Man accuses democrats of being parasites

[Nemesis 1]

I am human not Dem not republican Just a human parasites that Has bitten the dog I ride. That dog is now reacting to my bites and I am about to become endangered

 

[Hacp]

Because we are a nation of laws and Social Security has been the law of the land since FDR rammed it down our grandparents collective throats in the 1930's.

And we can change the laws and get rid of it .

 

[mav451]

Haha Jungerman is just a real-life troll. Except instead of flames...he gets actual flames.

*too soon?

 

[Kappo]

He actually is correct. However, he's still a hypocrite.

 

[Kappo]

And we can change the laws and get rid of it .

Silly man, laws are only to be changed if they fit agendas. We can't be having this "good for the country" babble around here if it means giving up living on the public dime!

 

[Linflas]

And we can change the laws and get rid of it .

Have at it. There is a reason it is called the 3rd rail of politics. The only way you will ever get rid of it, assuming a majority willing to deal with it emerges, is to come up with a way to deal with paying out benefits to people who have already paid into it for the majority of their working lives.

 

[Red Dawn]

Guess what? These programs are sucking away jobs. Why must young people pay for the retirements of old geezers?

Those same old Geezers that helped pay for your education which at this point doesn't seem like a very good investment

 

[JS80]

You left out the part about the involuntary contribution "old people" have had withheld from their paychecks from the day they received their Social Security Number. My father paid into Social Security from 1943 until 1992. He retired and died 2 years later. Was that 2 years of Social Security income a "subsidy at the expense of the productive"?

Ummm, your scenario exactly validates his point, esp if the benefits expired upon his death.

But we all know your mom or you are getting the survivor benefits. You fucking leech.

 

[soulcougher73]

Guess what? These programs are sucking away jobs. Why must young people pay for the retirements of old geezers?

For the same reason someday you will be an old geezer and wanting your SS paid for by the young people. Grow up already.

 

[Theb]

What's more bootstrappy than having the government guarantee a profit for your business?

 

[Amused]

Completely wrong.

The subsidies for not farming are not to keep the prices "artificially low", they are to keep the prices from going TOO low due to over-production, which makes for a boom and bust cycle where too many farmers chasing too few consumers means the price for their crops goes TOO LOW for them to make any profit.

It is neither welfare for consumers nor is it used to keep grain prices artificially low.

Um, no.

Corn subsidies and other grain subsidies are used to artificially decrease the price of grains.

http://prospectjournal.ucsd.edu/ind...ing-the-displacement-of-mexicos-corn-farmers/

My my, even a far left liberal paper says so. Weird, huh?

Subsidies on corn are used to keep the prices artificially low.

 

[Amused]

LOL
Here is a fact, we have a tax system to pay for things we need. This is not 1776, its 2010 and we pay for many systems necessary like schools, police, firemen, etc. Taxes are not evil. The use of tax money may be, but the concept is sound and just. If you want no taxes move to a deserted island, but don't complain when there is no toilet to flush.

Ah, okay. Tell that to the 50% of America who pay virtually NOTHING in federal taxes. Why do they have flushing toilets?

Flushing toilets are moot here anyhow, my toilet flushes because I pay local utilities and taxes.

 

[Amused]

Also wrong. Really, really wrong. The Billions we spend each year in farm subsidies persist because farmers in the farm states pressure their congressmen to continue them!

Historically, your simplistic free market has NOT worked well for the regular farmer, that's why we have these subsidies NOT TO PLANT in the first place, to avoid the ruinous boom and bust over production cycle of your sainted "free market."

Do some reading about your own country's farm history before you spout off SO stupidly once again, please.

I would take your own advice, Perk.

Subsidies exist NOT to protect from boom and bust, but as trade protectionism and artificially LOWER the price of produce.

I posted the link from one of your own political bed buddies.

So... like I said, maybe YOU should learn something before spouting off SO stupidly, huh?

 

[shira]

He got 1 million dollars over 15 years, big whoop. He's been paying his taxes for how long?

People that sit on their ass and don't work and get free money from the government that don't deserve it is wrong.

He's right, Democraps love free hand outs without contributing to the hand out fund.

Interesting theory. I guess that explains why blue states are net payers and red states are net receivers of federal funds.

 

[Linflas]

Ummm, your scenario exactly validates his point, esp if the benefits expired upon his death.

But we all know your mom or you are getting the survivor benefits. You fucking leech.

What are you talking about? The only thing I received after my fathers death was what he left us as part of his estate. My mother has her own Social Security she receives since she pretty much worked her entire life as well. Only minor children receive any support from Social Security upon the death of a parent. You fucking moron.

 

[theeedude]

Link

Kansas farmer posted a big sign up saying "Democrats - party of parasites"

The problem?

The farmer got over $1million in gov subsidies over the past 15 years. Whoops!

Of course, he denies the logical inconsistency and claims it's OK for him to get subsidies, since it's just his tax money coming back to him, LOL.

Once again, anyone else getting money from the gov is a bad person, but it's always OK for yourself. :\

This is precious. Republican states are some of the biggest leeches off Democrat states.

 

[Amused]

This is precious. Republican states are some of the biggest leeches off Democrat states.

Um, corn subsidies are largely a democrat party theme, though some republicans have signed on as well.

Was "Farm Aid" a republican gathering with leftists Wille Nelson and John Melloncamp supporting it?

 

[glenn1]

LOL
Here is a fact, we have a tax system to pay for things we need. This is not 1776, its 2010 and we pay for many systems necessary like schools, police, firemen, etc. Taxes are not evil. The use of tax money may be, but the concept is sound and just. If you want no taxes move to a deserted island, but don't complain when there is no toilet to flush.

This line of argument is getting really old and is complete crap to boot. It makes no sense that progressives conflate using tax monies for public works (roads, utilities, post offices, etc), with massive spending on welfare state social programs as if supporting one means you have to support the other. Just because some municipality built a sewer system for me to use, that doesn't mean I should need to bow down in thankfulness for your generosity in doing so; that's government's fvcking job. And it certainly doesn't mean that because basic services are provided by government, that I should gladly support your desire to spend whatever trillions you want to spend on Great Society programs.

If I tried to say that if you support medical care for veterans then don't complain about the war in Iraq, you'd rightly deny that linkage, "we support the troops and not the war" after all.

 

[Perknose]

I would take your own advice, Perk.

Subsidies exist NOT to protect from boom and bust, but as trade protectionism and artificially LOWER the price of produce.

I posted the link from one of your own political bed buddies.

So... like I said, maybe YOU should learn something before spouting off SO stupidly, huh?

Uhhhh, the lone article you cite but don't quote from describes the effect of NAFTA on Mexican corn producers, who really can't keep up with larger and far more efficient American producers.

Their activist thesis that corn subsidies are at the root of our American farmer's greater efficiency vs. the rural Mexicans is laughable.

Shame on you for such a poor support of your little thesis, but I guess it was the best you could drag up.

Like I said, Amused, you really should read up on the history of American farm subsidies in order to better educate yourself on the subject.

Here is a Columbia Enclyclopedia primer for you, made simple so you can catch up:

Financial assistance to farmers through government-sponsored price-support programs. Beginning in the 1930s most industrialized countries developed agricultural price-support policies to reduce the volatility of prices for farm products and to increase, or at least stabilize, farm income.

In food-exporting countries, such as the United States and France, agricultural subsidies have been designed primarily to increase farm income, either by raising the long-term level of prices above free-market levels or by providing direct payments to farmers. The sale of agricultural products to developing nations at below market prices has often had a devastating effect on the ability of farmers in those nations to prosper, and the continuation of such subsidies has become a stumbling block to efforts to dismantle international trade barriers.

U.S. Assistance Programs

In the United States, the federal government first assisted agriculture directly in the 1920s. During World War I farmers had been encouraged to increase production, and in the postwar period wartime levels of production were maintained. This resulted in an oversupply that caused a sharp drop in prices. The Agricultural Credits Act (1923) failed to solve the problem. In 1929, President Hoover signed the Agricultural Marketing Act, establishing the Federal Farm Board with a fund of $500 million to further farming cooperatives and to set up stabilization boards, which by their purchases on the open market were to stabilize the prices of grain and cotton. Such purchases, however, only encouraged farmers to raise still larger crops in expectation of greater profits; consequently, the Farm Board failed and had to sell its holdings at a loss of $200 million.

The Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) of 1933, one of the first pieces of legislation passed under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal program, attempted to control farm prices by reducing and controlling the supply of basic crops. The AAA empowered the Secretary of Agriculture to fix marketing quotas for major farm products, to take surplus production off the market, and to reduce production of staple crops by offering producers payments in return for voluntarily reducing the acreage devoted to raising such crops. The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), also created in 1933, began making loans to farmers on agricultural products. Loans were granted only to farmers who agreed to sign production-control agreements. Farm prices steadily improved: between 1932 and 1937 the prices for major farm products increased by approximately 85%. However, the Supreme Court declared certain production control features of the AAA unconstitutional.

Large crops of wheat and cotton led to passage of the Agricultural Act of 1937. In its amended form, this act provided the framework for the major farm programs in effect since that time. The act made price-support loans by the CCC mandatory on the designated basic commodities of corn, wheat, and cotton; optional support was authorized for other commodities. Under this act and related legislation, the CCC has supported more than 100 different commodities, including fruit, vegetables, and various types of seed.

From 1941 to 1948, during and just after World War II, surpluses were rapidly utilized, and price supports were used as an incentive to stimulate production of agricultural commodities. In 1948 price-support levels were lowered for most of those commodities. By 1949 the agriculture of war-devastated Europe and Asia had recovered to a significant extent, and demand for American farm products declined considerably. At the same time, however, crop production in the United States had greatly increased, with the result that farm commodity prices dropped and surpluses began to build up again. Rigid support levels were once again enacted, but the Korean War strengthened farm prices and most CCC stocks were sold. Mounting surpluses and increased costs of government programs led to the enactment of a flexible price support program (1954) and of the Soil Bank program (1956), which provided for direct payments to farmers in return for reducing their acreage of major supported crops and required that they leave fallow the land removed from production. The desired effect of control programs was largely negated, because improved technology made it possible to greatly increase yields per acre.


Bibliography
See D. Goodman and M. Redclift, ed., The International Farm Crisis (1967); G. L. Cramer, Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness (1979); C. Peter Timmer, Getting Prices Right: The Scope and Limits of Agricultural Price Policy (1986); W. P. Browne, Private Interests, Public Policy, and American Agriculture (1989).​

____________________The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Copyright© 2004, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products N.V. All rights reserved.

-785-
​

Here is an even simpler & shorter explanation:

The programs most people know as farm subsidies are income support and price support programs, Adams County Farm Service Agency Director Stacy McKay said.

“Not a lot of farmers can withstand major swings in commodity prices and still be able to pay the bills and stay in business over the long run, so that is the purpose of these (Farm Bill) programs, to help provide that,” McKay said.

And keeping those farmers in business has, in the long run, accomplished the goal of the Farm Bill, Adams County Extension Director David Carter said.

Here, in PDF form, is a longer and more scholarly paper on the subject.

This PDF is the one you should REALLY read. I won't hold my breath. :sneaky:

 

[Amused]

Uhhhh, the lone article you cite but don't quote from describes the effect of NAFTA on Mexican corn producers, who really can't keep up with larger and far more efficient American producers.

Their activist thesis that corn subsidies are at the root of our American farmer's greater efficiency vs. the rural Mexicans is laughable.

Shame on you for such a poor support of your little thesis, but I guess it was the best you could drag up.

Like I said, Amused, you really should read up on the history of American farm subsidies in order to better educate yourself on the subject.

Here is a Columbia Enclyclopedia primer for you, made simple so you can catch up:

Here is an even simpler & shorter explanation:
Here, in PDF form, is a longer and more scholarly paper on the subject.

This PDF is the one you should REALLY read. I won't hold my breath. :sneaky:

Perk,

CORN subsidies (the man grows corn) are used to keep prices ARTIFICIALLY LOW. The NAFTA study clearly shows it.

All the rest is irrelevant, as the man grows CORN. HIS subsidies are used to deflate prices and support both the HFCS industry and the ethanol industry.

Another page from the left on corn subsidies clearly pointing out that they reduce market prices and do not benefit the farmers, but the middle men and thus, consumers.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=7.38&soc=-2.62

So, this side argument is moot. The fact of the matter is this: Farmers, by market forces controlled by federal subsidies, are forced to take subsidies or fail.

From your own fucking link:

"The stated purpose of the Farm Bill is to provide a sustainable food supply for the United States at an affordable price, and one of the ways it does that is through programs that are commonly known — rightly or wrongly — as farm subsidies."

Translated so you can understand: Subsidies are price fixing by artificially lowering the price of grains.

Another quote from your own source:

"Production costs have quadrupled in the last 20 years, but McGehee said commodity prices are the same as when Richard Nixon was president."

Now gee wiz, Perky!!! What on Earth would cause the commodity prices to stagnate for 30 years while production costs are up four fold??? What in the world could have made that happen?

Oh... Yeah... Subsidies artificially lowering prices.

 

[OutHouse]

Amused;


i dont understand the NAFTA stuff you posted. Farm subsidies have been around since the great depression. the subsidies promote stability by protecting consumers from high prices and farmers from low prices and, ultimately, bankruptcy

 

[theeedude]

Um, corn subsidies are largely a democrat party theme, though some republicans have signed on as well.

Was "Farm Aid" a republican gathering with leftists Wille Nelson and John Melloncamp supporting it?

Does not refute what I said, but feel free to expand.

 

[Amused]

Amused;

subsidies promote stability by protecting consumers from high prices and farmers from low prices and, ultimately, bankruptcy

Subsidies artifficially lower the prices and make farmers dependant upon them.

You don't get a fourfold increase in production costs and a complete stagnation in selling price for nothing.

Not to mention, isn't cheap food one of the reasons we have an obesity problem in the first place?

At any rate, my point stands: The man is not a parasite, he is running a farm and to do so, one MUST accept subsidies.

 

[Amused]

Does not refute what I said, but feel free to expand.

Missouri isn't a Blue state or Red state. It's a swing state or "purple" state.

The subsidies red states and blue states both receive are a largely Democrat supported idea.

 

[Perknose]

Ok, so you WON'T read the longer, scholarly PDF articles OR even the shorter Columbia Encyclopedia history which directly REFUTE your contention.

Why?

Even the shortest one, which you do respond to, you skip over the directly relevant and explanatory part:

“Not a lot of farmers can withstand major swings in commodity prices and still be able to pay the bills and stay in business over the long run, so that is the purpose of these (Farm Bill) programs, to help provide that,” McKay said.

Why?

You then misapprehend what you DO quote.

From your own fucking link:

"The stated purpose of the Farm Bill is to provide a sustainable food supply for the United States at an affordable price, and one of the ways it does that is through programs that are commonly known — rightly or wrongly — as farm subsidies."

Translated so you can understand: Subsidies are price fixing by artificially lowering the price of grains.

Nope, translated so you understand:

What you bolded points out the protection from the BUST part of the boom and bust cycle resulting from swings in commodity prices! It's WHY farm subsidies were instituted!

Here, again for you, I'll quote the part of that article that directly speaks to the question of WHAT farm subsidies are for, something you would KNOW if you only bothered to read more of their long history in America, which I still encourage you to do.

“Not a lot of farmers can withstand major swings in commodity prices and still be able to pay the bills and stay in business over the long run, so that is the purpose of these (Farm Bill) programs, to help provide that,” McKay said.

Instead, you fixate on one term and then misapprehend it!

WHY are you so determined to avoid the basic facts outlined so explicitly, even more so in the longer articles I posted before.

Why?

Another quote from your own source:

"Production costs have quadrupled in the last 20 years, but McGehee said commodity prices are the same as when Richard Nixon was president."

Now gee wiz, Perky!!! What on Earth would cause the commodity prices to stagnate for 30 years while production costs are up four fold??? What in the world could have made that happen?

Oh... Yeah... Subsidies artificially lowering prices.

Amused, if you knew even a little of the incredible advances in agriculture and the resultant astronomical gains in yield per acre that have occurred in the last 50-60 years, you would have your answer, but you are obviously entirely unschooled in the basic facts of what has happened world-wide in agriculture through the green revolution.

Get a clue:

For example, corn yields in the US more than quadrupled from 20 bushels/ha ("ha" = hectare, which = 2.47 acres) to 100-250 bu/ha in the last 60 years, owing to the development of high yielding varieties and changed agricultural practices.

Combined with tremendously increased competition from other countries whose improvements, starting from a lower base, have been even more spectacular, and combined with vastly improved distribution channels (Americans eat tons of imported produce) means, simply put so that even you can understand, supply and efficiency has so outstripped demand in our markets that price have remained remarkably low.

Again, farm subsidies have long addressed the problems of volatility in the markets, the BOOM and BUST cycle, that once made farming such a chancy commerical venture.

Indeed, as I have repeatedly stated but you have stubbornly refused to comprehend, the boom and bust cycle is THE REASON farm subsidies were instituted in the first place.

Read the damn history, Amused.