congress passes another farm bill, $200 billion

[jhu]

as if we need more farm subsidies

as much as i don't like bush, he'd get a nod from me if he vetoes this piece of crap bill if/when it gets to his desk.

 

[BoberFett]

jhu, good to see ya!

 

[Jimmah]

Another totally illegal subsidies bill. I love how the US holds up to its agreements....

 

[Wreckem]

You can thank the Democrats on this one.

Bush is threatening a veto. If Bush vetos the Republicans are going to get bashed, because there are not enough votes in the House to override.

Even House Republicans in Farm districts voted no on this bill. Can't say the same for the Senate Republicans. The bill that was reported from Committee in the House, got chopped up and renamed, and then passed on to the Senate.

It was 231 yay, 191 nay.

212 Dems and 19 Repubs for
177 Repubs and 14 Dems against.

If Vetoed it wont be over ridden in all likelyhood. And then another continuing resolution will again be passed to keep the last farm bill active.

Its a democrats wet dream, now they will be able to say Republicans hate farmers and children....

 

[Pabster]

Veto.

 

[Ozoned]

I can't think of a better way to redistribute some of the wealth of this nation, than to pump it into the basic building block of our economy. Wealthy people (the people that pay the lions share of the tax bill) are footing the lions share of the cost of this bill, and there are a lot of poor people that will benefit greatly from it. Despite our agreements with other nations, we must stay competitive with what they also do.

Feeding the 6 1/2 billion people on this planet is no small task, if you want totally subsidy-free food markets to dictate farm policy, then you better be prepared for a lot of them to starve to death...

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
I can't think of a better way to redistribute some of the wealth of this nation, than to pump it into the basic building block of our economy. Wealthy people (the people that pay the lions share of the tax bill) are footing the lions share of the cost of this bill, and there are a lot of poor people that will benefit greatly from it. Despite our agreements with other nations, we must stay competitive with what they also do.

Feeding the 6 1/2 billion people on this planet is no small task, if you want totally subsidy-free food markets to dictate farm policy, then you better be prepared for a lot of them to starve to death...

The US doesn't Feed everyone on the planet.

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
I can't think of a better way to redistribute some of the wealth of this nation, than to pump it into the basic building block of our economy. Wealthy people (the people that pay the lions share of the tax bill) are footing the lions share of the cost of this bill, and there are a lot of poor people that will benefit greatly from it. Despite our agreements with other nations, we must stay competitive with what they also do.

Feeding the 6 1/2 billion people on this planet is no small task, if you want totally subsidy-free food markets to dictate farm policy, then you better be prepared for a lot of them to starve to death...

Or we could veto this and not endorse socialism and globalism.

The only thing truly starving in this nation our are liberties, and I really don't want to give Washington another fucking reason to take away my money for some hugely inefficient bureaucratic bullshit project. We don't need to grow the welfare system because it keeps people poor. It keeps them from trying. We only need temporary safety nets. Excess spending devalues the dollar, and hits the poor first.

Lawls, we don't feed the world. Go to the produce section and check out where the grapes are from. You're going to see some US, some Chile. Check out the oranges. This time of year, it's pretty common to see South Africa and Australia. Check out stuff like Kiwi -- Greece.

 

[pstylesss]

I hope he vetos

I was thinking about this the other day...

If we were to take away subsidies and allow farmers to charge market rate on food, cost of food would raise for about 10 years or so, but in turn we would have more farmers because they could actually make a decent living, which would create more jobs, so it would be a more attractive career choice, and over time costs of food would lower because more farmers means more competition which means lower price.

amiright?

 

[OokiiNeko]

Ron Paul on farm subsidies.

Start watching at 7:00 minutes.

 

[jhu]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
jhu, good to see ya!

ditto. good to see some of the "old timers" still around.

 

[GenHoth]

We don't feed the world, but we come pretty darn close!

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: GenHoth
We don't feed the world, but we come pretty darn close!

For that Stat.

 

[IronWing]

Veto this dog. This is corporate welfare in it purest, most deceitful form. Que the guy in the plaid shirt to talk about the bad weather and his granddaddy's work ethic. Ignore the ADM tattoo on his ass.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
I can't think of a better way to redistribute some of the wealth of this nation, than to pump it into the basic building block of our economy. Wealthy people (the people that pay the lions share of the tax bill) are footing the lions share of the cost of this bill, and there are a lot of poor people that will benefit greatly from it. Despite our agreements with other nations, we must stay competitive with what they also do.

Feeding the 6 1/2 billion people on this planet is no small task, if you want totally subsidy-free food markets to dictate farm policy, then you better be prepared for a lot of them to starve to death...

I see commercials on TV all the time that they are starving to death.

So what's the difference now?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
I hope he vetos

I was thinking about this the other day...

If we were to take away subsidies and allow farmers to charge market rate on food, cost of food would raise for about 10 years or so, but in turn we would have more farmers because they could actually make a decent living, which would create more jobs, so it would be a more attractive career choice, and over time costs of food would lower because more farmers means more competition which means lower price.

amiright?

How dare you. The right thing is never the right thing to do anymore.

You should know that by now.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
I can't think of a better way to redistribute some of the wealth of this nation, than to pump it into the basic building block of our economy. Wealthy people (the people that pay the lions share of the tax bill) are footing the lions share of the cost of this bill, and there are a lot of poor people that will benefit greatly from it. Despite our agreements with other nations, we must stay competitive with what they also do.

Feeding the 6 1/2 billion people on this planet is no small task, if you want totally subsidy-free food markets to dictate farm policy, then you better be prepared for a lot of them to starve to death...

You must forget that farming is huge business. Just ask Archer Daniels Midland or Cargill.

This is a bigger boondongle for big business than the Iraqi war.

 

[palehorse]

Bush better veto this huge pile of socialist garbage... f'n Congress is too out in Left field these days!

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: GenHoth
We don't feed the world, but we come pretty darn close!

For that Stat.

If you have something better, then by all means share it.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Bush better veto this huge pile of socialist garbage... f'n Congress is too out in Left field these days!

Congress critters spend too much time with their corporate pimp daddies.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: OokiiNeko
Ron Paul on farm subsidies.

Start watching at 7:00 minutes.

I watched the whole clip and that's the same garbage the right has been preaching since the 80's. I guess THIS time they mean it? :laugh:

Vote Ron Paul and put another Texan in charge of the country, just what we need. And he's an MD to boot so forget about doing anything positive about controlling the cost of medical care.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
I hope he vetos

I was thinking about this the other day...

If we were to take away subsidies and allow farmers to charge market rate on food, cost of food would raise for about 10 years or so, but in turn we would have more farmers because they could actually make a decent living, which would create more jobs, so it would be a more attractive career choice, and over time costs of food would lower because more farmers means more competition which means lower price.

amiright?

How dare you. The right thing is never the right thing to do anymore.

You should know that by now.

There you go Dave, here's your oportunity to cash in, start over as a dairy farmer. It's real steady employment and you don't have kiss any ass. You just have to be there 24/7/365.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
There you go Dave, here's your oportunity to cash in, start over as a dairy farmer. It's real steady employment and you don't have kiss any ass. You just have to be there 24/7/365.

:thumbsup:

This might be the opportunity you've been waiting for Dave!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Jimmah
Another totally illegal subsidies bill. I love how the US holds up to its agreements....

"illegal"? :laugh:



***********

I don't particularly like this Harkin farm bill as I've been for a REDUCTION in subsidies for as long as I've known it as a political issue. I don't have a problem with susidies for the small farmer as I don't want all farming to be "corporate" farming but right now it seems that large/wealthy farmers get the bulk of the "aid" when it is not needed for survival. Subsidies and Federal aid should ONLY come into play when there is a problem with the market or crop. I'm not in favor of automatic payments that alot of these subsidies are. But as always, there is some good legislation in the bill that will help our future but we don't need all the bloat and overpayments.

 

[Rainsford]

I think this is a pretty stupid bill, and for once I hope Bush can find his veto pen (up until recently, I don't think he knew the veto WAS a presidential power). But you guys who think this is about "socialism" are being kind of stupid. In the first place, the idea of the traditional family farm is mostly a myth at this point. Most farming is done by large corporations that need subsidies about as much as the oil industry does. Honestly, if this wasn't about politics, I'd say you'd see Republicans supporting this kind of thing with open arms...corporate welfare being an ever popular choice for people on both sides.

But it is almost entirely about politics. The Democrats are attempting to project an image that they AREN'T just the party of sushi eating liberals from the big cities, and nothing says "I'm on your side" to the hayseeds like going on about the family farm and its place in American culture...even though very few family farms will benefit And the Republicans, even though corporate handouts are very popular with them, want to oppose this to prove they are tough on socialism.

Farms, for some reason, occupy a very strange place in American political culture.