37.5 years to be precise. It started with St. Ronnie.
I am not sure if this is “new” aid on top of the old aid, either.
I think this whole fiasco gives is a glimpse into Trump’s way of doing business:
- Make noise about a trade war because it makes headlines,
- American farmers in peril (oh no!),
- Re-brand/co-opt existing aid to farmers as offset to losses of trade war (does not cost any more),
- Get support of Trump voters who are too dumb to see the card game in play here.
- Look like a hero to Trump fans around the country for buttressing “real” (AKA: White) Americans.
- When the failure of the trade war finally has teeth for the farmers, blame the Democrats. Winning!
Just another example of your fiscally conservative, small-government Republicans at work! Turning farmers into welfare queens.
Farmers being ‘welfare queens’, receiving subsidies from the federal government, is old news. To the degree that Trump is or isn’t shoveling more money their way, it’s more of the same, not a dramatic shift away from a previously non-hypocritical position.
Okay, I’ll speak up. Trump announced the tariffs, followed by our trading partners retaliation, after the farmers had already made their plans, taken out their loans, bought their seed and fertilizer, etc for this year. If all this had happened over the winter before all the contracts were signed, I could get all huffy about farmers trying to outsmart the market. But in this case, the government put them into this mess, so I have no problem with the government trying to get them out.
BTW, keep an eye on the price of pork for the rest of the year, as pork producers desperately dump their pigs on a glutted market, and then watch prices skyrocket when the “inventories” dry up.
I agree with you 100%, subsidies absolutely are welfare.
Hmmm - which party stated this again?
I’m in favor of universal health care coverage. But if someone deliberately poisons a town, and then tells the residents that they should all go to the hospital for free health care, they don’t get brownie points for that.
Your cartoonish views of people who hold different opinions on the world continue to amaze me. Did you really expect the “statists” to masturbate themselves to sleep knowing that Trump is giving out free money for stupid reasons?
Soybean futures, traded like pork bellies or frozen orange juice. If someone actually knew the timeline for that roller-coaster week, when soybean futures are “$X”, and then subject to embargo (less than $X, as in “not worth the trouble of harvesting”), and then back again. If someone knew what was going to be announced, and when, a pretty penny could have been made.
And likely was. Just sayin’, is all.
Who cares if Trump gets “brownie points”, should the farmers receive a wealth transfer or not?
I’m not sure what “this” refers to – aid to farmers? Tariffs? I’m not sure whether this means you support the farmer welfare (assuming this is something new) or are against it. From that passage you quoted, it looks like you’re interested in tariffs, but that’s not really what this thread is about. Or, are you only interested in whataboutism?
I searched that page and saw no reference to tariffs. Are you honestly asking which party started this round of tariffs, or which party started tariffs in general, or something else? Tariffs have a long history in the US (and in all countries) and both parties have imposed targeted tariffs in modern times in response to actual threats to our industries. GW Bush used steel tariffs and Obama imposed tariffs on tires, just off the top of my head. Both of these were targeted, but were still probably wasteful and ineffective.
Regardless, this thread is about bailing out farmers who were hurt because of these unfocused, ridiculous tariffs. What is your view on the bailout, assuming the reporting is accurate?
Yes we could go on all day listing those victimized by government intervention and those who benefit from that intervention. It is messy policy on top of messy policy. In almost every case, someone is getting slapped in the face with one hand and pat on the back with another.
If we take the two policies in question, the tariffs and farm subsidies, the majority of people benefit from neither, so I think we can just say no to both. Decisions should be made on the margin to decrease government intervention at every increment.
I’m not him, but I’ll give my thoughts anyway because I’m a rebel like that.
I’m personally torn. On the one hand, it would probably be a bad thing if american food production completely ceased and we all starved to death. On the other, it would be nice if all the children out there learned that actions have consequences, including actions like voting for people specifically because they know nothing about the job you’re electing them to.
So I guess it comes down to, exactly how screwed would the farmers be without the extra money, and how screwed would the rest of us be if we let them eat it in the teeth as an object lesson?
The conservative / free-market position should be: The most efficient soybean farmers will still make a profit at the lower price point and survive. The rest should fail and go out of business, or switch to other crops.
It’s an interesting question, one that I don’t know how to answer. I agree that we shouldn’t risk our food security in order to shield people from the consequences of their actions and votes. On the other hand, maybe they should have made better choices.
Farmers were going out of business in droves in the 90s, right? I think that’s what the Farm Aid thing was about – they basically completely over-extended themselves with equipment loans and land mortgages. But our own food security was never really at risk.
I think I’m willing to take that risk. Maybe they should have chosen some other profession if they can’t compete. They should have all been venture capitalists – they do pretty well. Maybe they should have voted differently – Trump is only doing exactly what he said he would do on this topic.
However, if someone pops in with a cite that without this $12 billion the US is at risk, or may someday soon be at risk, of a famine, I’d happily give it a read.
Right, and the liberal / nanny state position should be to ask how screwed will we be if that occurs, because not all free market outcomes are beneficial (much less optimal).
That said, if society can live with fewer inefficient soybean farmers, then letting the invisible hand slap them around should be fine.
They lose their farms, they are all bought up by large farming corporations.
We barely notice. Maybe a slight reduction in cost of food and taxes for agricultural payments.
Presuming that’s the case, then in my opinion we should utterly end farm subsidies. Let the farmers take out loans or go on normal welfare like the rest of us.
I would argue that the free market outcome is always optimal by this arbitrary metric: minimized government initiation of force.
What arbitrary metric do you choose?
The farmers have been screwing over Americans since the beginning. Paying off farmers for complaining is the national pastime. The amazing thing is how their political influence has remained substantial while their headcount has plummeted.