- Joined
- Nov 12, 2005
- Messages
- 133,435
- Reaction score
- 32,089
And I say a trade war negates the free market.And I say that if your business fails then the free market has decided.
And I say a trade war negates the free market.And I say that if your business fails then the free market has decided.
And I say a trade war negates the free market.
Not exactly, we pay farmers subsidies because the production is so cheap that they otherwise couldn't survive. If we didn't subsidize farmers, most food prices wouldn't go up significantly but more farmers would go out of business. We produce far more food than we need. It's an oversupply situation that we solve with exports. Without the export market, many farmers couldn't make a living on domestic production..When the food runs out society collapses and the government is attacked. This doesn't offend me that much, BECAUSE IT IS YOU GETTING THE WELFARE HERE AS MUCH AS THE FARMERS.. Milk is $1.29 a gallon right now around here. Do you realize how much work used to have to be done to get a gallon of milk? That is the price the middle-men are selling it for. Eggs are like .50 cents for regular eggs. Of course farmers need aid to make it at those prices dummies. It's either the government pay the difference, or food prices get jacked up. You pick.
Lots of Zimbabwe level intelligence ITT. Cutting of the nose to spite your face because your neighbor wants to cut out a tumor.I'm with you man...one of the last things we should do as a species is let the people who make our food go broke and die off. Farming is a tough business no matter how you slice it, and with meat and veggies being imported it's even more brutal.
Or of course they could all form a racket and raise their prices simultaneously like many other industries have done. It's good there is a plentiful supply of food.. And I understand this creates lower prices. However with the demand the prices should not be so low that those filling the shelves right now should go out of business. All that would have to happen then is a new supplier comes in and charges what the company's that folded should have charged in the first place, of course.Not exactly, we pay farmers subsidies because the production is so cheap that they otherwise couldn't survive. If we didn't subsidize farmers, most food prices wouldn't go up significantly but more farmers would go out of business. We produce far more food than we need. It's an oversupply situation that we solve with exports. Without the export market, many farmers couldn't make a living on domestic production..
They really couldn't raise a racket because there's no real barrier to prevent new entrants into the market. OPEC could form a racket because it would take time for competitors to ramp up production and compete with them. Food production doesn't have that barrier. Farming is one of those things where America has an abundance of arable land, water and knowledge.Or of course they could all form a racket and raise their prices simultaneously like many other industries have done. It's good there is a plentiful supply of food.. And I understand this creates lower prices. However with the demand the prices should not be so low that those filling the shelves right now should go out of business. All that would have to happen then is a new supplier comes in and charges what the company's that folded should have charged in the first place, of course.
Some delicious irony here. But yes I agree in this instance, of course the farmers are only having a hard time because of Trump's silly trade war. I likeWhy can't we just agree that sometimes people need a hand up without being a fucking jerkoff about it?
How is that irony? I have been quite clear. Those in true need should be able to get temporary help. I've never faltered on that. I don't like government handouts as a form of career.Eh, I really don't like this argument. The country is directly getting something from food subsidies in the form of cheaper foods whereas the benefits of social welfare to society at large is less direct.. Plus its a subsidy for an industry so its contingent on that industry producing that output, its not the same as social welfare.
Its a weak attempt at a gotcha I think and its not even the first time we've seen this tried in the WR and it usually fails each time.
Some delicious irony here. But yes I agree in this instance, of course the farmers are only having a hard time because of Trump's silly trade war. I like
@sabretruth's caveat that only ethical farmers should get subsidies.
The irony lies in the fact that with any sort of left wing social welfare policy the right spends lots of energy trying to paint the recipients as mooches, or in other words willingly refusing to agree that some people sometimes need a hand up without being a jerk off about it.How is that irony? I have been quite clear. Those in true need should be able to get temporary help. I've never faltered on that. I don't like government handouts as a form of career.
Because we know that people use welfare as a career and it ends up being paid for by the middle class. I will admit that I take issue with that, I suppose.The irony lies in the fact that with any sort of left wing social welfare policy the right spends lots of energy trying to paint the recipients as mooches, or in other words willingly refusing to agree that some people sometimes need a hand up without being a jerk off about it.
I think any reasonable definition of "true need" would apply much more so to your average recipient of food stamps than the recipient of a farm subsidy but somehow its the former that are painted by the GOP as being mooches and the latter as the ones in dire straits.
But sure I agree its a dick move to try and turn this into a gotcha at the expense of farmers. There are legit criticisms of farm subsidies but they shouldn't be used in a partisan tit for tat.
See this is exactly what I was talking aboutBecause we know that people use welfare as a career and it ends up being paid for by the middle class. I will admit that I take issue with that, I suppose.
I'm not sure what the average "food stamp recipient" is these days. To my eyes, it seems to be people who don't feel like working who buy doritos and pepsi with EBT. Are we pretending there aren't legions of able bodied people out there soaking up tax dollars?
Now if we're talking about the guy who has lost his job and needs food stamps for a few months or so to feed his family, I'm fine with that. If we're talking about a large group displaced by a temporary gov't policy, I'm OK with that too. But trailer park and ghetto queens who make a life of it popping out babies? No. Fuck that.
You paint as uncharitable a picture as possible of the average beneficiary of food stamps and as charitable one as possible for the recipients of the farm subsidies.The irony lies in the fact that with any sort of left wing social welfare policy the right spends lots of energy trying to paint the recipients as mooches, or in other words willingly refusing to agree that some people sometimes need a hand up without being a jerk off about it.
I don't paint any picture at all. It is what it is. Welfare fraud costs this country billions. Its not some weird thing I just made up.See this is exactly what I was talking about
You paint as uncharitable a picture as possible of the average beneficiary of food stamps and as charitable one as possible for the recipients of the farm subsidies.
Now if we're talking about the guy who has lost his job and needs food stamps for a few months or so to feed his family, I'm fine with that. If we're talking about a large group displaced by a temporary gov't policy, I'm OK with that too. But trailer park and ghetto queens who make a life of it popping out babies? No. Fuck that.
ahoy Sohei,
lol.
i'm waiting for the Republicans to demand that the farmers are first drug tested before receiving their welfare checks.
*muses*
i'll bet most farmers own big televisions and have air conditioning, too. why do they need these welfare checks anyway?
- IGIT
ahoy Sohei,
lol.
i'm waiting for the Republicans to demand that the farmers are first drug tested before receiving their welfare checks.
*muses*
i'll bet most farmers own big televisions and have air conditioning, too. why do they need these welfare checks anyway?
- IGIT
Agreed. Remember, medieval kings didnt have welfare checks.
But yeah certain groups of people denounce socialism yet they are okay with subsidizing farms.