70% approval rating? damn I’ve got to get out more - last I’d heard it was 90%
Well, yes, it is. But linking this thing exclusively to Bush, isn’t entirely honest. There’s a whole congress that holds as much blame as him.
Wrong. Doesn’t matter what Clinton signed; the true test is what he proposed. He merely signed a bill passed by congress. Check the 1995/1996 figures. Clinton proposed an overall increase of about 6.5%. The actual appropriations worked out to about a 9.5% decrease. Again, that’s congress’s work, not Clinton’s; he simply signed the best bill he thought he could get. The rest of that statement, except the part about Clinton being judged more conservative, I’m inclined to agree with, however.
Lemme get this straight UncleBeer. Neither Clinton nor Bush are responsible for the bills they sign. Especially if the bills they actually sign into law go in the opposite direction of what you think their respective political parties should have done.
No, don’t look at what each president did, in fact, do. Look only at the partisan spin! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
Ahem. Unclebeer, would you care to illuminate us on exactly what President Bush proposed…?
Because it sure looks to me like he dropped eleven billion dollars over two years on the table without detailing how or why it would be spent. Obviously, this is in keeping with this administration’s policy of witholding all information as long as humanly possible in order to keep things “free and honest.” Nevertheless, how does that first-year $4.2 billion empty placeholder stack up against President Clinton’s nefarious-yet-actually-enumerated proposed increase?
And here we see exactly why Bush is in the White House. Namely, a majority people are idiots, who don’t care what a president actually does while in office. What’s important is what he says he is going to do. (Or says he didn’t do…)
All three of you. Re-read my fucking posts in this thread. Slowly. Move your lips if necessary. Pay special attention to the I’ve bolded portions of the quotations below; it’ll enhance your lousy comprehension. If you still don’t get it then that I, too, think this bill is a bullshit deal, go back and find those quotes in their context and read 'em one more goddamned time. Shit.
Now, care to restate your stupid and obviously false claims that I’m the one being partisan in this goddamned thread? You fucking knee-jerkers can’t still can’t stand any criticism of Clinton. The man simplyu cannot take credit for something he had no part in propagating. He wanted an increase; couldn’t get it; settled for the best he thought was gonna be offered. It’s extremely simple. I’m not even particularly bashing the old guy. Just pointing out that all the credit for reducing farm subsidies cannot be given to him. It was an act of congress, although I’m sure they worked with Clinton’s advisor’s in some fashion.
Odd. That’s exactly what I thought I wasy saying by pointing out that Clinton, while he did sign a bill that effectively reduced farm subsidies, proposed a fucking increase.
Goddamn, you people piss me off sometimes. Read the fucking posts before you tell me what I’ve said again. I may not be so polite next time.
Sooo, what I think you just said to me was that I’m full of shit for calling you out because you are claiming that Clinton’s detailed proposal favorably compares with Bush’s blank motherfucking check to Congress.
Is that what you just said, Unclebeer?
Wow.
Barking Spider, my respect for you has gone up a few points.
Of course, that still puts you at around -298, but every little bit counts. 
(But why did it take you this long? Bush == frickin’ idiot was evident from Day 1 of his election campaign…)
Hey UncleBeer: Ain’t mad is ya’?
FWIW, your assessment of the development of the 1996 farm bill is dead-on accurate. Clinton wanted more, but settled for what he could get. This system of reduced spending worked well for the first two years, when commodity prices were fairly high, and good weather prevailed over most of the U.S.
Then prices fell, weather turned sour, the budget appeared to be in much better shape, and Congress blinked. They backed off of the provisions of the ‘96 law, and started issuing “supplemental appropriations” to keep a large number of farmers from going under.
[/history lesson]
Is this good or bad? I don’t know. I do know that taking up farming as a way to make a living is folly under the present circumstances, “subsidies” or not. Go to a cattle sale. Less than one percent of those sitting in the sale barn will be under 50 years old. Most will be in their seventies.
"The times they are a’ changin’" for agriculture. For better or worse, there are some major changes on the horizon. The next twenty years will be interesting in this sector. Just remember that old Asian curse: “May you live in interesting times.”
This is completely about politics.
As noted on that bastion of far-right-wing journalism, CNN:
That’s about all you need to know for the motivations behind this.
Election-year politics can be unseemingly crass. I was thinking of the exact same P.J. O’Rourke book, Atreyu.
Farming holds a unique position as a profession in the American psyche. Many see it as a link to our roots that must be preserved, no matter the cost.
As such, it always gets to play by different rules.
From the above CNN link, here’s what Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa, chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said as a reason to support the legislation:
Oh, well, in that case …
Yep. Bush is the president. He is being hypocritical to score political points. As he did with steel, he is abandoning the principles of a goodly number of the people who got him elected, in an attempt to move further to the middle in an election year (a move that could eventually backfire on him and other Republicans, I think).
So criticize away.
However, give yourself a reality check if you think a Democratic president wouldn’t have done the same thing.
Now, where were we? Oh yeah. Bush and Uncle Beer are evil. Clinton was a spending-slasher.
Please continue.
For a second I thought you were talking about the cows. That steak I had the other night WAS a bit chewy…
Astounding leap of logic, Sofa. Show me anywhere I’ve made any comparison between the bill Bush signed and/or proposed and the bill Clinton signed and/or proposed. I don’t think I said you were fulla shit before, but I will now.
Not even close. Where the fuck are you reading these supposedly positive things, even comparatively speaking, about the bill that Bush signed? One more time, read my posts.
Or perhaps I can sum up here for you. Although I have doubts you’ll understand this either.
I initially came into this thread and posted a statement that the blame for this act cannot be laid entirely at the door of Bush. There’s an entire congress that’s complicit. I also made the point that this being the case, it’s unfair to beat up solely on the Republicans. And finally I said that federal farm policy has been a mess since it’s inception.
My second post reinforced those views. And took issue with a claim that Clinton deserved the entire helping of credit for the reduction in farm subsidies generated in the 1996 farm bill. Again, congress is complicit.
My postion is consitent, logical, and in accordance with the dictates of the operating document of the U.S.; that being the Constitution which lays out the separation of the three branches of our government and the system of checks and balances between them.
In no post have I praised Bush for any action he’s taken, or statement he’s made. I’ve made no comparisons (although I’ve refuted one), good or bad, between any bill enacted by presidential signature.
Finally, my third post in this thread was a goddamned tirade against you assholes that apparently wish to put words in my mouth. And the words you are misinterpreting aren’t even equivocal. I’ve made more than one explicit statement that I disapprove of the bill Bush signed. I’ve also stated in clear terms that I believe he’s being disingenuous with his attempt to link this travesty to “free trade.”
But all you guys wish to see is that I made one, rather neutral, remark about Clinton and what is the result of that? Knees a jerkin’.
Let me make my position on this farm bill, and Bush’s action on it, perfectly clear. I ain’t takin’ any more of your shit for something I didn’t fucking say.
This bill is a steaming pile of shit and Bush should be ashamed of himself: for signing it, for gloating about it, for the ridiculous over-spending it’ll invoke and for his non-sensical balderdash that it’s a boon to free trade. This bill is such a large turd in salad bowl of America that there’s plenty of blame to go around; we can split it between both branches of the government, and all the approving functionaries of them, that have had finger in this thing.
Is that perfectly clear now? I don’t know how much more plainly I can put it. Or how many more times I have to say it.
Naw. I act this way at church, too. But I am being provoked. And that I do not appreciate.
Unclebeer, I am not provoking you.
But could you explain that middle part again? The part where a delineated Clinton proposal which was shot down before a hostile Congress is worthy of being compared with Bush submitting an empty placeholder budget sum before a friendly Congress, and signing off on the result? You were comparing them, weren’t you?
I just don’t get that part.
Sofa King : In the interest of fairness, it must be pointed out that this farm bill was not a Bush proposal. The administration’s proposal to congress was much more austere. Those congresspersons that are up for re-election this year came back with the much higher figures. The bill signed yesterday was the result of much in-fighting and compromise.
**Ace_Face quote:
Originally posted by John Carter of Mars
Go to a cattle sale. Less than one percent of those sitting in the sale barn will be under 50 years old. Most will be in their seventies.
For a second I thought you were talking about the cows. That steak I had the other night WAS a bit chewy… **
Damn, I was trying so hard to achieve clarity! 
At the risk of enraging you, I think the crux of my question centers around this part of your post:
Whereupon I asked my question; whereupon you said
But you’re telling me that the parts I’ve highlighted in red are not to be compared to one another, even though they fall sequentially in your post, and rely upon a rather astounding leap of logic as well.
Because what I see you telling me is that Clinton, after creating a proposal, having it torn apart by Congress, and signing “the best bill he thought he could get,” gets to blame Congress.
But George Bush, who obviously gets a pass for not being a detail guy and therefore not responsible for actually submitting a proposal, sends a four-billion dollar hole in the budget to his buddies, gets it back, and says, “[sigh], woe is me; I had hoped that a fiscally responsible bill which did not piss off everyone from Bermuda to Fiji would be sent back to me on this heretofore blank page, but here it is, and Congress compels me to sign it, though it wounds my heart as much as it wounds my neighbors.”
And therefore Bush gets to blame Congress as well.
Correct me if the shit is squirting out my ears at this point, but couldn’t one bill be considered a compromise, and the other bill could be considered… all-you-can-eat night at Red, Hot & Blue?
I s’pose. If I were making comparisons between the two bills, which, again, I ain’t. Nor am I sure what comparison you think I’m drawing with those two quotes.
But here’s one for ya, if ya gotta have one. The better of the two would most certainly be the one that actually reduced expenditures. And that’s because I’m a true conservative, unlike some sitting presidents I could name. But again, the '96 one wasn’t necessarily better because of anything Clinton did and/or proposed. And that means he’s no claim to being “the greater conservative” as asserted above.
Dammit, Unclebeer, you are being too reasonable.
Couldn’t you just call me a goat-felcher or something? Because I spent all this time doing this coding, and I need an excuse to post this:
FUCKING VIRGINIA TECH RULES!
GOBBLE GOBBLE GOBBLE GOBBLE GOBBLE
MIKE VICK! MIKE VICK!
I realize that above section is not salient to this debate, but, well, I spent a lot of time on it.
Hey! People are not supposed to continue arguing while I’m commuting and going to the gym. I had a bitingly sarcastic post about the silliness of ideologues all ready to go and Unclebeer comes back here and ruins it.
Now, lets argue about which policy is the right one!
Good oh, now that all that spleen and venom between people in fundamental agreement with each other has subsided
Oh boy, have they done a brain-washing number on you.
So the US consumers each year pay X billions in taxes so they can save X-billions (minus what 30-50% wastage?) on their food bill?
If this program is for the benefit of US consumers (who just slightly outnumber US farmers), why haven’t successive administrations been applying that spin to justify the US “cheaper food for all” Bill?
If this “controlled over-production” of which you speak is on the up and up, why are there tariff/quotas/subsidies on products that the US is not self sufficient e.g. lamb.
Finally, food prices without subsidies would not quadruple. Probably wouldn’t rise at all. Why, because there are who can profitably produce, process and ship foodstuffs to the US at below at current US market prices, without access to the public purse.