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

TheDanold said:
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?
Click to expand...


Prakosh; Who the Fuck are YOU?

Here's a story from The Right Wing Heritage Foundation Decrying the Republicans on Farm Spending:

The Senate Attempts To Prematurely Extend the Bloated Farm Bill Through 2011
by Brian M. Riedl
WebMemo #899a

October 27, 2005

This past April, Congress enacted a budget resolution that called for streamlining $34.7 billion in entitlement spending over the next five years. A seemingly minor provision coming out of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee threatens to negate all of the positives in the reconciliation bill. In return for shaving $3 billion off the $102 billion scheduled to be spent on farm subsidies and conservation payments over the next five years, the Senate reconciliation bill extends the farm subsidy programs of the 2002 farm bill—currently scheduled to expire in 2007—through 2011. This $60 billion commitment will likely eliminate any chance to meaningfully reform the bloated farm programs and may seriously imperil America’s ability to open foreign agriculture markets.

Perpetuating a Broken System

The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-171) increased farm subsidy payments by 80 percent. Turning their backs on the 1996 "Freedom to Farm" reforms designed to bring the free market to agriculture, lawmakers expanded existing farm subsidy programs and created new ones. The distribution of these subsidies is woefully unequal: Nearly all subsidies go to growers of just six crops—wheat, cotton, corn, soybeans, rice, and peanuts. The remaining 73 percent of farmers specializing in livestock, fruits, vegetables, and other crops are locked out of most subsidies. Among the farmers who receive subsidies because they grow the "right" crops, nearly 70 percent of farm subsidies are distributed to just 10 percent of the subsidy recipients. Subsidizing large agribusinesses that grow certain crops while excluding many family farmers who grow other crops has earned farm subsidies the title "America’s largest corporate welfare program."[1]

There is a widespread misconception that farmers are much poorer than most Americans. But most farming is done on large corporate farms, not family farms, and most farmers, on the whole, are better off than the popular misconception allows. As a Department of Agriculture report states, "On average, farm households have higher incomes, greater wealth, and lower consumption expenditures than all U.S. households."[2] Specifically, farmers earn incomes 17 percent above the national average and report net worths well above the national average. In 1999, the 136,000 households with annual farm sales of more than over $250,000—the group that receives the largest farm subsidies—reported an average income of $135,397, or two-and-a-half times the national average.[3] By no means a faltering industry, the farm industry suffers a failure rate just one-sixth the rate for non-farm businesses. Still, taxpayers subsidize (mostly large) farms with between $15 billion and $30 billion annually.

Full Story


Who signed the 2002 Farm Bill, that spend thrift George W. Bush. It was an 80 percent increase over the 1996 Clinton era Farm Bill...So who's more restrictive on Farm Subsidies? And who controlled both Houses of Congress when this new extension was pushed through. Get your "facts" straight...Further since this extends the committment of the 2002 Bill through 2011, electing Democrats now would seem to have almost no effect until at least 2011. What a Maroon the Danold is...
 
I have nothing against helping farmers in America. Like uscitizen has already said, we'll eithe pay through taxes (which in turn helps lower income people afford food) or we'll pay through higher prices at the supermarket (which will hurt the lower income people more). It is a simple formula. Kind of like welfare, there will be abuses of the systerm. When caught in either case, they need to be taken to task for such abuse.
 
Here's another refutation of the Danold's silly Chicklen Little, "the sky will be falling" if the Democrats Win prognostication. Note who was behind this 4 year extension of the biggest farm subsidy bill in History...

Budget Bill Would Extend Wasteful Farm Subsidy Programs While Slashing Food Stamps & Conservation

OCTOBER 5, 2005
CONTACT: Environmental Working Group
EWG Public Affairs, (202) 667-6982

Senator Chambliss’ Agriculture Proposal Would Extend Wasteful Farm Subsidy Programs for 4 Years While Slashing Food Stamps, Conservation

EWG: If Proposal Goes Forward "We might as well quit the WTO"

WASHINGTON - In advance of Thursday morning’s mark-up of budget reconciliation measures in the Senate Agriculture Committee, Chairman Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) proposed to extend bloated, highly controversial U.S. farm subsidy programs for an additional four years, through 2011, while slashing funds for food stamps and conservation programs. The proposal makes only a modest 2.5 percent cut to massive crop subsidies for mega producers, imposes no limits on payments for the agribusiness-scale commodity operations that collect most of the subsidy money, and slashes conservation and food stamp spending. In response to these budget proposals, Environmental Working Group President Ken Cook made the following statement:

"The Chambliss proposal is worse than business as usual – it is business as usual forever. It locks in benefits to the biggest subsidy recipients at the expense of everyone else, including low income families who need food stamps now more than ever. Congress should impose no budget cuts whatsoever on the food stamp program or conservation programs and rein in commodity spending as its first priority.

"Incredibly, the proposal extends for four years the very worst of the notorious 2002 Farm Bill. If enacted, it would severely undermine the White House and the U.S. Trade Representative at the World Trade Organization (WTO). It is a slap in the face to the poorest countries in the world, who have unanimously asked that the U.S. end – not extend – subsidy programs that are using money from American taxpayers to destroy farmers’ livelihoods in Africa and elsewhere.


Full Story
 
Prakosh said:
Prakosh; Who the Fuck are YOU?

Here's a story from The Right Wing Heritage Foundation Decrying the Republicans on Farm Spending:

The Senate Attempts To Prematurely Extend the Bloated Farm Bill Through 2011
by Brian M. Riedl
WebMemo #899a

October 27, 2005

This past April, Congress enacted a budget resolution that called for streamlining $34.7 billion in entitlement spending over the next five years. A seemingly minor provision coming out of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee threatens to negate all of the positives in the reconciliation bill. In return for shaving $3 billion off the $102 billion scheduled to be spent on farm subsidies and conservation payments over the next five years, the Senate reconciliation bill extends the farm subsidy programs of the 2002 farm bill—currently scheduled to expire in 2007—through 2011. This $60 billion commitment will likely eliminate any chance to meaningfully reform the bloated farm programs and may seriously imperil America’s ability to open foreign agriculture markets.

Perpetuating a Broken System

The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-171) increased farm subsidy payments by 80 percent. Turning their backs on the 1996 "Freedom to Farm" reforms designed to bring the free market to agriculture, lawmakers expanded existing farm subsidy programs and created new ones. The distribution of these subsidies is woefully unequal: Nearly all subsidies go to growers of just six crops—wheat, cotton, corn, soybeans, rice, and peanuts. The remaining 73 percent of farmers specializing in livestock, fruits, vegetables, and other crops are locked out of most subsidies. Among the farmers who receive subsidies because they grow the "right" crops, nearly 70 percent of farm subsidies are distributed to just 10 percent of the subsidy recipients. Subsidizing large agribusinesses that grow certain crops while excluding many family farmers who grow other crops has earned farm subsidies the title "America’s largest corporate welfare program."[1]

There is a widespread misconception that farmers are much poorer than most Americans. But most farming is done on large corporate farms, not family farms, and most farmers, on the whole, are better off than the popular misconception allows. As a Department of Agriculture report states, "On average, farm households have higher incomes, greater wealth, and lower consumption expenditures than all U.S. households."[2] Specifically, farmers earn incomes 17 percent above the national average and report net worths well above the national average. In 1999, the 136,000 households with annual farm sales of more than over $250,000—the group that receives the largest farm subsidies—reported an average income of $135,397, or two-and-a-half times the national average.[3] By no means a faltering industry, the farm industry suffers a failure rate just one-sixth the rate for non-farm businesses. Still, taxpayers subsidize (mostly large) farms with between $15 billion and $30 billion annually.

Full Story


Who signed the 2002 Farm Bill, that spend thrift George W. Bush. It was an 80 percent increase over the 1996 Clinton era Farm Bill...So who's more restrictive on Farm Subsidies? And who controlled both Houses of Congress when this new extension was pushed through. Get your "facts" straight...Further since this extends the committment of the 2002 Bill through 2011, electing Democrats now would seem to have almost no effect until at least 2011. What a Maroon the Danold is...
Click to expand...

Count the votes and you will find that more Dems supported the increases then Repubs.
The bill in question is the Agriculture, Conservation, and Rural Enhancement Act of 2002 (HR 2646)
But who were the ones who pushed that bill to Bush and what was the vote count?
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00103#top
It passed by 64 to 35.
42 out of the 64 who voted in favor of more farm subsidies were Democrat senators.
The vast majority of Dems voted in favor of the giant farm subsidies increase, while the majority of Republican senators voted against it.

Don't fuck with me asshole, I will destroy you in any debate, anytime, like I just did.

Unfortunately Bush lacked the balls to veto it (Kerry would definetely not have vetoed it either considering he voted in favor of it), but when we see a problem with spending should we not try and get to the root of the spending problem?
The root of this problem is the Liberal Dems who voted overwhelmingly for it. Had they not supported this bill, then Bush would never have had a chance to sign it.

Besides had you actually read what I wrote, you'll note that I criticized how the Republicans USED to act and am happier with their current position, whereas Dems are still the same old spendhappy fuckers.
Clinton fought farm subsidy cuts which Newt Gingrich pushed, Clinton only reluctantly signed it.
 
Of course moronboy will probably blubber:
"But Dano, Republicans controlled the house, it's their fault!" rather than bother to understand that bills (especially spending bills) often pass because most Dems and a few Repubs vote for them.
 
So why did Bush sign it??? In fact you admit he did sign it. Sorry you're not convincing me of anything. If the Republicans thought it was so bad why is Chamblis a Republican, the one behind it's extension???

I don't think you have kicked anyone's ass. All you have done is show that Bush will sign anything that comes across his desk even a bloated farm subsidy bill that lacked a veto proof majority and could have easily been vetoed and torpedoed...Or am I missing something here...

Maybe Bush isn't a Republican, is that what your argument is????

Whining won't help you. The point you admit, is that Clinton signed a small bill and Bush signed a big bill...The biggest most bloated bill in history. And Republicans pushed it through. If you stick to the past instead of trying to continue to bullshit about a future you can know nothing about you'll be far safer. You said Air America was filing bankruptcy today, and that they had done it before, neither of which was true. You posted a left wing site as a source as if that meant something; it doesn't; you need to think not just repeat what you hear no matter who you hear it from. And you need to stop trying to predict the future; unless of course you have a crystal ball, and if you have one, you should probably trade it in on one that works a little better.
 
Last edited:
TheDanold said:
Of course moronboy will probably blubber:
"But Dano, Republicans controlled the house, it's their fault!" rather than bother to understand that bills (especially spending bills) often pass because most Dems and a few Repubs vote for them.
Click to expand...


Why would I say that, only a fool would say that. Whether a bill passes or not is inconsequenial really, unless it passes by more than a 2/3rds majority in both Houses, passage means absolutely nothing. The only thing that really matters and the only way a bill becomes a law, is when the President signs it. If the Republicans really didn't want this bloated farm subsidy bill, the President could have easily vetoed it. And it wouldn't matter who voted for it or who didn't. It really is that simple. Bush, a Republican signed a bloated Farm Subsidy Bill, the most expensive in History... And Chambliss, a Republican, is trying to extend it for another 4 years...deny, deny deny...

And make sure you shift the blame all over......
 
Last edited:
Wasn't it yesterday when I read Prakosh say, "You will never see me defending the Democrats!"?
 
TheDanold said:
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.
Click to expand...

so you are saying that we should have no concerns to be dependent on south america and Mexico for our food supply and it's quality like we are sort of held hostage for our oil from the ME ?
Simply brilliant Dano...

Short sighted profit minded mentality? Or just eager for our status to drop to second or third world ?
 
Prakosh said:
So why did Bush sign it??? In fact you admit he did sign it. Sorry you're not convincing me of anything. If the Republicans thought it was so bad why is Chamblis a Republican, the one behind it's extension???
Click to expand...
Again, MORE Democrats supported it and FEWER Republicans did, Chambliss is one of those FEWER. If you don't get this simple concept then fuck off because I am not interested in teaching primary school level logic.

Prakosh said:
I don't think you have kicked anyone's ass. All you have done is show that Bush will sign anything that comes across his desk even a bloated farm subsidy bill that lacked a veto proof majority and could have easily been vetoed and torpedoed...Or am I missing something here...
Click to expand...
Bush is a pussy, and adopting Rove's strategy of not giving the left any issues to rail against them to avoid being demonized by leftoids as mean and heartless, by signing spending increases, but trying to make them lower than the Dems.

Prakosh said:
Whining won't help you. The point you admit, is that Clinton signed a small bill and Buish signed a big bill...The biggest most bloated bill in history. And Republicans pushed it through. If you stick to the past instead of trying to continue to bullshit about a future you can know nothing about you'll be far safer. You said Air America was filing bankruptcy today, and that they had done it before, neither of which was true. You posted a left wing site as a source as if that meant something; it doesn't; you need to think not just repeat what you hear no matter who you hear it from. And you need to stop trying to predict the future; unless of course you have a crystal ball, and if you have one, you should probably trade it in on one that works a little better.
Click to expand...
It's not even close to the most bloated bill, that's almost always the transportation bill.
I repeated what a left-wing site said, given than it was negative news for the left and a left-wing site posted it, I would think it to be more trustworthy, if they let you down by issuing a correction update, go rant at them for spreading gossip, I'm not responsible for their statements being wrong.

The problem with you is most people's which is that you focus only on the president without comparing what bills they are sent or the nature of where spending ORIGINATES.
Bush has been sent zero spending CUT bills, Clinton was sent many from Republicans (who obviously acted more Conservative in the 90's).

To me (and this is going by voting records) Dems are enthusiastic spenders and Republicans more reluctant ones. So they are the lesser of 2 evils. After Sep 11, let's face it, desire for less government died, hopefully it will come back, but in the meantime I will support the best VIABLE option to hold it back and that is Conservative Republicans, which are the majority of Republicans but certainly not all.
 
Food exports is also a powerful political tool. We sure need to be a net exporter of something too for finiancial reasons.
 
Damocles said:
Wasn't it yesterday when I read Prakosh say, "You will never see me defending the Democrats!"?
Click to expand...

Am I defending the Democrats??? I am attacking a specific poster who says that Democrats will do something just as he said that Air America would do something which they didn't do, and just as he said that I would do something that I didn't do...I seem to be attacking his prognostication skills not necessarily defending any particular political ideology. But I guess if you ignore my remarks about Air America and my remarks about him getting a new crystal ball and advising him to stick with the past and forget about the future, then you could probably read this as a defense of Democrats, although I don't think I mention them much except to say that Clinton, who I have already noted I never liked because of his ability to eat dessert while a retarded person was being executed, which you and others here keep ignoring in some kind of perverted attempt to make me into a Democrat, signed a much smaller bill than Bush did. If that makes me a Democrat then go ahead and say it.

As a matter of fact, no matter who voted for it, the bill was bullshit as both stories which I posted on it noted, and should have been vetoed because it gave subsidies to corporate farms, who do not need subsidies, while denying them to those smaller producers who are in most need of aid in battling the competition of the same big factory farms that it aided, while the bill itself was sold to the American people as an aid to the small guy. These are the same kinds of structures that I disavowed in my post where I said that Republicans would change and "start caring about the little guy, and about the way the current structure benefits not just big business but makes it imperative that bigger and bigger businesses aggregate in order to continue to make greater and greater profits." In fact, this bill is a prefect example of that kind of propensity and the rewarding of it by government.

Actually, there is no major party in the American political that is willing to take on these behemoths, therefore as far as I am concerned, they are both fucked up as far as I can tell...Do I need to be any clearer???

It was after all Harry Truman, one of Bush's favorite Democrats, who incinerated hundreds of thousands of Japenese at the end of WWII with atomic weapons for no better reason than he wanted to show the Russians what we really had in order to scare the hell out of them at the beginning of what he thought would be the next big ideological challenge that the U.S. faced. In my mind nothing demonstrates the general American attitude toward other cultures and a complete disregard for human life than that arrogant act.

Personally, as I said already, but just for repeaters since you seem to dismiss or ignore everything that doesn't fit your little bi-lateral scheme--both major political parties in America are fucked...Got it!!!!
 
Last edited:
TheDanold said:
Again, MORE Democrats supported it and FEWER Republicans did, Chambliss is one of those FEWER. If you don't get this simple concept then fuck off because I am not interested in teaching primary school level logic.

Bush is a pussy, and adopting Rove's strategy of not giving the left any issues to rail against them to avoid being demonized by leftoids as mean and heartless, by signing spending increases, but trying to make them lower than the Dems.

It's not even close to the most bloated bill, that's almost always the transportation bill.
I repeated what a left-wing site said, given than it was negative news for the left and a left-wing site posted it, I would think it to be more trustworthy, if they let you down by issuing a correction update, go rant at them for spreading gossip, I'm not responsible for their statements being wrong.

The problem with you is most people's which is that you focus only on the president without comparing what bills they are sent or the nature of where spending ORIGINATES.
Bush has been sent zero spending CUT bills, Clinton was sent many from Republicans (who obviously acted more Conservative in the 90's).

To me (and this is going by voting records) Dems are enthusiastic spenders and Republicans more reluctant ones. So they are the lesser of 2 evils. After Sep 11, let's face it, desire for less government died, hopefully it will come back, but in the meantime I will support the best VIABLE option to hold it back and that is Conservative Republicans, which are the majority of Republicans but certainly not all.
Click to expand...

This is the kind of ignorance that appears again and again here: "It's not even close to the most bloated bill" OK you're right I forgot to say "farm" yet again in a conversation that was about the farm subsidy bill. How many times do I have to say "farm" subsidy bill on this post to make sure that you get it through your thick skull that I am talking about the farm subsidy bill and not any other bill??? But go ahead jump all over that misque...

More importantly, though, you note "Bush has been sent zero spending CUT bills" haven't most of those Bills come from a Republican Congress???

And isn't Bush responsible for his signature on these bills...Or is it all the Democrats fault no matter who controls Congress, or who is president or who signs the bills or who even votes for them or makes it possible for them to pass...in the end it is the Democrats who are to blame because Karl Rove tells Bush what to do and Bush can't upset Karl Rove...And what kind of logic is that exactly....
 
Last edited:
Prakosh said:
This is the kind of ignorance that appears again and again here: "It's not even close to the most bloated bill" OK you're right I forgot to say "farm" yet again in a conversation that was about the farm subsidy bill. How many times do I have to say "farm" subsidy bill on this post to make sure that you get it through your thick skull that I am talking about the farm subsidy bill and not any other bill??? But go ahead jump all over that misque...

More importantly, though, you note "Bush has been sent zero spending CUT bills" haven't most of those Bills come from a Republican Congress???

And isn't Bush responible for his signature on these bills...Or is it all the Democrats fault no matter who controls Congress, or who is president or who signs the bills or who even votes for them or makes it possible for them to pass...in the end it is the Democrats who are to blame because Karl Rove tells Bush what to do and Bush can't upset Karl Rove...And what kind of logic is that exactly....
Click to expand...

But wait...who are you?
 
Prakosh said:
Why would I say that, only a fool would say that. Whether a bill passes or not is inconsequenial really, unless it passes by more than a 2/3rds majority in both Houses, passage means absolutely nothing. The only thing that really matters and the only way a bill becomes a law, is when the President signs it. If the Republicans really didn't want this boaited farm subsidy bill, the President could have easily vetoed it. And it wouldn't matter who voted for it or who didn't. It really is that simple. Bush, a Republican signed a bloated Farm Subsidy Bill, the most expensive in History... And Chambliss, a Republican, is trying to extend it for another 4 years...deny, deny deny...

And make sure you shift the blame all over......
Click to expand...
Going after the president is not getting to the root of the problem, which is those who WROTE the bill.
Think of it this way, no matter WHO you put in office, they can't cut spending unless they get spending cut bills in front of them...and that never happened.
Yes Bush could do better, but he is the lesser priority if you are looking to cut government.
 
TheDanold said:
Going after the president is not getting to the root of the problem, which is those who WROTE the bill.
Think of it this way, no matter WHO you put in office, they can't cut spending unless they get spending cut bills in front of them...and that never happened.
Yes Bush could do better, but he is the lesser priority if you are looking to cut government.
Click to expand...

So the president is inconsequential! Great, but you better not tell that to Bush, he secretly wants to be dictator...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top