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.
Farming is dominated by white people and the family farm, while still alive and well in my area, is slowly dying out nationwide. Many of the farm families still left are descended from Northern European immigrants i.e. whites. Blacks and Jews have both, historically, not been well represented in agriculture. (No, we don't need to get into any sociological discussion as to WHY that is. It just IS.) Farm subsidies have been around since the 1940's at the very least. It has always been the argument that if farmers used their land at full production, the markets would be so glutted that prices would be insufficient to allow the farmers to even meet the cost of production. As it is now, farmers around here are heavily dependent on banks to loan them the money for another years production. Some have acreage in the CRPS program but that is only a small percentage of their total acreage and an equally small percentage of their annual income. (As an aside, farming is up there near the top for being one of the most dangerous occupations. A few hundred people are killed in farming accidents every year.) No matter which party is in power, the handouts to the farm programs will continue so the likelihood of rural counties voting Republican is more a reflection of the conservative traditions of rural people rather than the expectation of continued "handouts".
Food production and "big business" go hand-in-hand, in that both are a vital part of the economic system. Do CEO's of big companies vote Republican? Maybe they do, maybe they don't. Regardless how they vote and regardless who holds the power, any one of those CEO's can call up the WH and actually talk to a live person. A more salient question would be why do so few blacks rise to the position of CEO of a Fortune 500 country but we don't need another one of those threads.
So it would appear to me that white people are getting the bulk of the business related handouts and minorities are getting a proportionally greater part of the individual handouts.
I have found out that there is a good portion of {R}s that will rail against social programs but see nothing wrong with subsidies.That view is inconsistent if you are going to rail against socialism{the redistribution of wealth}what do they call taking from the tax payer and giving it to farms or corporations?They also claim to be free market advocates but giving subsidies gives the recipient a unfair advantage over there competitors.
Do social programs create jobs? Keep jobs from going over seas? Help out anyone other than the individual? I'm sure there are some great and wonderful stories out there from people who used the social programs they participated in and didn't have 5 more kids they couldn't afford, were able to feed their families and not buy oreo's, ice cream and every other fatty food in the grocery store, etc. Welfare was intended to help people get through a rough spot in their lives and until they could get back on their feet, not take advantage of it as long as they could and do so generation after generation.
Subsidizing corporations, farms, etc., do create jobs/keep people employed/help the market not be flooded with a supply that outweighs demand in turn hurting said market & businesses (with respect to farms).
CEO's/CFO's/COO's, etc., who make 20M salaries and get 5M bonuses and cry about needing "tax breaks" should double-check themselves when they fire Joe the mail guy b/c they can't afford him...or send jobs over seas b/c labor is cheaper.
And trust me, I'm not saying both systems aren't broken, because they are. Where's the accountability for either?
AFDC, possibly, but AFDC hasn't existed for a decade. Now TANF, sorry, but your stereotype is more than a bit dated.
This is funny as hell.
Due to farm subsidies, the price of food has remained very low in the US and has kept well below the rate of inflation for the last 50 years. For the liberals among us-
1. If there were no farm subsidies, ag and thus food prices would skyrocket. The first to complain would be the liberals
2. If there were no farm subsidies, we would need to import a good deal of our food, much as we do for oil. This would put us in a vunerable position from an economic and strategic standpoint, in being reliant upon other nations for our food.
3. Keep in mind that the need for farm subsidies happened to a great extent, due to the mindless blundering of Jimmy Carter and his brilliant gain embargo, which crippled US farmers. This opened the door for expansion of ag in Brazil and has been permanent damage inflicted by your democratic party on the nation's farmers.
4. Without grain subsidies, there would be no family farms and only corporate farms. The libs complain about the influence of corporations on food production, yet ***** about the only mechanism by which family farms can stay afloat. A small farm now is 2000 acres. At $3,200 for farmland, and combines running $300,000, it is nearly impossible for family farms to stay afloat. Kill the family farm and yield exclusively to the will of corporate farming.
5. Farm subsidies also provide shelter for wildlife (through CRP) and maintain wetlands. Without these subsidies, every inch of ground would be in production.
SO....................................... can you tell me, with all the benefits farmers provide us (like the food we eat), how exactly is welfare payments to an urban mother with six kids who does nothing for society equivilent? This is liberal insanity at its best.
White people are the majority of CEOs and such because as recently as the 1970s this country was something like 90% White. Since the passing of the 1965 immigration act (which Jewish groups heavily lobbied for) this country has gone from 90% to around 60%.
This country was 90%+ White for most of its history, only recently have we begun to allow the entire third world to flood in.
Due to farm subsidies, the price of food has remained very low in the US and has kept well below the rate of inflation for the last 50 years. For the liberals among us-
1. If there were no farm subsidies, ag and thus food prices would skyrocket. The first to complain would be the liberals
2. If there were no farm subsidies, we would need to import a good deal of our food, much as we do for oil. This would put us in a vunerable position from an economic and strategic standpoint, in being reliant upon other nations for our food.
3. Keep in mind that the need for farm subsidies happened to a great extent, due to the mindless blundering of Jimmy Carter and his brilliant gain embargo, which crippled US farmers. This opened the door for expansion of ag in Brazil and has been permanent damage inflicted by your democratic party on the nation's farmers.
4. Without grain subsidies, there would be no family farms and only corporate farms. The libs complain about the influence of corporations on food production, yet ***** about the only mechanism by which family farms can stay afloat. A small farm now is 2000 acres. At $3,200 for farmland, and combines running $300,000, it is nearly impossible for family farms to stay afloat. Kill the family farm and yield exclusively to the will of corporate farming.
5. Farm subsidies also provide shelter for wildlife (through CRP) and maintain wetlands. Without these subsidies, every inch of ground would be in production.
SO....................................... can you tell me, with all the benefits farmers provide us (like the food we eat), how exactly is welfare payments to an urban mother with six kids who does nothing for society equivilent? This is liberal insanity at its best.
I am a friend of the farmer. Coming from you, this post is riddled with hypocrisy. I am not against farm subsidies. But it is socialism (which I thought you were adamantly against).
I agree...if the free market were allowed to operate in agriculture, food prices would skyrocket and small farmers would be gone.
Due to farm subsidies, the price of food has remained very low in the US and has kept well below the rate of inflation for the last 50 years. For the liberals among us-
1. If there were no farm subsidies, ag and thus food prices would skyrocket. The first to complain would be the liberals
2. If there were no farm subsidies, we would need to import a good deal of our food, much as we do for oil. This would put us in a vunerable position from an economic and strategic standpoint, in being reliant upon other nations for our food.
3. Keep in mind that the need for farm subsidies happened to a great extent, due to the mindless blundering of Jimmy Carter and his brilliant gain embargo, which crippled US farmers. This opened the door for expansion of ag in Brazil and has been permanent damage inflicted by your democratic party on the nation's farmers.
4. Without grain subsidies, there would be no family farms and only corporate farms. The libs complain about the influence of corporations on food production, yet ***** about the only mechanism by which family farms can stay afloat. A small farm now is 2000 acres. At $3,200 for farmland, and combines running $300,000, it is nearly impossible for family farms to stay afloat. Kill the family farm and yield exclusively to the will of corporate farming.
5. Farm subsidies also provide shelter for wildlife (through CRP) and maintain wetlands. Without these subsidies, every inch of ground would be in production.
SO....................................... can you tell me, with all the benefits farmers provide us (like the food we eat), how exactly is welfare payments to an urban mother with six kids who does nothing for society equivilent? This is liberal insanity at its best.
You can put as much lip stick on farm subsidies but in the end it is still redistribution of wealth right out of Marx's manifesto.You brought up a mother with 6 kids I wonder if you will be outraged by this:
Keep in mind also that big AG is getting the lions share of the subsidies.You also pointed out the production{farmers} and the non producing{welfare mother} that is not always the case:
Quote:
These programs, which were a huge part of the New Deal, and have remained a pillar of U.S. agriculture policy, have been responsible to a large degree for pushing crop commodity prices high, resulting in higher food prices for consumers. The basic strategy of the New Deal was to “prop up” the prices of agricultural goods (in other words, making them artificially high), so that farmers would be “helped” by more money from the higher prices. (Never mind that people who had very little money to spend couldn’t afford food at the artificially high prices, having instead to subsist on as little as one meal a day, with farmers meanwhile getting no income from food that wouldn’t sell). Prices supports, quotas, and subsidies for non-production (setting aside or “idling” land) aimed to make crops more scarce at a time when more food was needed at lower prices. Of the last example, the late Senator Barry Goldwater once said, “I cannot conceive of a more absurd and self-defeating policy than one which subsidizes non-production.” He was absolutely right. It is worth pointing out that most farm subsidies these days go to large, corporate operations that have come to be known as “agri-business”, as opposed to the “family farm”. How Agriculture Subsidies Distort Food Prices | United Liberty | Free Market - Individual Liberty - Limited Government
Farm subsidies are used as a tool for them not to produce to keep the price from dropping.And that is not the free market that is what I consider centralized planning.So the argument about subsidies keeping food prices low is not true.Take corn as a recent example,it has become heavily subsidized due to ethanol production.Did corn products become cheaper?Consider also that some farmers stopped growing other crops and jumped on the corn subsidy band wagon,what do you think happened with other crop prices?
Farm subsidies cost each tax payer 400 bucks a year so it is not like we are saving.I would rather have the tax break of 3% then to have to give big AG a subsidy that they do not need.But in reality all the points I make about the free market and central planning are futile.We both know subsidies are not going to go away,our leaders will get their palms greased and nothing will change.
White people own and operate 98.8% of all American farms which receive on the whole, and receive over $25 billion dollars in Federal subsidies per year.
99% of Fortune 500 companies are headed by white CEO's and receive $75 billion in Federal subsidies.
61% if all "welfare recipients are white Americans.
88.7% of all Social Security recipients are white Americans.
Is this why white people vote for the Republican Party?
I don't know why white people vote for the Republican party, nor blacks, nor hispanics, nor asians. Who knows? But the logic of your point is not to attack white people but rather welfare--in all its forms. If social and corporate welfare were ended (and by welfare I mean any form of transfer payment that is not meant to buy a product or service) we could halve the federal budget, leave that money in the hands of those who earned it and unleash the creative power of that wealth to build businesses, invest in research, etc. A side effect would be to make K Street a ghost town since there would be no need for lobbyists. And our politicians would no longer be corrupted by those seeking their piece of the pie. In short, let government return to its proper functions under the Consititution and many of our problems would be solved.
And what do they give in return? A product. That is NOT welfare.
What is the economic impact of welfare recipients in a county were 25-35% of all consumer spending in the county comes from income receive from the goverment? They are probaly not putting it in a savings account.
I am a friend of the farmer. Coming from you, this post is riddled with hypocrisy. I am not against farm subsidies. But it is socialism (which I thought you were adamantly against).
I agree...if the free market were allowed to operate in agriculture, food prices would skyrocket and small farmers would be gone.
I don't DEFEND farm subsidies. I am telling why they are in place.
I own farmland in Brazil. For me, farm subsidies directly harm my financial interests.
I find it ironic that liberals bash farm subsidies, as it is a redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor and maintains low food prices. Oddly, it appears as though liberals are opposed to these subsidies, even though they accomplish thier goal of wealth redistribution and low prices.
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.
