type benefits Hillary or Elizabeth
3- producing new neologisms such as zero-sum game in order to hide your parasitic/socialist tendencies

.

Conservatives just ignore facts and reality. They have "faith" that their ideology is correct.


You know what happens when you have a very static and simplistic view of a very dynamic and complex system? You find yourself being wrong almost all the time.


Libertarians are frauds and parasites but unfortunately have been successful in hiding their dangerous disease under war hating, and freedom loving. Sadly their freedom isn't freedom, it is chaos and opens the door to a real loss of democracy.

They unwittingly use the protections, benefits and accomplishments government has to offer to create their fortunes, while pompously declaring they did it all on their own.

Clueless igets, everyone.

LMFAOOoo.... Oh this is GREAT! You see , Rabbi and Skull... this is all too "complex" for us to understand! These idjits would explain it all to us, but it's just too complicated! They would refute our points if it weren't so darn hard to explain the intricacies involved! We're the clueless simpletons who just don't understand the genius behind their war against the enemy they can't defeat!

What we probably need to do is, go to the left-wing Marxist blogs and immerse ourselves in the outdated propaganda from 19th century socialists and totally forget everything we know about free market capitalism.... after about a year or two, we should start to be able to see how complex this really is!

 

[Dad2three]

and save as much as $21 billion over 10 years.

LMFAOooo.... So, it saves $2.1 billion per year?

That should just about cover Obama's green fees!

So you REALLY don't want ONE law that benefits the 'job creators' after all. You ae a tool Bubba

No, I had rather get rid of laws which hinder the job creators and encourage them to create more jobs. The OPPOSITE of what you stupidly want to do.


Again, YOU are the consummate tool. You've embarked on a war you cannot win against an enemy you can never defeat. You continue to fire volleys of cannonballs into your hull in the vain attempt to get the 'greedy rich bastards' who remain two steps ahead of you. You're convinced your efforts are paying off but the actuality of the results are dismal. Wealthy people continue to gain wealth, poor and middle income people continue to struggle, stifled by your idiotic policies which prevent them from obtaining wealth.

Dumbest idea in the history of man! No question about that!

Yes, when the top1/10th of 1% paid an EFFECTIVE rate above 70% in the 1940's-1960's, the US didn't create jobs *shaking head*


If my policies don't work, why aren't YOURS in place somewhere, anywhere? Libertarian bullshit NEVER works


I know you prefer the gangster capitalism of Russia, which you have wet dreams about!


Neo-Liberalism/Conservatives is/has destroyed the American Economy in favor of the so called "Job Creator"... In reality are "Job Exporters"...

 

[jillian]

to add to that Skull Pilot, you can't have people gaining wealth when their opportunities become limited by policies designed only to help that top 1%.

What policy exactly has stopped you from making more or adding to your net worth?

we are not talking about MY earnings or net wroth. I am fine. unlike you, I have a societal interest in assuring a strong middle class.

and you know very well what rightwing policies have destroyed the middle class and left people with the same wages they earned basically thirty years ago, while goods cost so much more.

I don't know any right wing anything.

All I know is for my entire life no one, no policies, no rich guy, no CEO has ever stopped me from earning more, saving more, or anything else i wanted to do to improve my financial position.

I guess I don't see cabals and conspiracies to use as excuses.

The battle lines are pretty much drawn at those who have benefited from the American economic/tax system, and those who have not. A lot of those who have benefited have such a knee-jerk, arrogant, and defensive reaction that there is just no getting through to them.

Those who benefit love to crow about how hard they worked.

If anything THAT is the great American myth.


There are so many variables in to financial success that I laugh when I hear people extolling the virtues of their “hard work”. Yes, hard work is necessary, but it is not the path to goodness and wealth.

From your standpoint hard work means:

1- voting early and often
2- determining who will provide more welfare-type benefits Hillary or Elizabeth
3- producing new neologisms such as zero-sum game in order to hide your parasitic/socialist tendencies

.

^^^^^^

delusiona

 

[The Rabbi]

What policy exactly has stopped you from making more or adding to your net worth?

we are not talking about MY earnings or net wroth. I am fine. unlike you, I have a societal interest in assuring a strong middle class.

and you know very well what rightwing policies have destroyed the middle class and left people with the same wages they earned basically thirty years ago, while goods cost so much more.

I don't know any right wing anything.

All I know is for my entire life no one, no policies, no rich guy, no CEO has ever stopped me from earning more, saving more, or anything else i wanted to do to improve my financial position.

I guess I don't see cabals and conspiracies to use as excuses.

The battle lines are pretty much drawn at those who have benefited from the American economic/tax system, and those who have not. A lot of those who have benefited have such a knee-jerk, arrogant, and defensive reaction that there is just no getting through to them.

Those who benefit love to crow about how hard they worked.

If anything THAT is the great American myth.


There are so many variables in to financial success that I laugh when I hear people extolling the virtues of their “hard work”. Yes, hard work is necessary, but it is not the path to goodness and wealth.

From your standpoint hard work means:

1- voting early and often
2- determining who will provide more welfare-type benefits Hillary or Elizabeth
3- producing new neologisms such as zero-sum game in order to hide your parasitic/socialist tendencies

.

^^^^^^

delusiona

Delusonia would appear to be the county where you reside.

 

[Contumacious]

But the government had little to do with it. The railroad was built by free market capitalists. Yep, the wealthiest men who paid for building it did benefit a lot.... that's WHY they did it. You see, they were motivated to build the railroad. But now, last time I checked, the railroad was not exclusively used by only the wealthiest 1%. Seems like an awful lot of people who were not among the wealthiest 1% used the railroad and gained a benefit from it. Seems like a lot of middle-income and poor people were able to use the railroad to gain prosperity and wealth. In the end, even though it helped the rich get richer, it was a good thing for all.

But the government had little to do with it. The railroad was built by free market capitalists. Yep, the wealthiest men who paid for building it did benefit a lot.... that's WHY they did it. You see, they were motivated to build the railroad. But now, last time I checked, the railroad was not exclusively used by only the wealthiest 1%. Seems like an awful lot of people who were not among the wealthiest 1% used the railroad and gained a benefit from it. Seems like a lot of middle-income and poor people were able to use the railroad to gain prosperity and wealth. In the end, even though it helped the rich get richer, it was a good thing for all.

Not much of a historian are you. How do you imagine the railroads acquired the land?

Did the land build the railroad?

Are you serious or what?

Uhm, yes... why would I be anything but serious?
Did the land build the railroad? Yes or no?

You see... I said "...the government had little to do with it. The railroad was built by free market capitalists."

The response to this was regarding land the railroad was built on. I didn't mention the land, only the building of the railroad. Now the actual LAND belonged to indigenous tribes of North America and was stolen by the US Government. So the US Government actually made no real contribution to the railroad... other than military protection against the people the land was stolen from. Capitalists built the railroad.

That doesn't even begin to make any sense. Where do you build a railroad without the free the land provided by the US government?

A PRIVATELY owned RR can not buy the lands it needs because _________________________?

 

[Dad2three]

So heavy inheritance tax wont work huh? lol

We already have it. We tax inheritance more than anything, and yet... the wealthy keep on getting wealthier. Again, remember this... Wealthy people are smart... much smarter than you! They are two steps ahead of you and anything you can do to try and get their wealth.

You see, what happens is... Knowing there is an inheritance tax, the wealthy (who are aware they are wealthy) plan out the disbursement of their estates far ahead of their demise. So when they die and it comes time to collect the tax, there isn't any inheritance which qualifies because it has all been divided up to avoid that. You can lower the amount, but then you are blowing another hole in the hull of your own ship. You're hurting people who aren't wealthy but have a family farm or business they leave to their remaining family.

SHhhBOOM! Drats! Missed the Rich, killed more of your own with "friendly fire!"

Really? We have a heavy tax inheritance (ESTATE) plan? Since when?

You are HORRIBLE at knowing how Gov't works you know?

Weird, seems we had a VERY heavy estate tax at one time?


"Dynastic wealth, the enemy of a meritocracy, is on the rise. Equality of opportunity has been on the decline. A progressive and meaningful estate tax is needed to curb the movement of a democracy toward plutocracy." Warren Buffett


Winston Churchill argued that estate taxes are “a certain corrective against the development of a race of idle rich”.

 

[Contumacious]

What policy exactly has stopped you from making more or adding to your net worth?

we are not talking about MY earnings or net wroth. I am fine. unlike you, I have a societal interest in assuring a strong middle class.

and you know very well what rightwing policies have destroyed the middle class and left people with the same wages they earned basically thirty years ago, while goods cost so much more.

I don't know any right wing anything.

All I know is for my entire life no one, no policies, no rich guy, no CEO has ever stopped me from earning more, saving more, or anything else i wanted to do to improve my financial position.

I guess I don't see cabals and conspiracies to use as excuses.

The battle lines are pretty much drawn at those who have benefited from the American economic/tax system, and those who have not. A lot of those who have benefited have such a knee-jerk, arrogant, and defensive reaction that there is just no getting through to them.

Those who benefit love to crow about how hard they worked.

If anything THAT is the great American myth.


There are so many variables in to financial success that I laugh when I hear people extolling the virtues of their “hard work”. Yes, hard work is necessary, but it is not the path to goodness and wealth.

From your standpoint hard work means:

1- voting early and often
2- determining who will provide more welfare-type benefits Hillary or Elizabeth
3- producing new neologisms such as zero-sum game in order to hide your parasitic/socialist tendencies

.

^^^^^^

delusiona

Delusional ....hummmmmmm....I believe that you guys use the UNabridged Orwellian Dictionary so what you REALLY meant to say is that my comments were lucid and reasonable. And I , of course, concur.

.

 

[Dad2three]

what concepts would that be?

that policies that only protect and enrich further the top 1% are bad for society?

i'm pretty sure if we start there, we can find far more places for agreement than i'm seeing in this thread

The concept that wealth is a zero sum game is flat out wrong.

and yet you're not acknowledging my obvious and correct point.

Since you are the one who decided to reply to me, your point is irrelevant to the incorrect assertion that wealth is a zero-sum game.

You LIE. Shocking. The premises, as I've outlined to you, was

Adam Smith, in his seminal work The Wealth of Nations, described wealth as "the annual produce of the land and labour of the society".

JUST like my link, and my posting showed.

Lying right winger? I'm shocked

You are a fool because you don't have the sense to know what you don't know. Perhaps you should have read further down your Wikipedia link.

In economics, wealth in a commonly applied accounting sense is the net worth of a person, household, or nation, that is, the value of all assets owned net of all liabilities owed at a point in time. For national wealth as measured in the national accounts, the net liabilities are those owed to the rest of the world.

economic definition of wealth - Google Search

You learn this in the first week of Introductory Economics 101. You should get an education. Then, you wouldn't display your ignorance online for all the world to see.

It's ironic that you quote Adam Smith. The Wealth of Nations was the first teatise demonstrating that wealth wasn't a zero-sum game.

Of course, you wouldn't know that.

So NO, you will not take Adam Smith's AND MY definition of wealth as the posit was, instead you'll change it and argue from a different posit? Typical right winger!

 

[Boss]

But the government had little to do with it. The railroad was built by free market capitalists. Yep, the wealthiest men who paid for building it did benefit a lot.... that's WHY they did it. You see, they were motivated to build the railroad. But now, last time I checked, the railroad was not exclusively used by only the wealthiest 1%. Seems like an awful lot of people who were not among the wealthiest 1% used the railroad and gained a benefit from it. Seems like a lot of middle-income and poor people were able to use the railroad to gain prosperity and wealth. In the end, even though it helped the rich get richer, it was a good thing for all.

But the government had little to do with it. The railroad was built by free market capitalists. Yep, the wealthiest men who paid for building it did benefit a lot.... that's WHY they did it. You see, they were motivated to build the railroad. But now, last time I checked, the railroad was not exclusively used by only the wealthiest 1%. Seems like an awful lot of people who were not among the wealthiest 1% used the railroad and gained a benefit from it. Seems like a lot of middle-income and poor people were able to use the railroad to gain prosperity and wealth. In the end, even though it helped the rich get richer, it was a good thing for all.

Not much of a historian are you. How do you imagine the railroads acquired the land?

Did the land build the railroad?

Are you serious or what?

Uhm, yes... why would I be anything but serious?
Did the land build the railroad? Yes or no?

You see... I said "...the government had little to do with it. The railroad was built by free market capitalists."

The response to this was regarding land the railroad was built on. I didn't mention the land, only the building of the railroad. Now the actual LAND belonged to indigenous tribes of North America and was stolen by the US Government. So the US Government actually made no real contribution to the railroad... other than military protection against the people the land was stolen from. Capitalists built the railroad.

Let's follow this thought process of yours

So the land that the 'job creators' have belongs to the indigenous tribes of NAmerica too? LOL

Or it's OK, for 'capitalists' to take things?

You stated earlier capitalists, NOT Gov't built the RR's? lol


Between 1850 and 1871 the United States government used a portion of the public domain (federally owned land) to assist and encourage the building of railroads. In all, during that twenty-one year period approximately 1.31 million acres of land were transferred to private ownership. This represented 9.5 percent of the public domain as it stood in 1850 (1.39 billion acres).


The law provided that companies agreeing to undertake the construction of transcontinental railroad lines would be eligible for loans ranging from $16,000 to $48,000 per mile of track laid. The precise amount of the loan was determined by the difficulty of the terrain through which the construction passed. The government loaned a total of $64,623,512 to the transcontinental companies

The states added another 50 million acres of land grants. Local communities also subsidized railroad companies by giving them land for depots and rights of way and tax exemptions


The total of public land grants given to the railroads by states and the federal government was about 180 million acres. At the time, the value of this land was about one dollar per acre

Railroads Federal Land Grants to Issue FREE Railroads Federal Land Grants to Issue information Encyclopedia.com Find Railroads Federal Land Grants to Issue research

Again... Not a word about a single crosstie or rail being laid by the US Government. The railroad was built by capitalist corporations. Yes, they had "help" from government, as does almost every capitalist in our free market system.

Or it's OK, for 'capitalists' to take things?
A capitalist is someone who capitalizes on an opportunity to make profit. They will do this however they are allowed to do it. This is why our Constitution doesn't allow "unregulated" capitalism, and never has.

 

[Dad2three]

So you ignored the post where I showed RR got there BECAUSE of Gov't subsidies huh? lol

Really? So they subsidised poor people and anti-capitalists who built it?

Kinda think giving away over 1.5+ million acres and loaning out tens of millions, is called a SUBSIDY to the 'job creators' Bubba? What do you call it?