Tweet
No farm subsidies. Period. Why should I pay twice as much just to protect the job of some hick in Kansas who votes republican anways. Lets face it, we suck at farming. By letting our farmers go out of buisness, we pay less, and we help third world countries pay off their debt. Kill two birds with one stone.
-
"Everything for the State, nothing against the State, nothing outside the State" - Benito Mussolini -
You're not saying the US sucks at farming are you?Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
No farm subsidies. Period. Why should I pay twice as much just to protect the job of some hick in Kansas who votes republican anways. Lets face it, we suck at farming. By letting our farmers go out of buisness, we pay less, and we help third world countries pay off their debt. Kill two birds with one stone."When you ride alone, you ride with Bin Ladin"-Bill Maher
"All capital is dripping with blood."-Karl Marx
"Of course, my response to your Marx quote is 'So?'"-Imran SiddiquiComment
-
yes i am."Everything for the State, nothing against the State, nothing outside the State" - Benito MussoliniComment
-
I wouldn't go that far; in free, fair, and open competetion we'd run half of the farmers in Europe out of business. It's just a matter of economies of scale. We have big farms and they have small farms so guess who gets pinched worse when commidity prices fall? That's why U.S. farms get buy with subsides of less then half what the EU is paying.Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.Comment
-
i am not comparing farmers within the developed world. i am comparing farmers within the entire world. maybe we would run half the farmers out of buisness in europe but so what? the third world would run the vaste majority of all developped countries farmers out of buiness."Everything for the State, nothing against the State, nothing outside the State" - Benito MussoliniComment
-
US farms got by with few subsidies not 2 years ago. There are two ways of looking at the addition of fairly huge subsidies (not mutually exclusive). (1) The US now sees the political need to subsidize their farmers; or (2) the US is to use its subsidies as a bargaining chip in getting Europe to reduce or eliminate its subsidies.
Bush probably went for a little of both on a temporary basis, just like he did on steel. Personally I find both distasteful, except on a very temporary basis.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
and why is there a political ned to subsidize them? because they arnt making enough money by competiting on the open market."Everything for the State, nothing against the State, nothing outside the State" - Benito MussoliniComment
-
Because the Senate has powerful members from farm states, including the Senate Majority Leader at the time. Sometimes you have to compromise to get what you want.
As I remember, a senator was successful in putting it on the Senate agenda and threatened to talk about farm subsidies exclusively until the rest of the Senate gave in. Daschel used this to ratfvck what Bush wanted to talk about. Both Republicans and Democrats in the Senate are hopelessly divided on the issue. This went on for about 4 weeks last year, IIRC.Last edited by DanS; March 9, 2003, 16:00.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
nope. not even closeOriginally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
the third world would run the vaste majority of all developped countries farmers out of buiness."When you ride alone, you ride with Bin Ladin"-Bill Maher
"All capital is dripping with blood."-Karl Marx
"Of course, my response to your Marx quote is 'So?'"-Imran SiddiquiComment
-
The problem is that our farming techniques have become too efficient not that they aren't efficient."When you ride alone, you ride with Bin Ladin"-Bill Maher
"All capital is dripping with blood."-Karl Marx
"Of course, my response to your Marx quote is 'So?'"-Imran SiddiquiComment
-
if they are so efficient, then why do we subsidize them?"Everything for the State, nothing against the State, nothing outside the State" - Benito MussoliniComment
-
because increased productivity caused prices to fall dramatically. It's not easy for the older farmers to just sell the farm and start a new career. The subsidies take away the hard effects of capitalism.Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
if they are so efficient, then why do we subsidize them?"When you ride alone, you ride with Bin Ladin"-Bill Maher
"All capital is dripping with blood."-Karl Marx
"Of course, my response to your Marx quote is 'So?'"-Imran SiddiquiComment
-
i disagree. increased productivity is not why the prices are falling. its increased number of suppliers. all of the third world countries are jumping on the export promotion bandwagon (largely due to IMF and world bankpolicies) and now concentrate on producing food. now increased amount of food means falling prices. on top of that, food is price inelastic, which means that as the price falls, people will not buy dramatically more.
this situation has led to too many suppliers in the world, and this is why a lot of them arnt making profits. to keep their electorate happy, governments subsidize them. in the US, 2% of the working population is farmers. buy subsisizing them, we are screwing over the other 98% of america, plus everyone in the third world.
then you talk about hard effects of capitalism. these farmers have so much more than people in the third world, its criminal to say that they need the help more then the people who are starving and dying of disease in the third world."Everything for the State, nothing against the State, nothing outside the State" - Benito MussoliniComment
-
Originally posted by DanS
That's last year's economic growth. Not this year's. Last year's deficit was roughly in line with economic growth as well.
So far, this has been a good piece of work by the administration. Also, some luck.
US deficit when measured using the same definition as the EU uses (net lending): 3.5% in 2002, growth was 2.4%.
Average forecasts for deficit this year (assuming Bush's tax cuts go through) 4.3%, growth: 2.5%
You see DanS if you measure like with like (something that the US seems to be loathe to do) your guideline does not hold up.19th Century Liberal, 21st Century EuropeanComment
-
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
this sounds familiar . . ."Everything for the State, nothing against the State, nothing outside the State" - Benito MussoliniComment
Comment