From a Historical Perspective, why are

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: Craig234

What do you think of the idea of having different laws for the urban liberals and for the rural gun supporters, since their politics and situations are not the same?

I'm not opposed to it, althought I think there would have to be compromises made on both sides. For example maybe, ban handguns, but allow open-carry of rifles.

Well, I'm not sure about the compromises, because the point is different rules in different place, so the cities might ban handguns, while the rural areas have broad rights.

That's a bad idea. It's almost as if we'd let urban areas form city-states and decide their own rules separate from the constitution. There must be compromise.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: Craig234

What do you think of the idea of having different laws for the urban liberals and for the rural gun supporters, since their politics and situations are not the same?

I'm not opposed to it, althought I think there would have to be compromises made on both sides. For example maybe, ban handguns, but allow open-carry of rifles.

Well, I'm not sure about the compromises, because the point is different rules in different place, so the cities might ban handguns, while the rural areas have broad rights.

That's a bad idea. It's almost as if we'd let urban areas form city-states and decide their own rules separate from the constitution. There must be compromise.

That would be compromise.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: Craig234

What do you think of the idea of having different laws for the urban liberals and for the rural gun supporters, since their politics and situations are not the same?

I'm not opposed to it, althought I think there would have to be compromises made on both sides. For example maybe, ban handguns, but allow open-carry of rifles.

Well, I'm not sure about the compromises, because the point is different rules in different place, so the cities might ban handguns, while the rural areas have broad rights.

That's a bad idea. It's almost as if we'd let urban areas form city-states and decide their own rules separate from the constitution. There must be compromise.

That's not correct at all. There is no constitutional provision protecting handgus - a weapon uniquely suited to criminal use - while long guns are protected.

'City-states' is just hyperbole on your part.

We're not talking about their establishing state religions and their own nuclear arsenals. You seem to be responding knee-jerk rather than with any rational comment.

 

[n yusef]

City-wide bans on guns are silly. Anyone can drive a few miles and arm herself.

That prohibition of handguns would save lives is evident to anyone who has studied urban violence. That said, gun violence is more of a symptom than the cause of the problems of low-income, often black or Latino, communities. IMO, those of us on the left need to give up the issue of gun control. No matter how right we feel, it's not gonna happen.

 

[JKing106]

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: inspire

Hi Craig - I see your frustrations, and I understand them. I hope you can understand mine, as well. I'd say you take a somewhat liberal stance on gun control and that it influences your views and understanding of the topic. Likewise, I take the complementary stance, and it influences my views and understanding. I wasn't trying to poke holes in your points, but rather, fill in the gaps that I noticed in your understanding of the right-wing views on guns - which, on the whole, tend to be a bit different from the passions that are often seen. As with most hot-button issues, those on one extreme tend to drown out the more moderate folks.

I think that between our our respective posts, one could gain a fairly well-rounded insight into how people of different polictical persuations view the matter. I appreciate both the points you and I agree on as well as those we don't. I understand it's probably a task in itself to field all the replies on such a 'hot-button' issue here in P&N, so I appreciate your taking the time to consider my post.

I think we both see things in a similar fashion, merely from different angles.

Hi Inspire, fair enough. I don't agree that my post was a 'liberal' one - most of my posts are - but I acknowledge that I weighted two right-wing motivations as the top ones, the ones about guns making them 'feel empowered' both for defense from criminals and in some broad sense from tyranny, and I did not include explicitly the deterrent issue you mentioned, which I agree most gun supporters do care about as well, I just weight it less.

I appreciate your other comments.

What do you think of the idea of having different laws for the urban liberals and for the rural gun supporters, since their politics and situations are not the same?

I'm not opposed to it, althought I think there would have to be compromises made on both sides. For example maybe, ban handguns, but allow open-carry of rifles.

+++

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Triumph
I almost threw up my dinner reading the bullshit that Craig just posted. You completely avoided the topic entirely (HISTORICAL perspective on gun control) in favor of a chance to get on your soap box. HISTORICALLY, the Democratic party is the party of Jim Crow laws, segregation, and the KKK. Of course this has nothing to do with guns, but to listen to Craig's post you'd think that the dems have never done anything wrong. I make this point to explain that you are replying with a modern day interpretation of a liberal's view on firearms. So Craig, can you revise your post to say something that actually contributes to the topic at hand?

you realized that there was a realignment about 40 years ago right?

Right, but my point is that Craig's post gives no historical reason for why the two respective camps are where they are on this topic. All I hear is "Liberals care about people's welfare and little Jimmy who took his daddy's hand gun and shot little Bobby and oh think of the children and Conservatives want to shoot your children!"

Craig seems to have a very sound perspective on the gun issue in America, and admittedly it was short on history. But you seem to have the bigger soapbox. Republicans who talk about the party of lincoln and the KKK and the democrat's ties there and DON'T mention the dixiecrats and all that forty years ago tend to do so for a purpose.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: n yusef
City-wide bans on guns are silly. Anyone can drive a few miles and arm herself.

That prohibition of handguns would save lives is evident to anyone who has studied urban violence. That said, gun violence is more of a symptom than the cause of the problems of low-income, often black or Latino, communities. IMO, those of us on the left need to give up the issue of gun control. No matter how right we feel, it's not gonna happen.

Not necessarily. Again, don't look at this as intended to 'end gun violence', but rather to reduce it.

Notice that gun burglaries where so many are obtained tend to be very locally committed - criminals aren't too comfortable driving to another area to burglarize.

Gang members usually have very local contacts for obtaining guns.

It's not going to stop a lot of the criminal gun trade, but it could reduce it. But I'm open to an informed study confirming that before it was implemented.

If it reduced gun violence 2%, 10%, 25%, that could still justify it.

We have to look at what's practical.

Look at cities who ban fireworks - they can still be obtained elsewhere and the bans don't competely get rid of their use but they get rid of most of it.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Triumph
I almost threw up my dinner reading the bullshit that Craig just posted. You completely avoided the topic entirely (HISTORICAL perspective on gun control) in favor of a chance to get on your soap box. HISTORICALLY, the Democratic party is the party of Jim Crow laws, segregation, and the KKK. Of course this has nothing to do with guns, but to listen to Craig's post you'd think that the dems have never done anything wrong. I make this point to explain that you are replying with a modern day interpretation of a liberal's view on firearms. So Craig, can you revise your post to say something that actually contributes to the topic at hand?

you realized that there was a realignment about 40 years ago right?

Right, but my point is that Craig's post gives no historical reason for why the two respective camps are where they are on this topic. All I hear is "Liberals care about people's welfare and little Jimmy who took his daddy's hand gun and shot little Bobby and oh think of the children and Conservatives want to shoot your children!"

Craig seems to have a very sound perspective on the gun issue in America, and admittedly it was short on history. But you seem to have the bigger soapbox. Republicans who talk about the party of lincoln and the KKK and the democrat's ties there and DON'T mention the dixiecrats and all that forty years ago tend to do so for a purpose.

Thanks for the comments, and I agree with all of them, including the lack of specific details on historical events as the parties increase polarization in my comments.

I felt that the thinking in the parties is the core of the polarization now, and didn't look up at what specific points the parties had events like adding gun control to platforms.

My sense is that the urban democrats gradually grew a distaste for guns more and more, between their leaders being assassinated in the 60's, the inscrease in urban gun violence after the 60's, and the right dug in its heels and rejected any increase in gun control, with the shooting of Reagan seeming to affect the left more than the right, as Jim Brady became a poster child for handgun control and his wife founded 'Handgun Control, Inc.'

The right, ever watchful for issues to use for votes, certainly found gun control useful, and has often exaggerated it ever since for that purpose (Obama will take all your guns).

Democrats have IMO tended to lose more votes than they gain as they fight for the issue out of conviction, rightly or wrongly (just as they lost a lot of votes by passing civil rights).

Democrats currently have all but backed off gun control, though 'assault weapon' bans could return.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: loki8481
I think it boils down to the urban v rural divide.

This. Definitely this.

Rural folks also view Government as "big city slickers" (read: different than what they're used to), and therefore are naturally distrustful of it.

I was just talking to my grandparents (90+ years old, live in farm country but are not farmers), and they related to me how many of their friends who WERE farmers, were always EXTREMELY angry with and distrustful of commodities markets. Illustrative quote: "I grew this corn, why should I let some city slicker in Chicago tell me how much it's worth?"

All this while blissfully ignoring the fact that, assuming a correctly functioning market, they were getting THE BEST price possible for their corn. Not to mention the fact that: they now no longer have to find actual buyers for their grain, nor do they have to deliver it all over the map, nor do they have to do any bargaining/haggling for price, etc., leaving them more time to do ... get this ... ACTUAL FARMING.

Also, I think education (or lack and/or distrust thereof), plays in to this as well.

Spot on! :thumbsup:

I'd like to mention those same farmers are getting gov't subsidies for growing that corn too! GD welfare for farmers is what it is.

I can't beleive the depth of some people's ignorance. If the people growing YOUR food go broke and can't plant their crops then guess who's going to starve?

Hint: It won't be the land owners.

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: loki8481
I think it boils down to the urban v rural divide.

This. Definitely this.

Rural folks also view Government as "big city slickers" (read: different than what they're used to), and therefore are naturally distrustful of it.

I was just talking to my grandparents (90+ years old, live in farm country but are not farmers), and they related to me how many of their friends who WERE farmers, were always EXTREMELY angry with and distrustful of commodities markets. Illustrative quote: "I grew this corn, why should I let some city slicker in Chicago tell me how much it's worth?"

All this while blissfully ignoring the fact that, assuming a correctly functioning market, they were getting THE BEST price possible for their corn. Not to mention the fact that: they now no longer have to find actual buyers for their grain, nor do they have to deliver it all over the map, nor do they have to do any bargaining/haggling for price, etc., leaving them more time to do ... get this ... ACTUAL FARMING.

Also, I think education (or lack and/or distrust thereof), plays in to this as well.

Spot on! :thumbsup:

I'd like to mention those same farmers are getting gov't subsidies for growing that corn too! GD welfare for farmers is what it is.

I can't beleive the depth of some people's ignorance. If the people growing YOUR food go broke and can't plant their crops then guess who's going to starve?

Hint: It won't be the land owners.

The ignorance is yours. We are at the other end of that spectrum right now and there is glut of corn rotting in silos that farmers aren't allowed to sell, while getting subsidies from the govt to let it rot. Thats the fixed economics of it. Thats the wonderful agricultural lobbies working for you, pushing stupid stuff like biodeisel and high fructose corn syrup - neither of which make sense if you're not a farmer.


If there is too much corn, we need to let free market take over and let some of that farmland do something else other than soy and corn.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Triumph
"Modern" history? Come on, give me a break. Now that's just a cop out.

He doesn't want to address the issue that "his" party is the racist party and that initially they wanted to ban BLACKS from owning guns. They "re-algined" themselves because they saw that they would get more voters if they embraced the black man and so instead of openly admitting they want to take away or deny rights to blacks, thy impose it on everyone.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Hmmm. I'm not really clear on what "gun opposing" is exactly supposed to mean. I'm a liberal, and I don't "oppose guns." I think there can be reasonable regulations imposed by the government on the ownership and sale of guns, but I don't support an all-out ban on guns, for instance. I expect that Democrats and Republicans differ on exactly which regulations and proposed regulations are "reasonable," and I'd wager that both sides have their vocal minority of extremists that will never see eye-to-eye.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: BarrySotero
In fact, the 1964 vote for Civil Rights had more solid support across GOP than Dem party.

As has been explained to people who use the numbers dishonestly like you do many times, the fact is that the opposition to the civil rights bills was in the south.

You mean like the gun grabbers that use dishonest numbers to show thousand sof children being killed by guns every year? When in fact actual "children" being killed by guns is very very low, becaues the numbers your group uses includes deaths from gang related activity and "children" that are up to 19 years old.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Hmmm. I'm not really clear on what "gun opposing" is exactly supposed to mean. I'm a liberal, and I don't "oppose guns." I think there can be reasonable regulations imposed by the government on the ownership and sale of guns, but I don't support an all-out ban on guns, for instance. I expect that Democrats and Republicans differ on exactly which regulations and proposed regulations are "reasonable," and I'd wager that both sides have their vocal minority of extremists that will never see eye-to-eye.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA

Nice argument. Guess every person can have every 'arm' anyplace anytime.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: Triumph
"Modern" history? Come on, give me a break. Now that's just a cop out.

He doesn't want to address the issue that "his" party is the racist party and that initially they wanted to ban BLACKS from owning guns. They "re-algined" themselves because they saw that they would get more voters if they embraced the black man and so instead of openly admitting they want to take away or deny rights to blacks, thy impose it on everyone.

Jesus christ you can't be this dumb.

Parties are made up of groups of constituencies. When we talk about parties being for or against something, it is actually a reference to what interest groups they represent, but we use the party as a shorthand term because everyone understands it. Nobody actually gives a flying fuck about the 'Democratic Party' or the 'Republican Party' as an entity, they care about the issues they support. The Democratic Party could have been for turning babies into a California Cheeseburger in the past for all I care because what matters is what they are for now, as when we vote we vote in the present.

There was an extreme racist constituency in the Democratic Party for about 150 years, until the 1960's. When the Northern Democrats in Congress introduced civil rights legislation and a Democratic President signed it, the Southern Democrats bolted the party and joined the Republicans. A party that enthusiastically welcomed them. To say that the Democrats are still racist against blacks now (at least in reference to the Republicans) requires a stunning display of reality distortion.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: loki8481
I think it boils down to the urban v rural divide.

This. Definitely this.

Rural folks also view Government as "big city slickers" (read: different than what they're used to), and therefore are naturally distrustful of it.

I was just talking to my grandparents (90+ years old, live in farm country but are not farmers), and they related to me how many of their friends who WERE farmers, were always EXTREMELY angry with and distrustful of commodities markets. Illustrative quote: "I grew this corn, why should I let some city slicker in Chicago tell me how much it's worth?"

All this while blissfully ignoring the fact that, assuming a correctly functioning market, they were getting THE BEST price possible for their corn. Not to mention the fact that: they now no longer have to find actual buyers for their grain, nor do they have to deliver it all over the map, nor do they have to do any bargaining/haggling for price, etc., leaving them more time to do ... get this ... ACTUAL FARMING.

Also, I think education (or lack and/or distrust thereof), plays in to this as well.

Spot on! :thumbsup:

I'd like to mention those same farmers are getting gov't subsidies for growing that corn too! GD welfare for farmers is what it is.

I can't beleive the depth of some people's ignorance. If the people growing YOUR food go broke and can't plant their crops then guess who's going to starve?

Hint: It won't be the land owners.

The ignorance is yours. We are at the other end of that spectrum right now and there is glut of corn rotting in silos that farmers aren't allowed to sell, while getting subsidies from the govt to let it rot. Thats the fixed economics of it. Thats the wonderful agricultural lobbies working for you, pushing stupid stuff like biodeisel and high fructose corn syrup - neither of which make sense if you're not a farmer.


If there is too much corn, we need to let free market take over and let some of that farmland do something else other than soy and corn.

Talk about ignorance, you seem to have a corner on the market!!!

Please oh please explain to me how the farmers aren't allowed to sell all thois corn that is "rotting in the silos"?? Please enlighten me.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Hmmm. I'm not really clear on what "gun opposing" is exactly supposed to mean. I'm a liberal, and I don't "oppose guns." I think there can be reasonable regulations imposed by the government on the ownership and sale of guns, but I don't support an all-out ban on guns, for instance. I expect that Democrats and Republicans differ on exactly which regulations and proposed regulations are "reasonable," and I'd wager that both sides have their vocal minority of extremists that will never see eye-to-eye.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA

Nice argument. Guess every person can have every 'arm' anyplace anytime.

A WELL REGULATED MILITIA.......ARMED WITH PITCHFORKS.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: n yusef
City-wide bans on guns are silly. Anyone can drive a few miles and arm herself.

That prohibition of handguns would save lives is evident to anyone who has studied urban violence. That said, gun violence is more of a symptom than the cause of the problems of low-income, often black or Latino, communities. IMO, those of us on the left need to give up the issue of gun control. No matter how right we feel, it's not gonna happen.

Won't people who want to kill others just use whatever they can get hold of to do so, though? I will admit that one is less likely to kill the wrong person with a knife, hammer, or crowbar, but the gun is just a tool.

IMO gun control resources would be better spent on trying to stop people from wanting to kill each other in the streets in the first place.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Hmmm. I'm not really clear on what "gun opposing" is exactly supposed to mean. I'm a liberal, and I don't "oppose guns." I think there can be reasonable regulations imposed by the government on the ownership and sale of guns, but I don't support an all-out ban on guns, for instance. I expect that Democrats and Republicans differ on exactly which regulations and proposed regulations are "reasonable," and I'd wager that both sides have their vocal minority of extremists that will never see eye-to-eye.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA

Nice argument. Guess every person can have every 'arm' anyplace anytime.

I've got no issue with that.

The Supreme Court ruled that all of that "well regulated militia" malarkey is a totally separate sentence anyway.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
Won't people who want to kill others just use whatever they can get hold of to do so, though? I will admit that one is less likely to kill the wrong person with a knife, hammer, or crowbar, but the gun is just a tool.

I've never really understood why people fall for that. They greatly increase the ability of a person to do many killings, especially ones with the element of surprise.

IMO gun control resources would be better spent on trying to stop people from wanting to kill each other in the streets in the first place.[/quote]

You might have a point, but unfortunately, THAT spending runs smack into the right-wing ideology that passionately opposes it.

I'm all for the approach, though. I think it can greatly reduce crime.

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: loki8481
I think it boils down to the urban v rural divide.

This. Definitely this.

Rural folks also view Government as "big city slickers" (read: different than what they're used to), and therefore are naturally distrustful of it.

I was just talking to my grandparents (90+ years old, live in farm country but are not farmers), and they related to me how many of their friends who WERE farmers, were always EXTREMELY angry with and distrustful of commodities markets. Illustrative quote: "I grew this corn, why should I let some city slicker in Chicago tell me how much it's worth?"

All this while blissfully ignoring the fact that, assuming a correctly functioning market, they were getting THE BEST price possible for their corn. Not to mention the fact that: they now no longer have to find actual buyers for their grain, nor do they have to deliver it all over the map, nor do they have to do any bargaining/haggling for price, etc., leaving them more time to do ... get this ... ACTUAL FARMING.

Also, I think education (or lack and/or distrust thereof), plays in to this as well.

Spot on! :thumbsup:

I'd like to mention those same farmers are getting gov't subsidies for growing that corn too! GD welfare for farmers is what it is.

I can't beleive the depth of some people's ignorance. If the people growing YOUR food go broke and can't plant their crops then guess who's going to starve?

Hint: It won't be the land owners.

The ignorance is yours. We are at the other end of that spectrum right now and there is glut of corn rotting in silos that farmers aren't allowed to sell, while getting subsidies from the govt to let it rot. Thats the fixed economics of it. Thats the wonderful agricultural lobbies working for you, pushing stupid stuff like biodeisel and high fructose corn syrup - neither of which make sense if you're not a farmer.


If there is too much corn, we need to let free market take over and let some of that farmland do something else other than soy and corn.

Talk about ignorance, you seem to have a corner on the market!!!

Please oh please explain to me how the farmers aren't allowed to sell all thois corn that is "rotting in the silos"?? Please enlighten me.

You must mean I seem to have cornered the market....

Okay... Stop me where you disagree.

American farmers produce way more corn then we can consume either by eating, feeding livestock, turning into ethanol, or selling to the govt for foreign food aid.


This is my understanding of the issue, and if someone wants to correct me with facts, I defer to that - my recollection might be a little outdated.
If I go to the grocery store, I can buy four ears for a dollar. Does this price reflect the free market price of corn dictated by supply and demand of corn on the market? Not by a long shot. Does this price reflect the cost and fair profit the farmer ought to get for this corn? No. If it was either, it would not be worth pennies. Where does this price come from? It is based on a federally set price for commodities that's significantly higher and farmers cannot sell for lower than this price and they can only sell a certain amount. The feds get another chunk of the crop at a reduced price, perhaps for selling overseas, etc - crop that farmers would otherwise not be able to sell. Farmers know ahead of time how much they can sell and are not allowed to grow corn in excess. IF they do, they cannot sell it and must let it rot, otherwise it will disturb this artificial balance and flood the market with cheap corn. This fact might be a few years old since rotting corn now slips perfectly into the recent ethanol trend.

Farmers love this system and pay lobbies good money to keep the racket going in Washington. They know that they would otherwise not be able to sell the vast majority of their product. This is a perfect example of where agricultural engineering (optimization of the corn seed for maximum growth and speed of growth and hardiness, etc) has well exceeded the need.

To me, this is welfare, pure and simple.

Here is a good article that explains where we're at now.

http://findarticles.com/p/arti...8114/?tag=content;col1

In any case, my point is that your musing of farmers being "broke and unable to grow corn" is incredibly silly.

 

[Underclocked]

Gun control laws are in DIRECT VIOLATION of the 2nd Amendment. Is there some part of "shall not be infringed" that is vague?

Gun control laws only serve to disarm the honest citizen, they are of no consequence to violent criminals. Anyone with basic mechanical skills and not too many tools can build a functioning firearm.

I find the ultra-liberal mind to be detached from reality.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: loki8481
I think it boils down to the urban v rural divide.

This. Definitely this.

Rural folks also view Government as "big city slickers" (read: different than what they're used to), and therefore are naturally distrustful of it.

I was just talking to my grandparents (90+ years old, live in farm country but are not farmers), and they related to me how many of their friends who WERE farmers, were always EXTREMELY angry with and distrustful of commodities markets. Illustrative quote: "I grew this corn, why should I let some city slicker in Chicago tell me how much it's worth?"

All this while blissfully ignoring the fact that, assuming a correctly functioning market, they were getting THE BEST price possible for their corn. Not to mention the fact that: they now no longer have to find actual buyers for their grain, nor do they have to deliver it all over the map, nor do they have to do any bargaining/haggling for price, etc., leaving them more time to do ... get this ... ACTUAL FARMING.

Also, I think education (or lack and/or distrust thereof), plays in to this as well.

Spot on! :thumbsup:

I'd like to mention those same farmers are getting gov't subsidies for growing that corn too! GD welfare for farmers is what it is.

I can't beleive the depth of some people's ignorance. If the people growing YOUR food go broke and can't plant their crops then guess who's going to starve?

Hint: It won't be the land owners.

The ignorance is yours. We are at the other end of that spectrum right now and there is glut of corn rotting in silos that farmers aren't allowed to sell, while getting subsidies from the govt to let it rot. Thats the fixed economics of it. Thats the wonderful agricultural lobbies working for you, pushing stupid stuff like biodeisel and high fructose corn syrup - neither of which make sense if you're not a farmer.


If there is too much corn, we need to let free market take over and let some of that farmland do something else other than soy and corn.

Talk about ignorance, you seem to have a corner on the market!!!

Please oh please explain to me how the farmers aren't allowed to sell all thois corn that is "rotting in the silos"?? Please enlighten me.

You must mean I seem to have cornered the market....

Okay... Stop me where you disagree.

American farmers produce way more corn then we can consume either by eating, feeding livestock, turning into ethanol, or selling to the govt for foreign food aid.


This is my understanding of the issue, and if someone wants to correct me with facts, I defer to that - my recollection might be a little outdated.
If I go to the grocery store, I can buy four ears for a dollar. Does this price reflect the free market price of corn dictated by supply and demand of corn on the market? Not by a long shot. Does this price reflect the cost and fair profit the farmer ought to get for this corn? No. If it was either, it would not be worth pennies. Where does this price come from? It is based on a federally set price for commodities that's significantly higher and farmers cannot sell for lower than this price and they can only sell a certain amount. The feds get another chunk of the crop at a reduced price, perhaps for selling overseas, etc - crop that farmers would otherwise not be able to sell. Farmers know ahead of time how much they can sell and are not allowed to grow corn in excess. IF they do, they cannot sell it and must let it rot, otherwise it will disturb this artificial balance and flood the market with cheap corn. This fact might be a few years old since rotting corn now slips perfectly into the recent ethanol trend.

Farmers love this system and pay lobbies good money to keep the racket going in Washington. They know that they would otherwise not be able to sell the vast majority of their product. This is a perfect example of where agricultural engineering (optimization of the corn seed for maximum growth and speed of growth and hardiness, etc) has well exceeded the need.

To me, this is welfare, pure and simple.

Here is a good article that explains where we're at now.

http://findarticles.com/p/arti...8114/?tag=content;col1

In any case, my point is that your musing of farmers being "broke and unable to grow corn" is incredibly silly.

LOL, that was funny as hell. People like you don't even have a clue, you just hear what you want and then repeat it as if it was fact.

Now, I don't want to waste my time educating you so just show me where all this rotten grain is that the goverment won't allow farmers to sell or just admit you don't know shit about it.

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: loki8481
I think it boils down to the urban v rural divide.

This. Definitely this.

Rural folks also view Government as "big city slickers" (read: different than what they're used to), and therefore are naturally distrustful of it.

I was just talking to my grandparents (90+ years old, live in farm country but are not farmers), and they related to me how many of their friends who WERE farmers, were always EXTREMELY angry with and distrustful of commodities markets. Illustrative quote: "I grew this corn, why should I let some city slicker in Chicago tell me how much it's worth?"

All this while blissfully ignoring the fact that, assuming a correctly functioning market, they were getting THE BEST price possible for their corn. Not to mention the fact that: they now no longer have to find actual buyers for their grain, nor do they have to deliver it all over the map, nor do they have to do any bargaining/haggling for price, etc., leaving them more time to do ... get this ... ACTUAL FARMING.

Also, I think education (or lack and/or distrust thereof), plays in to this as well.

Spot on! :thumbsup:

I'd like to mention those same farmers are getting gov't subsidies for growing that corn too! GD welfare for farmers is what it is.

I can't beleive the depth of some people's ignorance. If the people growing YOUR food go broke and can't plant their crops then guess who's going to starve?

Hint: It won't be the land owners.

The ignorance is yours. We are at the other end of that spectrum right now and there is glut of corn rotting in silos that farmers aren't allowed to sell, while getting subsidies from the govt to let it rot. Thats the fixed economics of it. Thats the wonderful agricultural lobbies working for you, pushing stupid stuff like biodeisel and high fructose corn syrup - neither of which make sense if you're not a farmer.


If there is too much corn, we need to let free market take over and let some of that farmland do something else other than soy and corn.

Talk about ignorance, you seem to have a corner on the market!!!

Please oh please explain to me how the farmers aren't allowed to sell all thois corn that is "rotting in the silos"?? Please enlighten me.

You must mean I seem to have cornered the market....

Okay... Stop me where you disagree.

American farmers produce way more corn then we can consume either by eating, feeding livestock, turning into ethanol, or selling to the govt for foreign food aid.


This is my understanding of the issue, and if someone wants to correct me with facts, I defer to that - my recollection might be a little outdated.
If I go to the grocery store, I can buy four ears for a dollar. Does this price reflect the free market price of corn dictated by supply and demand of corn on the market? Not by a long shot. Does this price reflect the cost and fair profit the farmer ought to get for this corn? No. If it was either, it would not be worth pennies. Where does this price come from? It is based on a federally set price for commodities that's significantly higher and farmers cannot sell for lower than this price and they can only sell a certain amount. The feds get another chunk of the crop at a reduced price, perhaps for selling overseas, etc - crop that farmers would otherwise not be able to sell. Farmers know ahead of time how much they can sell and are not allowed to grow corn in excess. IF they do, they cannot sell it and must let it rot, otherwise it will disturb this artificial balance and flood the market with cheap corn. This fact might be a few years old since rotting corn now slips perfectly into the recent ethanol trend.

Farmers love this system and pay lobbies good money to keep the racket going in Washington. They know that they would otherwise not be able to sell the vast majority of their product. This is a perfect example of where agricultural engineering (optimization of the corn seed for maximum growth and speed of growth and hardiness, etc) has well exceeded the need.

To me, this is welfare, pure and simple.

Here is a good article that explains where we're at now.

http://findarticles.com/p/arti...8114/?tag=content;col1

In any case, my point is that your musing of farmers being "broke and unable to grow corn" is incredibly silly.

LOL, that was funny as hell. People like you don't even have a clue, you just hear what you want and then repeat it as if it was fact.

Now, I don't want to waste my time educating you so just show me where all this rotten grain is that the government won't allow farmers to sell or just admit you don't know shit about it.

Though you have offered no facts of your own, your arrogance and use of language really speaks of your heritage and where you come from. Either that or your age. Its people like you that remind me why I've been absent from this board for years.

The first page of the linky you're conveniently ignoring explains why the govt holds tight control over the commodity market and prevents farmers from selling as much corn as they want - which in turn explains (or did, at one point in the very recent past) why there is a surplus.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: loki8481
I think it boils down to the urban v rural divide.

This. Definitely this.

Rural folks also view Government as "big city slickers" (read: different than what they're used to), and therefore are naturally distrustful of it.

I was just talking to my grandparents (90+ years old, live in farm country but are not farmers), and they related to me how many of their friends who WERE farmers, were always EXTREMELY angry with and distrustful of commodities markets. Illustrative quote: "I grew this corn, why should I let some city slicker in Chicago tell me how much it's worth?"

All this while blissfully ignoring the fact that, assuming a correctly functioning market, they were getting THE BEST price possible for their corn. Not to mention the fact that: they now no longer have to find actual buyers for their grain, nor do they have to deliver it all over the map, nor do they have to do any bargaining/haggling for price, etc., leaving them more time to do ... get this ... ACTUAL FARMING.

Also, I think education (or lack and/or distrust thereof), plays in to this as well.

Spot on! :thumbsup:

I'd like to mention those same farmers are getting gov't subsidies for growing that corn too! GD welfare for farmers is what it is.

I can't beleive the depth of some people's ignorance. If the people growing YOUR food go broke and can't plant their crops then guess who's going to starve?

Hint: It won't be the land owners.

The ignorance is yours. We are at the other end of that spectrum right now and there is glut of corn rotting in silos that farmers aren't allowed to sell, while getting subsidies from the govt to let it rot. Thats the fixed economics of it. Thats the wonderful agricultural lobbies working for you, pushing stupid stuff like biodeisel and high fructose corn syrup - neither of which make sense if you're not a farmer.


If there is too much corn, we need to let free market take over and let some of that farmland do something else other than soy and corn.

Talk about ignorance, you seem to have a corner on the market!!!

Please oh please explain to me how the farmers aren't allowed to sell all thois corn that is "rotting in the silos"?? Please enlighten me.

You must mean I seem to have cornered the market....

Okay... Stop me where you disagree.

American farmers produce way more corn then we can consume either by eating, feeding livestock, turning into ethanol, or selling to the govt for foreign food aid.


This is my understanding of the issue, and if someone wants to correct me with facts, I defer to that - my recollection might be a little outdated.
If I go to the grocery store, I can buy four ears for a dollar. Does this price reflect the free market price of corn dictated by supply and demand of corn on the market? Not by a long shot. Does this price reflect the cost and fair profit the farmer ought to get for this corn? No. If it was either, it would not be worth pennies. Where does this price come from? It is based on a federally set price for commodities that's significantly higher and farmers cannot sell for lower than this price and they can only sell a certain amount. The feds get another chunk of the crop at a reduced price, perhaps for selling overseas, etc - crop that farmers would otherwise not be able to sell. Farmers know ahead of time how much they can sell and are not allowed to grow corn in excess. IF they do, they cannot sell it and must let it rot, otherwise it will disturb this artificial balance and flood the market with cheap corn. This fact might be a few years old since rotting corn now slips perfectly into the recent ethanol trend.

Farmers love this system and pay lobbies good money to keep the racket going in Washington. They know that they would otherwise not be able to sell the vast majority of their product. This is a perfect example of where agricultural engineering (optimization of the corn seed for maximum growth and speed of growth and hardiness, etc) has well exceeded the need.

To me, this is welfare, pure and simple.

Here is a good article that explains where we're at now.

http://findarticles.com/p/arti...8114/?tag=content;col1

In any case, my point is that your musing of farmers being "broke and unable to grow corn" is incredibly silly.

LOL, that was funny as hell. People like you don't even have a clue, you just hear what you want and then repeat it as if it was fact.

Now, I don't want to waste my time educating you so just show me where all this rotten grain is that the government won't allow farmers to sell or just admit you don't know shit about it.

Though you have offered no facts of your own, your arrogance and use of language really speaks of your heritage and where you come from. Either that or your age. Its people like you that remind me why I've been absent from this board for years.

The first page of the linky you're conveniently ignoring explains why the govt holds tight control over the commodity market and prevents farmers from selling as much corn as they want - which in turn explains (or did, at one point in the very recent past) why there is a surplus.

OMG, you're an arrogant ignoramus and you have the GALL to attack someone else's heritage?? My guess is the reason you've "been absent from this board for years" is because you got tired of eating your own shit.

Fact: You can sell corn in this country even if you don't have any actual corn in your possesion, DUHHHHHH. End of argument.