Ski Iowa

[sixone]

Originally posted by: smack Down
If the subsideses where to help the poor why not just increase food stamps? Then tax payers don't have to pay to grow massive amounts of corn no one wants.

Your ignorance is showing again. The subsidies don't pay anyone to grow anything. They pay for the difference between the market price and what the market price should be.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: smack Down
So, whats wrong with the plain to eliminate the subsides that you don't support. If my plan of cutting current funding by 20% a year isn't acceptable why not and what are your requirements for a plan to be succesfull?

Do you know how subsidies work? Do you know what they consist of? Until you address that you won't know how silly your "plan" is. Sure, we could just cut funding to 80% but is that an across the board every program at 80%? or are only 80% of the programs going to be active? Again, until you show you understand what subsidies are and how they work, your little "plan" is worthless.

80% of every program. Of course you already knew that and your just trolling. One doesn't need to know or care how subsides work because of the magic of precentages 80% will always be less then 100%.

Yes you do, because subsidies aren't some big pool of money being dished out. Ofcourse you would understand this better if you even remotely understood subsidies. But since you don't, I'll let you think your little "plan" will work somehow.:laugh:

Maybe this will help you see that it's more complex than just some big pot of money that can be reduced.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is required by law to subsidize over two dozen commodities. Between 1996 and 2002, an average of $16 billion/year was paid by programs authorized by federal legislation dating back to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, the Agricultural Act of 1949, and the CCC Charter Act of 1948, among others.

The beneficiaries of the subsidies have changed as U.S. agriculture changes. In the 1930s, about a quarter of the U.S. population resided on the nation's six million small farms. By 1997, 157,000 large farms accounted for 72% of farm sales, with only 2% of the U.S. population residing on farms.

Congress has made dozens of changes to the program over the years, as agricultural policy and the economy has changed. One of the more recent acts was the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, which is in effect until 2007.

Well that explained alot.

to quote Harvey
YOU'RE ALL MOUTH!

Would you like to give an example of a subsidity that you can't cut by 20%. I really don't care about welfare for corn farmers enough to go look them up. All you seem to want to do in this thread is protended you can't cut the welfare.

:laugh: Quoting Harvey the "NUT" isn't going to help you.

Maybe you should try reading because like Harvey, you seem to have issues with it.

An agricultural subsidy is a governmental subsidy paid to farmers to supplement their income, help manage the supply of agricultural commodities, and bolster the market price of commodities. Examples of such commodities include wheat, feed grains (grain used as fodder, such as maize, sorghum, barley, and oats), cotton, rice, peanuts, and oilseeds such as soybeans.

Meaning that subsidies aren't just a big pool of money paid out to farmers. There are different areas and processes they help control and such. Obviously without you having some knowledge in this area you will continue to think that you can just cut it all to 80%.

Again, maybe you should try to understand what farm subsidies are and how they work before you continue to make yourself look even more foolish.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: smack Down
If the subsideses where to help the poor why not just increase food stamps? Then tax payers don't have to pay to grow massive amounts of corn no one wants.

Your ignorance is showing again. The subsidies don't pay anyone to grow anything. They pay for the difference between the market price and what the market price should be.

Right they pay people to grow more corn then the market wants at that price point.

 

[sixone]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: smack Down
If the subsideses where to help the poor why not just increase food stamps? Then tax payers don't have to pay to grow massive amounts of corn no one wants.

Your ignorance is showing again. The subsidies don't pay anyone to grow anything. They pay for the difference between the market price and what the market price should be.

Right they pay people to grow more corn then the market wants at that price point.

Because the price point is not market driven to begin with. The price point is based on many factors, including the price of corn, to use your example, in Brazil, which also subsidizes it's farmers to allow them to compete in the global market.

 

[smack Down]

An agricultural subsidy is a governmental subsidy paid to farmers to supplement their income,

So you calculate that check and multiply by .8 and write a new check and the subsidy was cut by 20%. There you go pretty damn easy if you ask me. Have any other examples you need me to explain how to multiply by .8

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: smack Down
If the subsideses where to help the poor why not just increase food stamps? Then tax payers don't have to pay to grow massive amounts of corn no one wants.

Your ignorance is showing again. The subsidies don't pay anyone to grow anything. They pay for the difference between the market price and what the market price should be.

Right they pay people to grow more corn then the market wants at that price point.

Because the price point is not market driven to begin with. The price point is based on many factors, including the price of corn, to use your example, in Brazil, which also subsidizes it's farmers to allow them to compete in the global market.

So I'm ahppy to let Brazil subsidizes my corn.

 

[sixone]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: smack Down
If the subsideses where to help the poor why not just increase food stamps? Then tax payers don't have to pay to grow massive amounts of corn no one wants.

Your ignorance is showing again. The subsidies don't pay anyone to grow anything. They pay for the difference between the market price and what the market price should be.

Right they pay people to grow more corn then the market wants at that price point.

Because the price point is not market driven to begin with. The price point is based on many factors, including the price of corn, to use your example, in Brazil, which also subsidizes it's farmers to allow them to compete in the global market.

So I'm ahppy to let Brazil subsidizes my corn.

You won't be so happy if the US ends farm subsidies. You'll be paying at least the same low price, plus the cost of shipping the commodity to the US from other countries, who will have no reason whatsoever to end their own subsidies. Less domestic production leads to decreased supply, leads to increased prices, and other countries will try to use their own subsidies to take over the market, crippling domestic production further.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: smack Down
If the subsideses where to help the poor why not just increase food stamps? Then tax payers don't have to pay to grow massive amounts of corn no one wants.

Your ignorance is showing again. The subsidies don't pay anyone to grow anything. They pay for the difference between the market price and what the market price should be.

Right they pay people to grow more corn then the market wants at that price point.

Because the price point is not market driven to begin with. The price point is based on many factors, including the price of corn, to use your example, in Brazil, which also subsidizes it's farmers to allow them to compete in the global market.

So I'm ahppy to let Brazil subsidizes my corn.

You won't be so happy if the US ends farm subsidies. You'll be paying at least the same low price, plus the cost of shipping the commodity to the US from other countries, who will have no reason whatsoever to end their own subsidies. Less domestic production leads to decreased supply, leads to increased prices, and other countries will try to use their own subsidies to take over the market, crippling domestic production further.

If they use there subsides to try and take over the world market then the price of corn would have to drop not raise because dumping only works if your dumping at a lower price. Should we start subsidicing every other product to. I'm sure the auto manufactors would love the govement to pay a few thousand for every car they produce.

 

[sixone]

Originally posted by: smack Down
If they use there subsides to try and take over the world market then the price of corn would have to drop not raise because dumping only works if your dumping at a lower price. Should we start subsidicing every other product to. I'm sure the auto manufactors would love the govement to pay a few thousand for every car they produce.

And what happens when the dumping is over, and only foreign countries are able to supply our demand? Higher prices.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: smack Down
If they use there subsides to try and take over the world market then the price of corn would have to drop not raise because dumping only works if your dumping at a lower price. Should we start subsidicing every other product to. I'm sure the auto manufactors would love the govement to pay a few thousand for every car they produce.

And what happens when the dumping is over, and only foreign countries are able to supply our demand? Higher prices.

Then people will start growing corn again. Ahh the magic of the free market. It isn't like it is that hard to start growing corn

 

[dmcowen674]

I like your style smackdown.

I will have room in my cabinet :thumbsup:

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: smack Down
If the subsideses where to help the poor why not just increase food stamps? Then tax payers don't have to pay to grow massive amounts of corn no one wants.

Your ignorance is showing again. The subsidies don't pay anyone to grow anything. They pay for the difference between the market price and what the market price should be.

Right they pay people to grow more corn then the market wants at that price point.

Because the price point is not market driven to begin with. The price point is based on many factors, including the price of corn, to use your example, in Brazil, which also subsidizes it's farmers to allow them to compete in the global market.

So I'm ahppy to let Brazil subsidizes my corn.

You won't be so happy if the US ends farm subsidies. You'll be paying at least the same low price, plus the cost of shipping the commodity to the US from other countries, who will have no reason whatsoever to end their own subsidies. Less domestic production leads to decreased supply, leads to increased prices, and other countries will try to use their own subsidies to take over the market, crippling domestic production further.

about 90% of ALL farms subsidies go to corn, wheat, cotton, soybeans, and rice. Why is it that farmers of all other crops and animals CAN compete without subsidies? Could it be that they aren't as politically connected as these large agri-farms - According to the heritage foundation, 73% of all farm subsidies in 2001 went to the top 10% of recipients (those earning over 250k!). Free trade agreements i.e. CAFTA supported by some Democrats and most Republicans would disallow government subsidies. Violators would receive fines from the WTO. Seems to me that people are against government welfare unless it is their ox that gets gored.

 

[sixone]

Originally posted by: smack Down
Then people will start growing corn again. Ahh the magic of the free market. It isn't like it is that hard to start growing corn

Growing it isn't a problem. How are you going to get it to market without an infrastructure?

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I like your style smackdown.

I will have room in my cabinet :thumbsup:

Yeah, I suppose you would like ignorance in your cabinet.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I like your style smackdown.

I will have room in my cabinet :thumbsup:

Yeah, I suppose you would like ignorance in your cabinet.

You claim ignorance but you can't show how any farm subside can't easly be cut by 20 precent.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I like your style smackdown.

I will have room in my cabinet :thumbsup:

Yeah, I suppose you would like ignorance in your cabinet.

You can call it ignorance or whatever you want, I call it real fiscal responsibility.

Giving Farmers a free ride at the expense of taxpayers is not my idea of fiscal responsibility and shouldn't be any American's idea either.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I like your style smackdown.

I will have room in my cabinet :thumbsup:

Yeah, I suppose you would like ignorance in your cabinet.

You can call it ignorance or whatever you want, I call it real fiscal responsibility.

Giving Farmers a free ride at the expense of taxpayers is not my idea of fiscal responsibility and shouldn't be any American's idea either.

:roll: I support a free market and don't want farm subsidies, however, I am rational enough to know that you can't just end them, and it's more complicated than just some generic phase out "plan".

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I like your style smackdown.

I will have room in my cabinet :thumbsup:

Yeah, I suppose you would like ignorance in your cabinet.

You claim ignorance but you can't show how any farm subside can't easly be cut by 20 precent.

It's your "plan". Show us how it's done.:laugh: I don't have to disprove your little "plan" because you don't even know how your little "plan" would work since you don't seem to have a clue how subsidies work.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I like your style smackdown.

I will have room in my cabinet :thumbsup:

Yeah, I suppose you would like ignorance in your cabinet.

You claim ignorance but you can't show how any farm subside can't easly be cut by 20 precent.

It's your "plan". Show us how it's done.:laugh: I don't have to disprove your little "plan" because you don't even know how your little "plan" would work since you don't seem to have a clue how subsidies work.

Sure I do. If a farmer was going to get 100 dollars under the current systme they would get 80 under the phase out not that difficult. Seems to me my plan would work fine.

 

[sixone]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I like your style smackdown.

I will have room in my cabinet :thumbsup:

Yeah, I suppose you would like ignorance in your cabinet.

You claim ignorance but you can't show how any farm subside can't easly be cut by 20 precent.

It's your "plan". Show us how it's done.:laugh: I don't have to disprove your little "plan" because you don't even know how your little "plan" would work since you don't seem to have a clue how subsidies work.

Sure I do. If a farmer was going to get 100 dollars under the current systme they would get 80 under the phase out not that difficult. Seems to me my plan would work fine.

You could reduce by far more than 20% by capping the amounts the big operations can get, rather than hurting the little guys.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I like your style smackdown.

I will have room in my cabinet :thumbsup:

Yeah, I suppose you would like ignorance in your cabinet.

You claim ignorance but you can't show how any farm subside can't easly be cut by 20 precent.

It's your "plan". Show us how it's done.:laugh: I don't have to disprove your little "plan" because you don't even know how your little "plan" would work since you don't seem to have a clue how subsidies work.

Sure I do. If a farmer was going to get 100 dollars under the current systme they would get 80 under the phase out not that difficult. Seems to me my plan would work fine.

Do you have any idea how the process of the farmer getting the 100 dollars works? No. It's not just farmers getting a check. It's far more complicated than that, which is something you seem to refuse to understand.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Vote for me and Farmers will have to work for a living again.

Vote for you, and there won't be anymore farmers, only more corporations like ADM.

I'd appreciate it if you'd back up your statement by telling us about your farming experience.

I am not sure why that would be a bad thing. If ADM is more effecient at growing crops why would the consumer not want more of that?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: smack Down
If they use there subsides to try and take over the world market then the price of corn would have to drop not raise because dumping only works if your dumping at a lower price. Should we start subsidicing every other product to. I'm sure the auto manufactors would love the govement to pay a few thousand for every car they produce.

And what happens when the dumping is over, and only foreign countries are able to supply our demand? Higher prices.

So is there nothing else productive you can do with than land other grow corn? It seems those on the corn subsidies have a bit of tunnel vision.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: charrison
I am not sure why that would be a bad thing. If ADM is more effecient at growing crops why would the consumer not want more of that?

We would have leftists whining "big Farming" because their cereal is $8/box.

 

[sixone]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Vote for me and Farmers will have to work for a living again.

Vote for you, and there won't be anymore farmers, only more corporations like ADM.

I'd appreciate it if you'd back up your statement by telling us about your farming experience.

I am not sure why that would be a bad thing. If ADM is more effecient at growing crops why would the consumer not want more of that?

Perhaps you're not familiar with their history of price fixing.