Waste of Farm Subsidies and Will Get Worse With More Dems in Congress

IHateGovernment said:
Dano she was talking about Toby. He said farmers were stupid.
Click to expand...
If only toby were sophisticated enough to change "farmer" to "redneck" then he could sound like a Democrat.
Maybe one of the DNC koolaiders can be kind enough to provide him with with the Liberal Democrat playbook...cypriss you still have your copy? I'm sure you can spare it seeing as you've obviously memorized it...
 
TheDanold said:
If only toby were sophisticated enough to change "farmer" to "redneck" then he could sound like a Democrat.
Maybe one of the DNC koolaiders can be kind enough to provide him with with the Liberal Democrat playbook...cypriss you still have your copy? I'm sure you can spare it seeing as you've obviously memorized it...
Click to expand...

:stup2:
 
TheDanold said:
If only toby were sophisticated enough to change "farmer" to "redneck" then he could sound like a Democrat.
Maybe one of the DNC koolaiders can be kind enough to provide him with with the Liberal Democrat playbook...cypriss you still have your copy? I'm sure you can spare it seeing as you've obviously memorized it...
Click to expand...

LOL, you can't for once, admit you jumped the gun and were wrong. You thought i was talking about you and I wasn't.
 
Hmmm, there seems to be some smiley faced guy holding a sign pointing at Rob's picture saying he is with stupid.
Rob, you gonna take that shit? Kick his yellow ass.
 
TheDanold said:
Hmmm, there seems to be some smiley faced guy holding a sign pointing at Rob's picture saying he is with stupid.
Rob, you gonna take that shit? Kick his yellow ass.
Click to expand...

I see you're trying to deflect from your misapprention of my post by making fun of other people. Interesting.
 
LadyT said:
I see you're trying to deflect from your misapprention of my post by making fun of other people. Interesting.
Click to expand...
Yeah I got it wrong, I thought that was obvious but if you really want to waste my time for me to come out and admit it, then here ya go.
Now you won't have to take that one to the grave.

By the way what is 'misapprention', is that like one of those 10 dollar words Liberals try and use to make themselves sound impressive?
I guess I have a misapprehension about what you're trying to say, perhaps you can enroll in the Maineman school of diction, soon you'll have enough multi-syllable words that you can actually pretend they are your argument like the other older established Liberals.
:)
 
TheDanold said:
I fault both parties for bloated farm subsidies, but at least the Republicans are talking about reform and reduction, while the Dems latest plan is loaded with more social welfare and spending:
Click to expand...

hmmmmm...let's see, who was it that was screaming about putting a cap on individual farm subsidies at $250k and lead the senate to vote down this amendment from Grassley and Dorgan on the cap?

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/11/03/business/wto.php>
International Herald Tribune - France

U.S. Senate showdown on farm subsidies is threat to trade talks By Elizabeth Becker International Herald Tribune THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2005

WASHINGTON Over the strong objections of the White House, the U.S. Senate took a step Thursday to hold on to farm subsidies that are at the core of an American proposal aimed at breaking the deadlock at global trade talks.

The move came as a senior U.S. trade delegation prepared to travel to Europe next week to push the European Union to make greater compromises to lower agriculture barriers.

Rob Portman, the United States trade representative who is scheduled to meet with other trade ministers in London on Monday, helped revive stalled trade talks last month when he offered to reduce some U.S. farm subsidies by as much as 60 percent.

He also told the World Trade Organization that he would propose other changes in farm programs as long as the other major trade partners offered similarly meaningful subsidy cuts.

But on Thursday, the Senate raised no objections to extending those subsidies by four years, to 2011. The White House had wanted the Senate to let stand the expiration date of 2007, when Congress is scheduled to rewrite the entire farm program. Now, critics contend, it will be harder to convince U.S. trading partners that the farm lobby is willing to give up some of its approximately $19 billion in annual subsidies.

The Bush administration said in a statement that it "strongly objects to the extension through 2011 of select farm programs," but the Senate nonetheless kept the provision in legislation to reduce the U.S. budget. It still must be approved in conference with the House of Representatives before being sent to the president.

The legislation comes as trade ministers strive to meet a December deadline to reach a minimal accord for a new round of reductions of trade barriers with a special goal of helping developing nations. Since more than 70 percent of the world's poor live in rural areas, developing countries have said their top priority is eliminating trade-distorting agriculture supports.

Rich nations spend as much as $300 billion each year in such supports. And with global commodity prices falling, that figure could grow. The U.S. Agriculture Department announced this week that direct government aid to farmers would grow by 70 percent this year, reaching a record $22.67 billion.

Politicians representing U.S. farm states have warned the administration that they do not want trade concerns to dictate how their farmers receive government aid. Critics worry that moves like extending the farm subsidies beyond 2007 will undermine chances for the United States to reach an accord with Europe and other nations, like Japan, that have equally strong farm lobbies opposed to change.

Portman told Congress this week that successful global trade talks would benefit American farmers, but that time was running out.

"If we can't agree next week on agriculture, I can't see how we'll meet the December deadline," Portman said at a congressional hearing on Wednesday. "The clock is ticking."

He pointed to World Bank studies showing that as many as 300 million people could be lifted out of poverty if this round of trade talks were to reach a successful conclusion.

But Senator Saxby Chambliss, Republican of Georgia and chairman of the Agriculture Committee, stood by his changes to the agriculture programs during the budget debate on Thursday.

He overcame an attempt by Senator Charles Grassley, Republican of Iowa, to cap the size of farm subsidies at $250,000 a farm. Grassley had argued that the current system was unfair since the top 10 percent of the farmers received 72 percent of the taxpayer-financed subsidies. He had argued that a cap would provide a safety net for the smaller, more vulnerable family farmers.

The vote was 53 to 46 against Grassley's proposal. The budget package awaited final Senate approval.
Copyright © 2005 The International Herald Tribune | www.iht.com
 
here's another clip about the southern senators blocking the cap proposed to save billions in tax dollars...

Senate won't cap farm subsidies
By PHILIP BRASHER
Des Moines REGISTER WASHINGTON BUREAU

November 3, 2005

Washington, D.C. - The Senate today turned down a proposed cap on the amount of subsidies going to the nation's largest farms.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, proposed to limit subsidies to $250,000 per married couple. Under existing law, the limit is technically $360,000 but there are ways that farmers can easily avoid even that cap.

Three years ago, the Senate approved Grassley's proposal 66-31.

But today, in the face of strong opposition from southern lawmakers, Grassley could not even overcome a procedural objection to the proposal, which he wanted to add to a package of spending cuts under consideration in the Senate.

The Senate voted 53-46 against allowing consideration of Grassley's subsidy cap, which effectively killed the measure.

Grassley says that large farms are using federal subsidies to expand their operations and push other producers out of business.

However, the cap is strongly opposed by southern farmers, because it would fall hardest on cotton and rice growers, and leading farm organizations like the American Farm Bureau Federation lobbied against it.

The chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., said farmers are being hurt by low commodity prices, high prices and weather-related disasters.

"This is not the time to say to our farmers ... we're going to change the program in midstream," he said.
 
uscitizen said:
Funny it is mostly the rural farmers in KY that voted Bush in. Hmmm that will change I suppose....
Click to expand...

KY? Mostly Farmers? Have you even taken American history in the last... I dunno... hundred years? And you say you want change, yet you're the one sticking to the past.
 
uscitizen said:
I believe Agriculture provides about 1 in 6 jobs in this country once it is all figured in down the line.
Click to expand...

More like 1-3%. Ever heard of mechanization? And just because an industry provides a lot of jobs isn't any reason to subsidize it... what if eating dirt provided half the jobs in America? Should we subsidize it, and continue down that path, or hope for something new?
 
Yep let the city folks run down the farmers. You think a gas embargo / shortage is bad , try not having food ;)

If not for subsidies, you would pay about 30% more for what you eat. Of course we can import it all and then be dependent on other nations for our food as well as our oil....
 
see this thread was posted by "the Danold"! Isn't he the same Yahoo who said that AirAmerica was bankrupt and was dancing all over the board on Tuesday for an action that wasn't suppposed to happen until Friday. So where is the bankruptsy being filed Danold? Why don't you post something about that today? Seems like you would be jumping up and down hooting and hollering about that...so post the filing...Come on!!!!!

Until he posts the Air America Bankruptsy filing I wouldn't give his posts a whole lot of credence. In fact, I'd not give them any myself...He may just be fill of shit! Of course if he can pull that bankruptsy filing out of his ass, I may reconsider. So please save face and post that filing Danold...
 
Prakosh said:
see this thread was posted by "the Danold"! Isn't he the same Yahoo who said that AirAmerica was bankrupt and was dancing all over the board on Tuesday for an action that wasn't suppposed to happen until Friday. So where is the bankruptsy being filed Danold? Why don't you post something about that today? Seems like you would be jumping up and down hooting and hollering about that...so post the filing...Come on!!!!!

Until he posts the Air America Bankruptsy filing I wouldn't give his posts a whole lot of credence. In fact, I'd not give them any myself...He may just be fill of shit! Of course if he can pull that bankruptsy filing out of his ass, I may reconsider. So please save face and post that filing Danold...
Click to expand...
Here you are, I even dug up the reference from a left-wing site:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/13/air-america-bankruptcy

The facts I quoted here are from the Economist, solid and referenced.

Who are you by the way? If I come across as some yahoo it's because the only lefties on here are people who were lost years ago and have no hope of being reached on any subject, hence why I just have some fun with them...but I do make an effort for new people.
 
Dano do you deny that if farm subsidies are reduced that food prices will go up and or we will be more dependent on foreign sources for our food ?
 
Interesting, even your own source says it ain't happening:

"UPDATE: Air America responds.

If Air America had filed for bankruptcy every time someone rumored it to be doing so, we would have ceased to exist long ago; it may be frustrating to some that this hasn’t happened. No decision has been taken to make any filing of any kind, we are not sure of the source of these rumors and frankly can not respond to every rumor in the marketplace."

What fucking facts are you talking about... You have a link to Think Progress, hardly the Economist. So I guess you better find a new source or better yet learn how to read...When people start posting sources that say the opposite of their earlier claims, I know they aren't paying attention. If your source for this story really was the Economist, the story must have been posted on the rumor page. I want to see the actual bankruptcy filing...or an admittance that you were talking out your ass...If you can't admit you were wrong then you have no way of ascertaining the difference and shouldn't be trusted. If you don't bother to read your sources before posting them, then you have no credibility at all...
 
uscitizen said:
Dano do you deny that if farm subsidies are reduced that food prices will go up and or we will be more dependent on foreign sources for our food ?
Click to expand...
When textile subsidies declined we saw no increase in price as cheaper imports were coming in and sure we are more dependent on them for clothing, but who really cares?

That's what free trade is about, as a country you don't have to do everything.
 
Prakosh said:
Interesting, even your own source says it ain't happening:

"UPDATE: Air America responds.

If Air America had filed for bankruptcy every time someone rumored it to be doing so, we would have ceased to exist long ago; it may be frustrating to some that this hasn’t happened. No decision has been taken to make any filing of any kind, we are not sure of the source of these rumors and frankly can not respond to every rumor in the marketplace."

What fucking facts are you talking about... You have a link to Think Progress, hardly the Economist. So I guess you better find a new source or better yet learn how to read...When people start posting sources that say the opposite of their earlier claims, I know they aren't paying attention. If your source for this story really was the Economist, the story must have been posted on the rumor page. I want to see the actual bankruptcy filing...or an admittance that you were talking out your ass...If you can't admit you were wrong then you have no way of ascertaining the difference and shouldn't be trusted. If you don't bother to read your sources before posting them, then you have no credibility at all...
Click to expand...

The Economist reference was in regard to my farming facts, nothing to do with Air America.

The title on that Think Progress site is "Air America To Declare Bankruptcy", still is. The part you are referencing is an update that was NOT posted there when I originally read it days ago. So it's been corrected, certainly I did nothing wrong but trust the original content of a left-wing site.

Again, who are you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top