wooly , the return to consumers on their tax dollar/food bill is much greater than a 1 to 1 return.
Successive administrations have been applying this spin since the 1970’s.
Tarriffs: Re:lamb, etc. When I wander off into international trade policies, I’m not on such firm ground. I don’t watch the relationships, trade-offs etc. in that area much, so I’ll say I don’t know about lamb tarriffs. I do know that currently the U.S. government is putting some incentives out there to encourage lamb and wool production in the States. Sheep/lambs the only livestock operation that has incentives at this time.
Food prices without sibsidies would quadruple, in my opinion. You think otherwise. So be it.
You Aussies and the New Zealanders do a great job of agricultural production. You could export more to the States, no doubt. But you couldn’t feed us.
Given that “the public purse” is reimbursed for farm payments through cheaper food, and self sufficiency has saved this country more than once, I don’t see that becoming import dependent is a goal the U.S. needs to strive for.
We have a winner for the most bullshit argument ever. That statistic, if true (and I have my doubts about your veracity - see below), is utterly irrelevant to whether a nation’s agricultural policy is good or not. In a nation with a GDP per head of $500 a year, for example, the population could spend 75% of their income on food and still have a better farm policy than the U.S.'s
Since you are intelligent enough to know how to read and write, I can only assume that you are a fucking liar.
Your statement ignores a little thing called “price competition.” There is no way that you can honestly believe that if food prices quadrupled, new farms wouldn’t open and compete with lower prices;
Your statement ignores a little thing called “anti-trust law.” If big business colluded to set food prices at 4X their current level - on food, of all things - the CEOs of said companies would be in jail with a month;
Your statement ignores a little thing called “imports of food products.” If U.S. farmers colluded to quadruple domestic prices, Australian and Canadian farmers would be walking around permanently orgasming at the prospect of undercutting said prices;
Your statement ignores a little thing called “real life experience.” New Zealand, for one, has eliminated farm subsidies, and food prices there haven’t quadrupled, in part because of ##1-3 above; and
Your statement ignores a little thing called “the truth.” What made you think you could get away with such a bullshit claim here?
We have a winner for the most bullshit argument ever. That statistic, if true (and I have my doubts about your veracity - see below), is utterly irrelevant to whether a nation’s agricultural policy is good or not. In a nation with a GDP per head of $500 a year, for example, the population could spend 75% of their income on food and still have a better farm policy than the U.S.'s
Since you are intelligent enough to know how to read and write, I can only assume that you are a fucking liar.
Your statement ignores a little thing called “price competition.” There is no way that you can honestly believe that if food prices quadrupled, new farms wouldn’t open and compete with lower prices;
Your statement ignores a little thing called “anti-trust law.” If big business colluded to set food prices at 4X their current level - on food, of all things - the CEOs of said companies would be in jail with a month;
Your statement ignores a little thing called “imports of food products.” If U.S. farmers colluded to quadruple domestic prices, Australian and Canadian farmers would be walking around permanently orgasming at the prospect of undercutting said prices;
Your statement ignores a little thing called “real life experience.” New Zealand, for one, has eliminated farm subsidies, and food prices there haven’t quadrupled, in part because of ##1-3 above; and
Your statement ignores a little thing called “the truth.” What made you think you could get away with such a bullshit claim here?
I feel wonderfully refreshed by this thread. I’m in agreement with Barking Spider and Sua, which can only mean that the farm bill was one of the most disgusting, offensive things done by Bush, from a conservative perspective, in quite some time!
Which was worse? The bill, or the bullshit-laden speech about restoring competition? Couldn’t our Prez have signed it cowardly in the middle of the night, like Campaign Finance Reform? Does this man of principles, committed to “restoring the tone” to Washington wish to do anything beside grovel for votes and use Sept. 11th to fundraise?
Wake up, true conservatives! The man and the administration have no principles that they won’t sell. The farm bill is the worst form of pork – hey, didn’t Bushie just call for Senators to curtail their pork requests? Never mind – the worst form of pork that both Michael Moore and P.J. O’Rourke endorsed killing. Oh well, never mind that free-market malarkey! ROVE SAYS WE NEED THE VOTES.
Originally posted by SuaSponte: "Since you are intelligent enough to know how to read and write, I can only assume that you are a fucking liar. "
With the above statement, you have demonstrated a marvelous level of eloquence, Sua.
I stand behind my statements. I am in a better position than most to understand the workings of U.S. farm policy.
Lacking the time, energy, or inclination to open this up in Great Debates, I will now leave the floor to those of you who choose to lable people whose opinions differ from yours “Fucking liars”.
This is easy. The best policy would be the one that is allowed to die in committee in congress. That way those assholes would have something to keep them occupied that doesn’t actually waste any more of my money on unnecessary bullshit. If we keep 'em busy with bills that won’t be passed, they’ll have less time to spend on ones that will be.
Again, this isn’t the first farm bill that’s loaded with pork; it’s merely a current and particularly egregious example. I guess what pisses me off the most about these farm bills, is that almost nobody oustide the beltway (and the couple million U.S. Census recognized operational farmers) wants 'em. I don’t understand why, in a putative representative democracy, we can’t get rid of the damn things. There was a relatively recent GD thread on farm subsidies; that thing came the closest to a unanimity of opinion that I’ve ever seen on these boards. I think is was swallowed the latest fubar though.
Egregious, yes, all the more so because it’s contrary to Bush’s ideology, contrary to his stated values, contrary to the speech he gave, and blows up any chance we had of avoiding a trade war started by his other craven political gift, to the steel industry.
The WTO has just received a submission of the retaliatory tarriffed goods for that debacle, and it’s a marvel. They tax the goods imported from politically important states, like Florida, for the stated reason “To get Rove’s attention.” I guess the Euro’s know from Potemkin.
A little thing called money and lobbying, perhaps? What’s your current stance on CFR? I may have to agree with you a second time!
Egregious, yes, all the more so because it’s contrary to Bush’s ideology, contrary to his stated values, contrary to the speech he gave, and blows up any chance we had of avoiding a trade war started by his other craven political gift, to the steel industry.
The WTO has just received a submission of the retaliatory tarriffed goods for that debacle, and it’s a marvel. They tax the goods imported from politically important states, like Florida, for the stated reason “To get Rove’s attention.” I guess the Euro’s know from Potemkin.
A little thing called money and lobbying, perhaps? What’s your current stance on CFR? I may have to agree with you a second time!
If you cannot vote for a candidate, you cannot donate money. This means corporations, lobbying groups and foreign nationals would be barred from making campaign donations. In addition, U.S. citizens would be unable to make donations to any federal, state, county or municipal candidate for which they are incapable of casting a ballot. And a strict limit sould be placed on just how much a private citizen can donate at any level of government. Say, $5k for president, $4K for a U.S. senate race, $2.5K for a U.S. rep and governor and so on down the line. This prevents fatcats from donating significantly more than Joe Schmoe. All of the myriad congressional PACs should also be outlawed.
How’s that?
Unfortunately, it’s illegal. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled sometime in the past that political campaign donations are a form of free speech. We’d likely need a Constitutional amendment to enact something like this.
By the way, I seem to recall that the newest farm bill reinstates the infamous mohair subsidy. (Along with wool, etc.) Ah well, at least we had a few years of fiscal discipline.
I admit I haven’t looked at the past 10 years of farm legislation in detail. However, I think it is fair to say that the Republican attempt at farm subsidy reform did not appear to be politically sustainable. Furthermore, I seem to recall this point be made, at least indirectly, when farm reform was debated a couple of years ago.
CFR: The best way to address bad speech (expensive TV campaign ads) is with more speech. Political advertisements in the electronic media should be taxed at a 100% rate, with the proceeds going to the candidates political opponents. (Yes, there are details to be worked out.)
This would allow fat cats “free speech”, but it would also allow free speech for their opponents. The more you spend on TV & radio, the more you fund your opponent.
If you think agriculture subsidies are a boon to the country, I suggest you have a look at the case study of New Zealand.
New Zealand’s agriculture was one of the most heavily subsidized around, and it was a mess. Then the government literally went broke and had to stop subsidizing agriculture. The farmers screamed and yelled and protested, and the same claims were made there as are now made in the U.S. (i.e. “The poor family farmer will die out”, “There will be no farming industry left”, 'we need subsidies to compete against other subsidized farmers around the world").
Well, guess what? Five years after the subsidies were gone, New Zealand farming was far healthier than it had been before, and now most farmers will admit that New Zealand’s old farming policies were a disaster.
Like I said before, it’s almost impossible to find someone who agrees with this bill who isn’t campaigning for re-election somewhere. You’re certainly the first one I’ve come across.
Oi, you lot … if you’re going to start gladhanding over CFR, do it in your own damm thread.
Back on topic and on the presumption that our Man from Mars might revisit.
It would seem that that the pretext of “Devil’s Advocate” has been dropped and now you’re an advocate. Now credit where credit is due, you don’t come across many of them where there’s sufficient oxygen … or is there the vested interest of the Mars Family Farm Inc having its snout and front trotters in the trough?
Could you nominate any other country’s agricultural subsidy program that gets this return on the investment?
Could you nominate any othe US government program that gets this return on the investment?
If that correct, why is the program ever capped?
then
How can you honestly claim expertise in a subsidy program while concurrently admiting you aren’t expert on the consequences? When you read economics, it’d be a good idea to read all the pages, not just the ones with a zero in the page number.
Tell you what. If you are convinced that you must do this damm silly thing, how about not doing it this damm silly way? Pay US agribusiness whatever they want to ensure 100% food security, ** and destroy the rest ** or use it to produce ethanol. Close the borders to both exports and imports. Let the rest of the world nut out a phased reduction to a free trade in agricultural products. Don’t use food as an agent of US hegemony.
The rural sections of the woolly family, using US sourced tractors and machinery, using US sourced chemicals, paying above US interest rates and above US prices for fuel can produce, mill, package and ship rice for less than half the US domestic price. But we can only sell our stuff to the rest of the world for around the same price that you dump your excess.
Now if we could just get the true world price, do you think we might buy some more of those high falootin’ high value-added products the US is actually efficient at producing? D’ya reckon the US might book that down as a net win? Or was that bit on page #11 of the textbook?
Yep, the Wool and Mohair subsidy is back - a subsidy originally put into place ostensibly to protect the raw materials needed to make military uniforms. Unfortunately, that material hasn’t been used in uniforms for decades, but the subsidy lives on.
Just as the Rural Electrification Administration was started for the sole purpose of bringing electrical power to rural areas, and now, 80 years later, 99% of all rural areas are electrified, but the REA’s budget keeps being increased.
Hard as it is to imagine, my state’s esteemed Senator Mitch McConnell even spoke out against this one. (He and I have agreed on this issue and flag burning, and that’s about it.)
My representative, Ernie Fletcher (who I have the misfortune to claim as a fellow alumnus of the UK College of Medicine), however, licked it up like the lap dog he is. "This bill wisely invests in our farms and rural communities,’’ he said in a statement. He’s using a very broad definition of the word “our”–25% of Kentucky farmers receive subsidies as opposed to 40% nationally, and 85% of that money goes to the top 20% of recipients.
The earlier proposals would have made some money available to help tobacco farmers in Kentucky move into other crops–in other words, real progress. Unfortunately, however, we just don’t have a close Senate race coming up. (I mean that in every way in which it could be taken.)
Meanwhile, I understand Bush has scheduled a press conference tomorrow to announce that, from now on, war is peace and freedom is slavery. Ari Fleischer will follow, to assure us that this has always been the case.
communism is central government interference in the efficient production of goods and services and is an abomination. farm subsidies are central government intererence in the efficient production of goods and services and is socio-political engineering. corporate welfare is central government interference in the efficient production of goods and services and is a re-election strategy.
Our President (sic) is presently very keen on devolving power down the chain of command: Regional assembly’s responsible for part of the central budget, more City mayors, that sort of thing.
I like UncleGodDamnBeer’s suggestion for election funding (bottom of last page) very much but maybe a trickling down of centralised power might also be a good idea (cos I don’t see how this kind of manipulation can be avoided under the present system).
I guess I’m wondering why this kind of issue can’t dealt with at State or Regional level.
Any thoughts on that and devolving more power in general ?
