Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Farm subsidies will always be with us because both parties are for redistribution of wealth and intefering with the free market. A couple of years ago Flake {R} and Peterson {D} went after the farm subsidies and were attacked and derailed by their own parties. This is one area where there is bi partisan support for their good friends big AG who gets the lions share of the loot. This link was posted a short while ago but I love this line which sums it up perfectly { in bold} When bipartisanship breaks out in Washington DC, check to make sure your wallet is still in your pocket. Every time you fill up your car this winter you are participating in the biggest taxpayer swindle in history. Forcing consumers to use domestically produced ethanol is one of the single biggest boondoggles ever committed by the corrupt brainless twits in Washington DC. Ethanol prices have soared 30% in the last year as the supplies of corn have plunged. Only a policy created in Washington DC could drive up the prices of gasoline and food, with the added benefits of costing the American taxpayer billions in tax subsidies and killing people in 3rd world countries. http://www.zerohedge.com/article/gue...screw-taxpayer
Farm subsidies are in place to prevent a major commodities surplus
This is all I needed to see to know that you're confused about the subject. That was the FDR-era purpose and approach to farm subsidies. That changed during the Nixon administration when the purpose of farm subsidies was changed to grow as much staple grains as possible to drive commodity prices down. This nation grows so much corn we have to invent new markets for it just to get rid of the stuff. That is a direct aim and result of farm subsidies. Any more, large-scale farms don't make a dime on the commodities they produce; they make their money on the subsidies they get from the government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TempesT68
It's nothing but republican welfare to get the poor/rural vote.
You're clearly confused as well. Either that or you just couldn't resist the urge to turn what has heretofore been an adult conversation into a partisan bickerfest.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,458,803 times
Reputation: 6670
"It's nothing but republican welfare to get the poor/rural vote."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover
You're clearly confused as well. Either that or you just couldn't resist the urge to turn what has heretofore been an adult conversation into a partisan bickerfest.
Dunno, "republican welfare" might be simplistic, but not entirely untrue.
Fact is that rural states like Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Virginia, Tennessee, South Carolina and Arkansas, etc. are the very states that are most in need of the cash assistance, food stamps, medical and housing assistance provided by the Federal government, and yet they tend to vote Republican year after year. Why?... in large part because their Republican representatives (including the "tea party" types) continue to "bring home the bacon" by still supporting subsidies (which BTW, mostly benefit their wealthiest contributors anyway).
"It's nothing but republican welfare to get the poor/rural vote."
Dunno, "republican welfare" might be simplistic, but not entirely untrue.
Fact is that rural states like Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Virginia, Tennessee, South Carolina and Arkansas, etc. are the very states that are most in need of the cash assistance, food stamps, medical and housing assistance provided by the Federal government, and yet they tend to vote Republican year after year. Why?
The 'Blame Republicans from the South' game is getting tired. The states with the greatest dependence on food stamps all tend to be in the deep south, but the facts are misleading because most of those states have the largest percentage of Blacks (who vote overwhelmingly Democrat), who use far more food stamps than the general public (Food Stamp Usage Across the Country - Interactive Map - NYTimes.com) which skews the figures against those states. Not sure where you're getting the medical assistance figures from; the states with the highest per capita Medicaid expenditures are primarily in the Liberal Northeast (Medicaid Per Capita Average Expenditures)
The same applies to welfare, where the number of caseloads per capita is highest in many blue states (RI, CA, WA, ME, etc.) than it is in most southern states.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,458,803 times
Reputation: 6670
It's only "tired" to the extent that it reflects badly on Republican ideology. Aside from the fact that the highest concentration of poor blacks are actually in (liberal) urban areas, nearly all rural (and "red") areas are the poorest parts of the country, including in the (white) Midwest, where poverty rates approach 50 percent in both rural and urban areas as well.
Republican/"red" states (and counties) are by and large the poorest ones. And like it or not, it's just an "inconvenient" fact of life (kinda like Global Warming).
Rural areas are naturally going to be poorer than urban areas for the simple fact that salaries are lower, however the cost of living is also much lower. The poverty guidelines are the same if you live in NYC or rural Kentucky, however $18,310 for a family of three is probably livable in Kentucky where in NYC it might not even cover rent.
Rural areas are naturally going to be poorer than urban areas for the simple fact that salaries are lower, however the cost of living is also much lower. The poverty guidelines are the same if you live in NYC or rural Kentucky, however $18,310 for a family of three is probably livable in Kentucky where in NYC it might not even cover rent.
The cost of living is not necessarily lower except when you are comparing rural to a megalopolis. Further commuting for work/shopping and higher fuel & food prices (less selection & less competition) are the norm in truly rural areas.
I suppose it depends on exactly how rural you're talking about. I know that the house my brother used to live in, in a town of 500, was $50,000. The same house in the small city (250k) where I live would be at least three times as much. Taxes would be higher too.
Driving to the nearest town with decent shopping and services was about a 25-minutes, which is pretty reasonable. 2-3 trips per month doesn't really add much in gas expenses, unless you work there and must drive 50 miles a day.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
