|
286 billion Farm Aid Bill for 2008
And the bulk of it goes to huges businesses, i.e., major corporations. Will the citizens of the U.S. stand together and revolt before 2012?
|
Re: 286 billion Farm Aid Bill for 2008
No they will not. I tried to express this sentiment as a poll vote, but I was unable to do so.
|
Re: 286 billion Farm Aid Bill for 2008
Can't wait to be able to vote in this one!
|
Re: 286 billion Farm Aid Bill for 2008
poll is a satire for presidential elections imo
|
Re: 286 billion Farm Aid Bill for 2008
Anybody have a link?
|
Re: 286 billion Farm Aid Bill for 2008
[ QUOTE ]
Can't wait to be able to vote in this one! [/ QUOTE ] 286b for farm aid; 451b for defense; 200b for war, and you're only 63b shy of 1 trillion dollars. When do organize, march and scream from the mountain tops like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.? |
Re: 286 billion Farm Aid Bill for 2008
|
Re: 286 billion Farm Aid Bill for 2008
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Can't wait to be able to vote in this one! [/ QUOTE ] 286b for farm aid; 451b for defense; 200b for war, and you're only 63b shy of 1 trillion dollars. When do organize, march and scream from the mountain tops like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.? [/ QUOTE ] You're screaming about the wrong thing. People hear $1,000,000,000,000 and just switch off they can't handle the idea of a number that big. You should keep shouting over and over to anyone that'll listen that violence is wrong and that taxation is violence. Winning the morality of the situation is the only way to change anything. |
Re: 286 billion Farm Aid Bill for 2008
[ QUOTE ]
Winning the morality of the situation is the only way to change anything. [/ QUOTE ] That's why I relate the needed movement to that of Dr. King's. When I talk to young adults, age 18-24, with nothing more than a high school education, making $12.00 an hr in MD, they do not even know that their state legislature just passed the largest increase in state taxes in its history, much less anything about the position Hillary has on the issues. They just like the idea of a woman in the white house. Mention a 286b farm aid bill and they respond that nobody has done anything in the past about it, the candidates can talk all they want, just like in the past, but they won't do anything. So let's elect a woman. She does look fairly decent in a pants suit. |
Re: 286 billion Farm Aid Bill for 2008
I voted no. I doubt the masses have yet to see the light.
|
Re: 286 billion Farm Aid Bill for 2008
Why don't you address the actual arguments that farm bill supporters use? Shouldn't the government subsidize the industry to ensure that there's always an available food supply? To the extent that we subsidies cause oversupply, isn't that our national hedge against overseas global events?
|
Re: 286 billion Farm Aid Bill for 2008
I think history bears out the fact when food prices rapidly rise, there's a huge political price to pay. People are psychologically more motivated by prices of goods rather their than supply. It's not silly to see why political systems make the easier choices taking into account people's psychology.
|
Re: 286 billion Farm Aid Bill for 2008
[ QUOTE ]
Why don't you address the actual arguments that farm bill supporters use? Shouldn't the government subsidize the industry to ensure that there's always an available food supply? To the extent that we subsidies cause oversupply, isn't that our national hedge against overseas global events? [/ QUOTE ] No the government shouldn't. This is just a different type of fearmongering. "ZOMG But what if farmers just decide not to plant wheat one year!!!! Boogie Boogie Boogie!" The government doesn't need to subsidize the industry to ensure farmers will produce enough food. The markets work perfectly without govt. intervention imo. If one year not enough potatos are produced, or even if farmers suspect there won't be enough planted you can bet your ass that those farmers will increase their acreage to try and take advantage of the high potato prices (because they are greedy capitalists as well) till the market gets saturated and the price falls to a level right about where farmers are break even. It's Econ 101 and even backwoods redneck farmers like me can understand it. |
Re: 286 billion Farm Aid Bill for 2008
[ QUOTE ]
I think history bears out the fact when food prices rapidly rise, there's a huge political price to pay. People are psychologically more motivated by prices of goods rather their than supply. It's not silly to see why political systems make the easier choices taking into account people's psychology. [/ QUOTE ] Most of the government subsidies to agriculture are actually intended to increase consumer prices, like price floors and import tariffs. The argument that we need "food security" is almost complete nonsense. WTF do you think is going to happen if the government quits shoveling money at farmers? Do you think they're going to just pack up, pave over Iowa, and build the world's biggest strip mall? If the US ever does face a large-scale famine, it's going to be because of climate change or a nuclear war or a total breakdown in the fabric of society. And subsidies aren't going to do [censored] about that. |
Re: 286 billion Farm Aid Bill for 2008
[ QUOTE ]
Why don't you address the actual arguments that farm bill supporters use? Shouldn't the government subsidize the industry to ensure that there's always an available food supply? To the extent that we subsidies cause oversupply, isn't that our national hedge against overseas global events? [/ QUOTE ] Do you really know that little about economics? |
Re: 286 billion Farm Aid Bill for 2008
[ QUOTE ]
I think history bears out the fact when food prices rapidly rise, there's a huge political price to pay. People are psychologically more motivated by prices of goods rather their than supply. It's not silly to see why political systems make the easier choices taking into account people's psychology. [/ QUOTE ] Usually when food prices spike its because of supply shortages that are due to causes that are out of anyone's control, ie. severe drought, disease, or a harsh winter. Unless the government can ensure ideal growing conditions all the time (I wouldn't put it past them to claim this) there is nothing they can to to prevent this from happening occasionally. |
Re: 286 billion Farm Aid Bill for 2008
[ QUOTE ]
Why don't you address the actual arguments that farm bill supporters use? Shouldn't the government subsidize the industry to ensure that there's always an available food supply? To the extent that we subsidies cause oversupply, isn't that our national hedge against overseas global events? [/ QUOTE ] No the government shouldn't subsidize them, it's patently ridiculous. This is one of the largest vote-buying scams ever. The government takes our money, gives it to the farmers, they then take a cut and then donate it back to the politicians so they can get re-elected. Rinse, repeat. |
Re: 286 billion Farm Aid Bill for 2008
[ QUOTE ]
I think history bears out the fact when food prices rapidly rise, there's a huge political price to pay. [/ QUOTE ] Ethanol subsidies have recently caused a dramatic rise in price of virtually every food staple, and I don't see anyone paying a political price for this. Like everything else our gov't does, 99.9% of Americans don't even know about it. If anything, rising food prices and the like are politically beneficial, as this gov't-caused problem will only provoke cries for further expansion of government, rinse, repeat. |
Re: 286 billion Farm Aid Bill for 2008
All the government needs to do if thats what they really cared about is to buy a 5 year supply of MREs or some other non-perishable food and have them in distribution sites around the country. This would be considerably cheaper than paying farmers every year.
|
Re: 286 billion Farm Aid Bill for 2008
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Why don't you address the actual arguments that farm bill supporters use? Shouldn't the government subsidize the industry to ensure that there's always an available food supply? To the extent that we subsidies cause oversupply, isn't that our national hedge against overseas global events? [/ QUOTE ] Do you really know that little about economics? [/ QUOTE ] I got the impression he was just articulating the proponent's position. natedogg |
Re: 286 billion Farm Aid Bill for 2008
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Why don't you address the actual arguments that farm bill supporters use? Shouldn't the government subsidize the industry to ensure that there's always an available food supply? To the extent that we subsidies cause oversupply, isn't that our national hedge against overseas global events? [/ QUOTE ] Do you really know that little about economics? [/ QUOTE ] Don't be a [censored] retard. If takes a little Devil's Advocacy to stop the endless circle jerk of bringing up exhausted objections to libertarian arguments, so be it. We all know the costs in regards to current farm policy. What are the possible benefits? And what exactly about my point was ignorant? |
Re: 286 billion Farm Aid Bill for 2008
EDIT: You answered my question in the post above this, nevermind.
|
Re: 286 billion Farm Aid Bill for 2008
[ QUOTE ]
The markets work perfectly without govt. intervention imo. If one year not enough potatos are produced, or even if farmers suspect there won't be enough planted you can bet your ass that those farmers will increase their acreage to try and take advantage of the high potato prices (because they are greedy capitalists as well) till the market gets saturated and the price falls to a level right about where farmers are break even. It's Econ 101 and even backwoods redneck farmers like me can understand it. [/ QUOTE ] well a) there's a food shortage right there in your example b) I mean I'm sure the program is more than is necessary, but in theory farmers overproduce for the public good, and then the gov compensates them from the public good. I don't see anything wrong with that. undoubtably it should be restricted to staple foods / staple animal feed maybe. |
Re: 286 billion Farm Aid Bill for 2008
[ QUOTE ]
Why don't you address the actual arguments that farm bill supporters use? Shouldn't the government subsidize the industry to ensure that there's always an available food supply? To the extent that we subsidies cause oversupply, isn't that our national hedge against overseas global events? [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I think history bears out the fact when food prices rapidly rise, there's a huge political price to pay. People are psychologically more motivated by prices of goods rather their than supply. It's not silly to see why political systems make the easier choices taking into account people's psychology. [/ QUOTE ] As bobman pointed out, "most government subsidies increase consumer prices via price floors and import tariffs." The surplusses that are generated are caused by the diminishment of consumer demand because of higher prices, at the same time that farmers are receiving government price guarantee payments because the market price is much lower, keeping more farmers in business than the market can justify. The existence of this oversupply leads to very embarrassing problem that government deals with in various spectacularly stupid ways. They have, in the past, stored millions of tons of rotting wheat in mothballed Naval ships (one of my favorites), bought up and destroyed millions of pigs, chickens, cows, and eggs, plowed under millions of acres of crops, dumped millions of tons of food into third world nations as "aid", wiping out their local agricultural industries and making them forever dependant on further aid, turned millions of tons of the surplus into low quality government manufactured foods and just given away (because no one would by the stuff), and ulitmately, just they just pay farmers NOT to farm. By getting rid of these programs, most consumer prices drop, meaning the demand for agricultural products would go up. Also, the absence of the subsidies doesn't necessarily mean less food produced. It means less *farmers*. The inefficient producers would go out of business, and their farms would be bought up by efficient operations that can produce at lower cost. |
Re: 286 billion Farm Aid Bill for 2008
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The markets work perfectly without govt. intervention imo. If one year not enough potatos are produced, or even if farmers suspect there won't be enough planted you can bet your ass that those farmers will increase their acreage to try and take advantage of the high potato prices (because they are greedy capitalists as well) till the market gets saturated and the price falls to a level right about where farmers are break even. It's Econ 101 and even backwoods redneck farmers like me can understand it. [/ QUOTE ] well a) there's a food shortage right there in your example b) I mean I'm sure the program is more than is necessary, but in theory farmers overproduce for the public good, and then the gov compensates them from the public good. I don't see anything wrong with that. undoubtably it should be restricted to staple foods / staple animal feed maybe. [/ QUOTE ] Widespread famines stopped happening in the 18th century because of improvements in transportation. It's almost inconceivable that such a thing could happen today. If the US can't grow enough wheat, we can just buy it from Canada, or the Ukraine, or Argentina. |
Re: 286 billion Farm Aid Bill for 2008
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The markets work perfectly without govt. intervention imo. If one year not enough potatos are produced, or even if farmers suspect there won't be enough planted you can bet your ass that those farmers will increase their acreage to try and take advantage of the high potato prices (because they are greedy capitalists as well) till the market gets saturated and the price falls to a level right about where farmers are break even. It's Econ 101 and even backwoods redneck farmers like me can understand it. [/ QUOTE ] well a) there's a food shortage right there in your example [/ QUOTE ] No, there isn't. The price system ensures that there is no shortage. If in one year there is some sort of drought or disease that affects potato crops and the supply drops, that is not a shortage. A shortage occurs when there are more buyers willing to pay the going price than there is supply at that price. This can only happen when the price is capped, because otherwise buyers will bid up the price until the competing buyers have dropped out. So if there is a drop in the supply of potatos and demand stayed the same, the price of potatos and all products that use potatos will go up. This will automatically cause consumers to curb their consumption of potatos, or if they value potatos and potato products more than other products, they will curb their consumption in other areas. Likely they will do a combination of both. [ QUOTE ] b) I mean I'm sure the program is more than is necessary, but in theory farmers overproduce for the public good, and then the gov compensates them from the public good. I don't see anything wrong with that. undoubtably it should be restricted to staple foods / staple animal feed maybe. [/ QUOTE ] But they don't overproduce for the public good. The public must pay higher prices, meaning they have less money left over for other purchase, or that they must purchase less agricultural products than they would like to in the absence of the higher prices. This makes the public worse off, not better off. |
Re: 286 billion Farm Aid Bill for 2008
[ QUOTE ]
Widespread famines stopped happening in the 18th century because of improvements in transportation. It's almost inconceivable that such a thing could happen today. [/ QUOTE ] BUT WHAT IF BILL GATES BUYS UP ALL THE ROADS?!?! |
Re: 286 billion Farm Aid Bill for 2008
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The markets work perfectly without govt. intervention imo. If one year not enough potatos are produced, or even if farmers suspect there won't be enough planted you can bet your ass that those farmers will increase their acreage to try and take advantage of the high potato prices (because they are greedy capitalists as well) till the market gets saturated and the price falls to a level right about where farmers are break even. It's Econ 101 and even backwoods redneck farmers like me can understand it. [/ QUOTE ] well a) there's a food shortage right there in your example b) I mean I'm sure the program is more than is necessary, but in theory farmers overproduce for the public good, and then the gov compensates them from the public good. I don't see anything wrong with that. undoubtably it should be restricted to staple foods / staple animal feed maybe. [/ QUOTE ] Widespread famines stopped happening in the 18th century because of improvements in transportation. It's almost inconceivable that such a thing could happen today. If the US can't grow enough wheat, we can just buy it from Canada, or the Ukraine, or Argentina. [/ QUOTE ] Bingo. The only places that can have famines these days are the places where a) there is very little capital, so agricultural production and distribution remains primitive, and the locals cannot afford the going world price, usually going hand in hand with: b) the United States has wiped out local agriculture by dumping subsidized American agricultural surplusses as "aid". |
Re: 286 billion Farm Aid Bill for 2008
I'd be more favorably inclined if they could guarantee these subsidies only went to small farmers. Much of the subsidies are received by large agriculture conglomerates that definitely dont need the subsidies or by people "playing farmer" in order to receive the subsidies (surprise surprise).
|
Re: 286 billion Farm Aid Bill for 2008
[ QUOTE ]
I'd be more favorably inclined if they could guarantee these subsidies only went to small farmers. Much of the subsidies are received by large agriculture conglomerates that definitely dont need the subsidies or by people "playing farmer" in order to receive the subsidies (surprise surprise). [/ QUOTE ] These two sentences are completely contradictory. It *is* the small farmers who are only "playing farmer" in order to receive the subsidies. They cannot compete without handouts. Hence they are only playing. They should get out and go do something productive instead of wasteful. This is like saying you think the government should give subsidies to thousands of people who build kit cars in their garages becasue they can't compete with GM, Ford, and Toyota. |
Re: 286 billion Farm Aid Bill for 2008
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I'd be more favorably inclined if they could guarantee these subsidies only went to small farmers. Much of the subsidies are received by large agriculture conglomerates that definitely dont need the subsidies or by people "playing farmer" in order to receive the subsidies (surprise surprise). [/ QUOTE ] These two sentences are completely contradictory. It *is* the small farmers who are only "playing farmer" in order to receive the subsidies. They cannot compete without handouts. Hence they are only playing. They should get out and go do something productive instead of wasteful. This is like saying you think the government should give subsidies to thousands of people who build kit cars in their garages becasue they can't compete with GM, Ford, and Toyota. [/ QUOTE ] I happen to think there is a societal benefit that isnt easily quantified by keeping small, family type farms afloat. I'm pretty sure you know what I meant by people "playing farmer", but let me know if you'd like me to spell it out. The car maker analogy isnt really relevant because the individual car maker has never been a part of the American tradition and communities arent built around groups of individual car makers, whereas many communities exist in the USA that are. |
Re: 286 billion Farm Aid Bill for 2008
Yeah, my dad has complained for years because subsidies have kept farms he has to compete with in our area and around the country in business simply because they aren't as good of farmers.
|
Re: 286 billion Farm Aid Bill for 2008
[ QUOTE ]
b) the United States has wiped out local agriculture by dumping subsidized American agricultural surplusses as "aid". [/ QUOTE ] Example? |
Re: 286 billion Farm Aid Bill for 2008
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I'd be more favorably inclined if they could guarantee these subsidies only went to small farmers. Much of the subsidies are received by large agriculture conglomerates that definitely dont need the subsidies or by people "playing farmer" in order to receive the subsidies (surprise surprise). [/ QUOTE ] These two sentences are completely contradictory. It *is* the small farmers who are only "playing farmer" in order to receive the subsidies. They cannot compete without handouts. Hence they are only playing. They should get out and go do something productive instead of wasteful. This is like saying you think the government should give subsidies to thousands of people who build kit cars in their garages becasue they can't compete with GM, Ford, and Toyota. [/ QUOTE ] I happen to think there is a societal benefit that isnt easily quantified by keeping small, family type farms afloat. I'm pretty sure you know what I meant by people "playing farmer", but let me know if you'd like me to spell it out. The car maker analogy isnt really relevant because the individual car maker has never been a part of the American tradition and communities arent built around groups of individual car makers, whereas many communities exist in the USA that are. [/ QUOTE ] So, what you are saying, is that hundreds of millions of people should be made poorer, so that a few tens of thousands of people can continue to live in a play-pretend nostalgic fantasy of yesteryear. I disagree. [ QUOTE ] I happen to think there is a societal benefit that isnt easily quantified by keeping small, family type diners afloat. [/ QUOTE ] See? There are all kinds of bygone traditions that the government shouldn't spend taxpayer money preserving solely for the sake of preserving them. Everything used to be "small, family type". Not just farming, but manufacturing as well. There is no reason to rob people to preserve the one but not the other, so the car analogy is perfectly apt. |
Re: 286 billion Farm Aid Bill for 2008
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] b) the United States has wiped out local agriculture by dumping subsidized American agricultural surplusses as "aid". [/ QUOTE ] Example? [/ QUOTE ] http://www.newfarm.org/news/2005/0305/030205/dump.shtml |
Re: 286 billion Farm Aid Bill for 2008
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Widespread famines stopped happening in the 18th century because of improvements in transportation. It's almost inconceivable that such a thing could happen today. [/ QUOTE ] BUT WHAT IF BILL GATES BUYS UP ALL THE ROADS?!?! [/ QUOTE ] lol |
Re: 286 billion Farm Aid Bill for 2008
[ QUOTE ]
So, what you are saying, is that hundreds of millions of people should be made poorer, so that a few tens of thousands of people can continue to live in a play-pretend nostalgic fantasy of yesteryear. I disagree. [/ QUOTE ] What hundreds of millions? Are you talking about taxpayers? If so, AC utopian fantasies aside, taxation isnt ending anytime soon and if we are going to subsidize farming anyhow I'd rather see a small farmer get the money. [ QUOTE ] See? There are all kinds of bygone traditions that the government shouldn't spend taxpayer money preserving solely for the sake of preserving them. Everything used to be "small, family type". Not just farming, but manufacturing as well. There is no reason to rob people to preserve the one but not the other, so the car analogy is perfectly apt. [/ QUOTE ] Sure there are some traditions that shouldnt be preserved solely for the sake of preserving them. But I think that the large number of communities that revolve around farming would benefit as a whole. You sort of missed the point on my critique of the car maker analogy. I realize everything used to be "small" in America. But there was never a culture that revolved around individual car maker. Now, all that said, I'm not a big fan of subsidies in general and I'm well aware of the economic implications. This bill as it stands is a monstrosity and I'm not a fan. But Im much more comfortable in subsidizing on a smaller scale for the small farmer. |
Re: 286 billion Farm Aid Bill for 2008
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] b) the United States has wiped out local agriculture by dumping subsidized American agricultural surplusses as "aid". [/ QUOTE ] Example? [/ QUOTE ] http://www.newfarm.org/news/2005/0305/030205/dump.shtml [/ QUOTE ] “Agriculture subsidies are not driving dumping,” says Ritchie. “It is the absence of farm programs that bring production in line with supply. Without these programs, farmers will over-produce with or without subsidies, and dumping will continue.” Isn't he saying subsidies are not what is causing dumping? |
Re: 286 billion Farm Aid Bill for 2008
[ QUOTE ]
What hundreds of millions? Are you talking about taxpayers? [/ QUOTE ] I believe he was also talking about consumers suffering from artificially inflated prices, which hurt poor people dramatically more than rich people, obviously. |
Re: 286 billion Farm Aid Bill for 2008
[ QUOTE ]
Sure there are some traditions that shouldnt be preserved solely for the sake of preserving them. But I think that the large number of communities that revolve around farming would benefit as a whole. [/ QUOTE ] How would these commmunities be hurt? |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:29 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.