New York Times: Traitors to the Republic

[mactbone]

But if over 50% of the people don't live in those big cities then why wouldn't they pay attention to you? They have to pay attention to that many people. They might not give a lot of face time, but they'll definitely listen to that large percentage of people that live in the boonies. With internet access available to so many people now, I don't see any reason why all those people in the boonies won't get any attention if they want it.

[Arrian]

I figure the real key to giving the little (by population) states their say is the Senate, not the EC.

-Arrian

[Kuciwalker]

Actually the Senate should be fixed too. Bridges to nowhere, anyone?

Sadly, the Constitution makes this really hard.

And Donegeal, rural whinging about "everyone will ignore us!" is really hard to take seriously when you're basically being subsidized by us urban Americans.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Arrian
Yeah, 'cause if you can't win the argument, you should shoot the other guy. Brilliant!

-Arrian

You're assuming that all revolutions have to be carried out through violence.

[RGBVideo]

re: kuci

Actually the Senate should be fixed too. Bridges to nowhere, anyone?

Fixed? Well, if you mean that the problem should be fixed by voting the corrupt bastards (like ignorant Ted Stevens who you referred to with "bridges to nowhere", an US Senator from Alaska) of the Congress out, I agree with you. The problem is that in an election system which has been built for two parties the opposition party (that would be the Democratic party) is so unpopular that the citizens are letting the ruling party to get away with staggering amount of big government-corruption and are still voting for it. In the USA, there were similar problems in the late 19th Century AFAIK. I don't know if the UK (another nation with a political election system built for two parties) has ever had a seemingly permanent corruption problem of similar scale.

And Donegeal, rural whinging about "everyone will ignore us!" is really hard to take seriously when you're basically being subsidized by us urban Americans.

Government bribes have this strange habit of going to the few who already own much (and thus afford to contribute to the politicians), not to the general population. I doubt "rural America" is subsidized as generally as you seem to think it is.

[Kuciwalker]

Fixed? Well, if you mean that the problem should be fixed by voting the corrupt bastards (like ignorant Ted Stevens who you referred to with "bridges to nowhere", an US Senator from Alaska) of the Congress out, I agree with you.

That's a bit difficult for me, since I live in Virginia. And I doubt Alaskans care all that much - after all, it's money going to them.

Whenever you have half a million people will equal power to 30 million, **** like this will happen.

Government bribes have this strange habit of going to the few who already own much (and thus afford to contribute to the politicians), not to the general population. I doubt "rural America" is subsidized as generally as you seem to think it is.

Ever heard of farm subsidies?

[RGBVideo]

Ever heard of farm subsidies?

capitalism 101, kid:

Most farms in Finland actually get ****ed over by farm subsidies, since the farm owners don't have the necessary expertise to apply for farm subsidies (farms which are the largest / have the richest owners within the EU have their own experts doing this), but the price of the product they're producing goes down since the large farms who have received the subsidies can sell their goods for a cheaper price.

Now I'm not absolutely sure about the USA -- it could be that the application for a farm product subsidy is much less complex in the USA so every farm ends up getting an equal share of the subsidy based on their production of a product, but somehow I doubt it. Call it a hunch based on my knowledge about history.

[Kuciwalker]

capitalism 101, kid:

Most farms in Finland actually get ****ed over by farm subsidies, since the farm owners don't have the necessary expertise to apply for farm subsidies (farms which are the largest / have the richest owners within the EU have their own experts doing this), but the price of the product they're producing goes down since the large farms who have received the subsidies can sell their goods for a cheaper price.

That's not the case in the United States, as you guessed.

[RGBVideo]

That's not the case in the United States, as you guessed.

That's what you think, huh? Did you read and understand the post? Subsidies don't help if everyone producing the same good is getting subsidized as much, and it actually hurts if someone is getting subsidized more than you are.

My point is that you're most likely attacking the wrong targets if you're cricitizing folks like Donegeal about farm subsidies, all the actual profits tend to end up going to the small group of friends of the guys deciding about the subsidies (republican politicians which have the majority in both houses of Congress), and thus not trickling down among the general population living in food-producing states like Wisconsin.

[Kuciwalker]

The problem isn't that subsidies distort the market. The problem is we're feeding these communities over 20 billion USD a year for nothing. And that money supports the existance of these rural communities that wouldn't otherwise exist.

[Japher]

How is that a problem? If these communities didn't exist which welfare line would they get in?

[Kuciwalker]

Why would they be on welfare? They're employable, they'd get a job somewhere else.

[Elok]

There was a fun story in the WaPo a bit over a month ago about farm subsidies. Well, not really subsidies, but whatever you call those lovely payments the gov't. makes to keep farmers from growing too much food and thus hurting the market. It seems massive numbers of people in the midwest have been getting ludicrous amounts of money for years simply because they live on land which had been used to grow crops in the past. The people in question often had no knowledge of farming, no intention of ever learning, and typically were employed in business or something, but they still got something like $1K a month. One guy protested that he didn't need the cash and it was a blatant waste of government funds, but the agency just replied that if he didn't take it the cash would just be redistributed among his equally non-farming neighbors. So he used it to establish a scholarship or something like that.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Donegeal
So I should be ignored because I live in the boonies? (and remember that probably well over 50% of the population lives in these "boonies")

More than 50% of the population of the U.S. lives on less than 10% of the land.

In any event, no, of course you shouldn't be ignored, but that shouldn't give you more of a say in the government than me. Everything should be equal, and if one vote in Wyoming were worth one vote in California, than politicians would have to fight for every vote instead of ignoring safe districts or districts they feel they have no opportunity to win.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
The problem isn't that subsidies distort the market. The problem is we're feeding these communities over 20 billion USD a year for nothing. And that money supports the existance of these rural communities that wouldn't otherwise exist.

Actually, the way those subsidies have been applied killed rural communities. They encouraged the conglomeration of large farms, making it harder for smaller farmers and driving them to the cities when they failed. There was just something on NPR about that a couple weeks ago.