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

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...
And just how many bills has Bush vetoed Dano ?
 
uscitizen said:
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....
Click to expand...

So what? Interdependency means more diversity, less wars. And there are so many nations to provide us with food it will never become a security risk.
 
leaningright said:
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.
Click to expand...


We should give out more need based food stamps, then. Protecting the food industry is merely pork, it isn't good for America, just good for three or four agribusiness. Agriculture is dead, face it. Let other countries do it, other countries that need the money, and let us concentrate on what we're good at.
 
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...

One other thing, you may be right about the "root" here, just wrong about who you think the "root" is, as with most bills originating in the current Congress, if you check I think you will find that the bill was actually written by the lobbyists for the huge factory farms. They may have also been the ones who wrote the checks to ensure the bills passage. The only way this kind of corruption will be stopped is if money is no longer considered free speech and all campaigns are completely publicly financed. That is actually getting to the "root" of the problem, or you can just keep thinking inside the box and forget the structure or any structural alternatives that might actually make the Representatives and Senators responsible to the general population, i. e. the voters, instead of the check writers.
 
uscitizen said:
Food exports is also a powerful political tool. We sure need to be a net exporter of something too for finiancial reasons.
Click to expand...

Let's net export something we're good at. Such mercantilist notions as you puport were disproven way back in the 17th century as almost never good for the nation as a whole.

The only real use for tarriffs and subsidies is to protect an "infant industry" so that it can grow up. I don't believe I've ever seen the government do this. Most often, the tariffs power is used to protect ancient industries that are no good anymore and aren't needed.
 
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 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....
Click to expand...

Bush is just one man. He is not the republican party. And him vetoing such pork would make a much larger commotion than a single senator doing it. Executives are SUPPOSED to be much more careful with their vetoes than legislator's are with their votes. The veto, from what I understand, was meant by our founding fathers mainly for the executive to weed out unconstitutional acts. Just because one man got elected he shouldn't have 75% control over congress. That brings this into an almost dictatorship, and luckily we are a democracy where presidents have been stingy with the veto. What matters more is that the Democrats voted for it en masse... and I have little doubt that partisanship played in quite a bit in this matter.
 
Watermark said:
Bush is just one man. He is not the republican party. And him vetoing such pork would make a much larger commotion than a single senator doing it. Executives are SUPPOSED to be much more careful with their vetoes than legislator's are with their votes. The veto, from what I understand, was meant by our founding fathers mainly for the executive to weed out unconstitutional acts. Just because one man got elected he shouldn't have 75% control over congress. That brings this into an almost dictatorship, and luckily we are a democracy where presidents have been stingy with the veto. What matters more is that the Democrats voted for it en masse... and I have little doubt that partisanship played in quite a bit in this matter.
Click to expand...

I take exception to this statement: "The veto, from what I understand, was meant by our founding fathers mainly for the executive to weed out unconstitutional acts." Sorry, you're just plain wrong here, the Supreme Court was established by the founders to determine a law's consitutionality...Look it up...I think it's somehwere in the Constitution, somewhere around Article III...

Who voted for it isn't as important as who signed it unless a veto is over-ridden...You'll find that in Article II...
 
Well, a veto is fundamentally different than a veto. Executives shouldn't veto merely because they don't particularly like a bill, although they often do. The president's not meant to be a lawmaker, and using the veto in that manner often would simply be giving an executive a legislative power, a clear intrusion on seperation of powers. Even then, most executives give out vetos carefully.
 
Watermark said:
We should give out more need based food stamps, then. Protecting the food industry is merely pork, it isn't good for America, just good for three or four agribusiness. Agriculture is dead, face it. Let other countries do it, other countries that need the money, and let us concentrate on what we're good at.
Click to expand...

Hmm check with the USDA and such, you are saying that wee need to do away with about 20% of our jobs ? that is about how many are linked either directly or indirectly to agribusiness.

you got cranial anal itis or something ?
 
Watermark said:
Well, a veto is fundamentally different than a veto. Executives shouldn't veto merely because they don't particularly like a bill, although they often do. The president's not meant to be a lawmaker, and using the veto in that manner often would simply be giving an executive a legislative power, a clear intrusion on seperation of powers. Even then, most executives give out vetos carefully.
Click to expand...

Excuse me: "Well, a veto is fundamentally different than a veto."

HOW???????
 
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 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....
Click to expand...

FUCKING A, did I not call it?
Moron boy can only think of things as "Republican or Democrat run congress" rather than understanding how most Dems and a few Repubs can combine to make a majority to pass a bill.

One more time you fucking retarded sack of shit:
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.

Stupid, stupid, stupid and I'm done here.
 
Watermark is differntiating veto in the political term which is sending a bill back to Congress and veto in the common term which means to override.

There is credence to what he says here.
 
TheDanold said:
FUCKING A, did I not call it?
Moron boy can only think of things as "Republican or Democrat run congress" rather than understanding how most Dems and a few Repubs can combine to make a majority to pass a bill.

One more time you fucking retarded sack of shit:
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.

Stupid, stupid, stupid and I'm done here.
Click to expand...

First off Idiot, You said I would blame in on the House, I didn't. The House is the House and Congress generally refers to both Houses of Congress, not the House. Second and more importantly you want to make this Democrat and Republican so badly that you completely ignored this post:

"One other thing, you may be right about the "root" here, just wrong about who you think the "root" is, as with most bills originating in the current Congress, if you check I think you will find that the bill was actually written by the lobbyists for the huge factory farms. They may have also been the ones who wrote the checks to ensure the bills passage. The only way this kind of corruption will be stopped is if money is no longer considered free speech and all campaigns are completely publicly financed. That is actually getting to the "root" of the problem, or you can just keep thinking inside the box and forget the structure or any structural alternatives that might actually make the Representatives and Senators responsible to the general population, i. e. the voters, instead of the check writers."

Of course, you had to ignore that post completely to be able to continue your partisan rant. But all serious readers can see that I am getting to the deeper structural reasons for the Bills and not some mythical partisan bullshit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top