Subsidies, Windfall Profits - Just not oil. - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

aceventura3 · 05-14-2008, 12:31 PM

Here is an editorial in today's WSJ. It appears the folks in Washington just can not stop politically pandering. I can not figure out why tax breaks for farmers are o.k. at a time when they are making record profits and food prices are going higher (and for some third world nations there are food shortages) yet they constantly gripe about the oil industry while not letting them do their job. I guess we can expect more of this in the years to come under Democratic Party leadership and as Republican give up the fight.

Even those of you who hate Bush have to support him vetoing this bill, right?

Quote:

Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?
May 14, 2008; Page A20

We can't wait to hear how Members of Congress explain their vote this week for the new $300 billion farm bill. At a time when Americans are squeezed at the grocery store, they will now see more of their taxes flow to the very farmers profiting from these high food prices.

This year farm income is expected to reach an all-time high of $92.3 billion, an increase of 56% in two years, making growers perhaps the most undeserving welfare recipients in American history. But that won't stop this bill from passing the House and Senate by wide margins. Speaker Nancy Pelosi was once a farm subsidy skeptic, but she now has some 30 freshman Democrats from battleground rural districts to protect. So more than $10 billion a year in giveaways to agribusiness is a necessary taxpayer sacrifice to keep her majority.

Ms. Pelosi calls the bill "real reform," which is like calling Lindsay Lohan born again. For example: The bill perpetuates the so-called Hurricane Katrina gambit that allows farmers to lock in price-support payments at the lowest possible market price, and then sell their crops later at the highest possible price, and then pocket the high price and a payment from the government for the difference between the two. They in effect get paid twice for the same bushel of wheat.

A bigger scam is the new income limit to qualify for subsidies. Mr. Bush sought a $200,000 annual income cap, but Congress can't bring itself to go below $750,000. Even that is a farce, because it doesn't include loan programs and disaster payments, and it allows spouses to qualify for payments too. The White House and liberal reformers calculate that farm owners with clever accountants can have incomes of up to $2.5 million and still get a taxpayer handout.

Several weeks ago, Senate Agriculture Chairman Tom Harkin was asked by the Des Moines Register how many farmers in Iowa would be excluded under the new income cap. His answer: "two or three." On tax policy Mr. Harkin and his fellow Democrats talk endlessly about soaking the rich, but on farm policy they favor soaking the middle class to pay the rich.

Nearly every crop – corn, wheat, sugar – has won increases in subsidy payments even as farm commodity prices explode. (See nearby chart.) Of the 17 most subsidized commodities, only rice and cotton will get a slight reduction in payments, while the bill extends the farm welfare net to lentils, chick peas, fruits and vegetables, and even organic foods. There are new programs for Kentucky horse breeders and Pacific Coast salmon fishermen, and your tax dollars will help finance the dairy industry's "Got Milk?" campaign. Oh, and you still don't even have to farm to cash in. Hundreds of millions of dollars will go to landowners based on their "historical planting average" even if they haven't planted a seed in years.

And once again the big sugar plantation owners in Florida walk away with the sweetest deal: Big Sugar bagged an increase in price supports and a guarantee of 85% of the domestic sugar market at these guaranteed prices. So taxpayers are on the hook for buying surplus domestically produced sugar at 23 cents a pound and selling it for ethanol for closer to three cents a pound.

If you wonder why urban Democrats would vote for this rural giveaway, the answer is they have been bought off with roughly $10 billion in extra funding for food stamps and nutrition welfare programs. Someone should tell them that their constituents might not need this cash if the farm bill didn't help keep food prices high. And let's not forget the Blue Dog Democrats who are supposed to be spending hawks. The farm bill busts the budget caps by at least $10 billion, but the Blue Dogs get $5.9 billion in handouts for their districts. So they will put their fiscal sermonizing on hold and vote "aye."

Mr. Bush is promising a veto, to his credit, but the White House expects even many Republicans to vote to override. The House GOP swears it has learned its spending lesson after 2006. Yet House Minority Leader John Boehner, who opposes the bill himself, isn't rallying GOP opposition. Perhaps there are too many Republicans who crave the handouts too.

Meanwhile, John McCain says "I would veto that bill" and will vote against it in the Senate. Strangely silent is Barack Obama. A major theme of his campaign is to battle corporate special interests in Washington on behalf of the "middle class." Here is one of his first tests, and it'll be fascinating to see if he sides with the well-funded commodity lobby over consumers and taxpayers.

In this election year, both parties are fighting to win the farm vote. But even in Chicago and New Jersey, it doesn't cost $300 billion to buy an election.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1210...w_and_outlooks

dc_dux · 05-14-2008, 03:38 PM

I have expressed opposition to the so-called "farm bill" (it should more properly be called the "millionaires agri-business" welfare bill) every time it comes up for reauthorization in anything resembling the current form. (The last time as 2002).

It is the largest "corporate welfare" program in the country. Even with the new income restrictions that the Dems forced into this year's bill, the bulk of the subsidies still go to agri-business and "hobby" farmers (like Ted Turner and David Rockefeller)...just marginally less than previous recent farm bills.

But it has always been as much a regional issue as it is a partisan issue. So, if it will pass with a veto-proof majority, I applaud Pelosi for at least forcing the inclusion of new income restrictions (as weak as they are) and more funding for urban working poor in the form of Dept of Agr. food stamp and child nutrition program increases.

So yeah, I support the veto. We can find other means of upping the support programs for those who really need it....small family farmers and urban and rural poor.

added:
ace...where was the Bush veto of the $200+ billion farm bill in 2002, when there was a Republican majority in Congress?

President Signs Farm Bill

IMO, that one should have been vetoed as well.

aceventura3 · 05-15-2008, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I have expressed opposition to the so-called "farm bill" (it should more properly be called the "millionaires agri-business" welfare bill) every time it comes up for reauthorization in anything resembling the current form. (The last time as 2002).

It is the largest "corporate welfare" program in the country. Even with the new income restrictions that the Dems forced into this year's bill, the bulk of the subsidies still go to agri-business and "hobby" farmers (like Ted Turner and David Rockefeller)...just marginally less than previous recent farm bills.

But it has always been as much a regional issue as it is a partisan issue. So, if it will pass with a veto-proof majority, I applaud Pelosi for at least forcing the inclusion of new income restrictions (as weak as they are) and more funding for urban working poor in the form of Dept of Agr. food stamp and child nutrition program increases.

So yeah, I support the veto. We can find other means of upping the support programs for those who really need it....small family farmers and urban and rural poor.

added:
ace...where was the Bush veto of the $200+ billion farm bill in 2002, when there was a Republican majority in Congress?

President Signs Farm Bill

IMO, that one should have been vetoed as well.

I agree that the 2002 farm bill should never have passed and should have been veto'd. Like I posted in another thread Republican's have lost their focus and it was things like this that has caused a weakening in their base.

One thing that prompted me to post the editorial was my immediate thought of many TFP'ers while I read it, those who have taken recent positions that some big business in some industries, i.e. oil, tobacco, health care are bad and have far to much influence but turn a blind eye to the Farm Bill at a time when profits and some food prices are hitting or going to hit all time highs.

I still have not seen what Obama's view on the Farm Bill is. Seems that he would be against it given the subsidies to the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. I also find the idea behind manipulating food prices at high levels and giving poor people more food stamps inefficient - why not support policies to help keep prices low through competition, productivity and enhancing market efficiencies?

dc_dux · 05-15-2008, 07:22 AM

ace....now that I learned a bit more about this bill, I take back my veto support. I like it

This is the best farm bill I have seen since the early 90s. It cuts subsidies to the millionaire farmers from about 75% of the bill's total cost (as it was in the 2002 bill) to less than 15% of this bill.

That represents a huge reallocation of priorities.

Instead it focuses on food nutrition and support programs for the urban/rural poor, disaster insurance and agricultural land conservation programs.

Quote:

Domestic nutrition programs make up the largest portion of the estimated $300 billion farm bill. Crop subsidies make up roughly 14 percent, foreign food aid less than 1 percent.

A breakdown of the bill:

_ Food stamps and other domestic nutrition programs such as emergency food assistance: just over 66 percent, about $200 billion.

_ Subsidies for rice, cotton, corn, soybeans, wheat and other crops: 14 percent, around $43 billion.

_ Conservation programs to set aside or protect environmentally sensitive farmland: 9 percent, about $27 billion.

_ Crop insurance to help farmers protect against losses: 8 percent, about $23 billion.

_ Foreign food aid would make up less than 1 percent of the bill, costing less than $200 million. The bulk of international food assistance is in annual appropriations bills.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j...WiAaAD90LU8CG1

It still has alot of pork, inserted from both sides of the aisle.

But overall, it now has my support and I would no longer characterizie it as a "millionaires agri-business welfare bill"...well, at least not as much as the previous bill.

aceventura3 · 05-15-2008, 07:51 AM

Save time and don't attack the source, IBD Editorial Page we've been through it before, it is what I read. But what about this little bit of information:

Quote:

In fact, the average farm subsidy recipient has $200,000 in income and a net worth of about $2 million. The top 10% of farm earners take in 75% of the subsidies. Put bluntly, Congress' farm bill subsidizes millionaires and lets you pick up the tab.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/e...95659764109246

What happened to the outrage on the wealthy getting the biggest benefit? Different from tax rate cuts, where in many cases the taxes paid in total dollars by rich people went up, here we are talking about taxes paid by middle/lower class income earners going directly into the pockets of rich people. How can Democrats compromise in such a manner, given what they say about rich people getting advantages under the Bush administration? I just don't get this whole "compromise" your principles thing. But then I assume people make decisions based on principles, is that where I am wrong?

dc_dux · 05-15-2008, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

What happened to the outrage on the wealthy getting the biggest benefit? Different from tax rate cuts, where in many cases the taxes paid in total dollars by rich people went up, here we are talking about taxes paid by middle/lower class income earners going directly into the pockets of rich people. How can Democrats compromise in such a manner, given what they say about rich people getting advantages under the Bush administration? I just don't get this whole "compromise" your principles thing. But then I assume people make decisions based on principles, is that where I am wrong?

The wealthy are not getting the greatest share of this bill. Two-thirds of the bill's total funding is for food nutrition and support programs for the urban/rural poor.

And beyond that, with the new income limits for subsidy recipients, the millionaire farmers are even getting less as a percentarge of overall recipients of the subsidy component than they did in the 2002 bill.

As I said...this is a dramatic reallocation of resources from the 2002 Republican bill!

The bill passed the House today by veto-proof margin and should pass the Senate by early next week.

Compromise is the Dems giving a little to the Repub supporters of rich farmers (14% of the bill, although a greater percentage of subsidy recipients this time around will not be weathy farmers) and getting alot in return for the urban/rural poor and working class (66% of the bill)..and a agricultural land conservation program in addition.

Thats how compromise works...especially when you can give a little and get alot. I take it from your comments, that you think such a compromise is unprincipled. IMO, its pragmatic politics.

If I were cynical, I could suggest the Bush enthusiastically supported the 2002 bill because it's beneficiaries were almost exclusively millionaire farmer friends and contributors...and he will veto this bill because it disproportionately benefits the urban/rural poor and working class.

aceventura3 · 05-15-2008, 09:48 AM

Perhaps you can help me with the math, I must have something wrong.

If the current Farm bill is $290 billion, and 66% is going to urban/rural poor and working class, that is a $193 billion to $97 billion ratio.

The prior farm bill was $270 billion. $178 billion went to urban/rural poor and working class and $92 billion went to farmers. That is a 66% ratio.

I know these bills are not the easiest things in the world to decipher, perhaps these sources are misleading.

Quote:

About two-thirds of the bill would pay for domestic nutrition programs such as food stamps and emergency food aid for the needy. An additional $40 billion is for farm subsidies, while almost $30 billion would go to farmers to idle their land and to other environmental programs.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1210..._us_whats_news

Quote:

The total six-year (FY2002-FY2007) cost of the major provisions of the 2002 farm bill was $270.2 billion, or an average of $45.0 billion per year. Of this amount, $178.2 billion, or nearlytwo-thirds, was for the food stamp program, while $92.1 billion was for the three major categories of farm support: farm commodity programs, conservation, and
trade.

http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache...ient=firefox-a

Short of some adjustments and rounding errors, I would not have supported the 2002 bill nor could I support the current bill. Even given the additional amounts targeted to the poor, that will be off-set by increased cost of food because of the on-going subsidies. Seems the only winners are the wealthy farmers.

dc_dux · 05-15-2008, 12:01 PM

ace...we are obviously looking at different numbers and I honestly dont know which set is correct, but I am not inclined to accept the IBD or WSJ analysis, knowing their bias, and the National Ag Law Center has different base numbers than I have seen elsewhere....partly because their 2007 numbers are based on an early draft and not the final bill.

My understanding of the 2002 farm bill was the total funding was $195b, with about $35b of that for nutrition/food stamps and about $100b for crop subsidies and the rest for "other".

In any case, under both sets of numbers, funding for nutrition and food stamps is up and funding for crop subsidies is down....and for the crop subsidies portion, there is a new income cap.

IMO, its an acceptable trade off and probably the only way Dems would ever get the votes to avoid a veto of increased funding for food stamps, child nutrition and related programs.

But then again, I really havent payed much attention to farm policy and dont claim any expertise...and I dont have the time right now to do an extensive search.

If I am way off base, I might flip flop again and support a veto, but I need reliable sources

aceventura3 · 05-15-2008, 12:31 PM

I certainly understand that the editorial board at IBD is biased in their tone, but I have never seen or heard that the numbers or facts in the paper to be incorrect. Outside of their editorials the paper is mostly a numbers based publication. If they had a habit of getting numbers wrong they would go out of business pretty fast.

The WSJ has a variety of people appear on their editorial pages and the views that appear are across the board. The link provided in my post #7, actually is an AP article. Regardless, I don't know many people who don't think the WSJ is a trusted publication.

On the other hand, I do think Pelosi saying:

Quote:

The Farm Bill represents a critical first step toward reform by eliminating payments to millionaires, closing loopholes that permit evasion of payment limits, and promoting our nation’s family farmers.

http://speaker.house.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=0253

is wrong.

dc_dux · 05-15-2008, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I certainly understand that the editorial board at IBD is biased in their tone, but I have never seen or heard that the numbers or facts in the paper to be incorrect. Outside of their editorials the paper is mostly a numbers based publication. If they had a habit of getting numbers wrong they would go out of business pretty fast.

The WSJ has a variety of people appear on their editorial pages and the views that appear are across the board. The link provided in my post #7, actually is an AP article. Regardless, I don't know many people who don't think the WSJ is a trusted publication.

On the other hand, I do think Pelosi saying:

http://speaker.house.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=0253

is wrong.

ace...your IBD link is an editorial....and the WSJ numbers are similar to mine:

Quote:

About two-thirds of the bill would pay for domestic nutrition programs such as food stamps and emergency food aid for the needy. An additional $40 billion is for farm subsidies, while almost $30 billion would go to farmers to idle their land and to other environmental programs.

which reinforces my reading that the percent of total funding (as opposed to the 2002 bill) for food stands/nutrition/emergency food is up significantly and the percent of the total for crop subsidies is down significantly.

IMO, Pelosi had it right...if crop subsidies is down to $40b.

But I still prefer primary sources when I dont know what I am talking about.

aceventura3 · 05-15-2008, 01:19 PM

Here are some numbers from AP.

Quote:

Domestic nutrition programs make up the largest portion of the estimated $300 billion farm bill. Crop subsidies make up roughly 14 percent, foreign food aid less than 1 percent.

A breakdown of the bill:

_ Food stamps and other domestic nutrition programs such as emergency food assistance: just over 66 percent, about $200 billion.

_ Subsidies for rice, cotton, corn, soybeans, wheat and other crops: 14 percent, around $43 billion.

_ Conservation programs to set aside or protect environmentally sensitive farmland: 9 percent, about $27 billion.

_ Crop insurance to help farmers protect against losses: 8 percent, about $23 billion.

_ Foreign food aid would make up less than 1 percent of the bill, costing less than $200 million. The bulk of international food assistance is in annual appropriations bills.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j...WiAaAD90LU8CG1

Rich farmers do pretty well no matter how we parse the numbers.

Some project the bill will cost the average family about $2,500 per year. Even if you think that number is high, not many think the cost would be zero or a savings for the average family.

Too bad people don't have much interest in somthing that has such a big economic impact.

loquitur · 05-16-2008, 07:14 AM

dc, I don't get how you can say it's a good idea to give money away to big businesses jsut because the same bill also gives money to causes you like. That logic, roughly speaking, is exactly what you rejected with the Bush tax cuts. The difference is that this involves government directly transferring money rather than just leaving it in the economy.

dc_dux · 05-16-2008, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

dc, I don't get how you can say it's a good idea to give money away to big businesses jsut because the same bill also gives money to causes you like. That logic, roughly speaking, is exactly what you rejected with the Bush tax cuts. The difference is that this involves government directly transferring money rather than just leaving it in the economy.

loquitor...perhaps I wasnt as clear as I should have been.

Knowing that there was overwhelming bi-partisan, veto-proof support for reauthorization of the the farm bill, I would much rather see it as passed this week...with double the funding of food stamps/nutrition programs (estimate) and half the funding of crop subsidies (estimate) than as it was passed in previous (2002) bills. While far from perfect, It was a significant step in changing the priorities of the legislation and the best possible outcome knowing that passage of a "farm bill" was inevitable.

I think there is a critical need right now for increased funding for food stamps/child nutrition programs as there are millions more children and families living near or below the poverty level and living with "food insecurity" (the Dept of Ag. doesnt call it "hunger") than seven years ago.

The bill is acceptable to me in its present form because it is the only way to get enough Republican support for these programs for the working poor ....and w/or Repub support (to override a Bush veto), there will be no increased funding for these programs.

If I had my choice the food stamps/child nutrition programs would be in a free-standing bill, but that aint never gonna happen with a Repub president and large Repub minorities in Congress that can effectively block legislation.

aceventura3 · 05-16-2008, 11:56 AM

About $10 billion of the increase from the previous bill to this one is going to food stamps/child nutrition. The rest of the increase is going to end up in the hand of rich farmers. Yes, you can argue food stamps/child nutrition is getting a bigger portion of the increase, in percentage terms, but that is not at the expense of what is going to wealthy farmers.

Also please consider the fact that the money going to food stamps/child nutrition ends up going back to farmers in the form of higher prices. So, we end up with everyone paying higher prices including the poor, and you have the middle class and non-farmers subsidizing the handful of farmers getting the biggest benefit from the farm bill.

This bill is not good for America, it is good for wealthy farmers and politicians. Its a shell game, it is time for people to wise up.

Quote:

All told, $10.3 billion would be added to nutrition programs over 10 years, including $7.9 billion for food stamps. With food prices forecast to rise by 4.5 percent this year, lawmakers said the farm bill would bring a sweeping expansion of food programs.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23886366/

So, the poor will benefit to the tune of about $1 billion per year off-set by inflation. I don't have an issue with a safety net for people, I just have a problem with shell games played by dishonest politicians. I guess another possibility is that they have not really thought the issue through, I am not sure what is worse.

dc_dux · 05-16-2008, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

So, the poor will benefit to the tune of about $1 billion per year off-set by inflation. I don't have an issue with a safety net for people, I just have a problem with shell games played by dishonest politicians. I guess another possibility is that they have not really thought the issue through, I am not sure what is worse.

An estimated 10 million people below or near the poverty line, many of whom are children, will get a needed increase in supplemental nutrition assistance (food stamps) benefits or be eligible for the first time.

If you believe in the necessity of a government social safety net, this bill was the only way that was going to happen.

For the first time, the bill also denies all supports to people with more than $500,000 adjusted gross income, denies "direct" payments to people with more than $750,000 in farm income, and eliminates the "three-entity rule" (the shell game used to establish corporations and other entities, which allowed the amount of payments received to exceed statutory limits).

loquitur · 05-16-2008, 02:01 PM

I don't know why rich farmers need tax money at all, period.

And I also don't know why poor people should be looking to the federal government.

The whole flippin' bill is a monstrous purchase of votes by Congresscritters, using taxpayer money to pay for it.

dc_dux · 05-16-2008, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

The whole flippin' bill is a monstrous purchase of votes by Congresscritters, using taxpayer money to pay for it.

How many Congresscritters can you purchase when you are poor and hungry?

edit:
oops, I mistakenly wrote "hungry" and forgot to use the proper Dept of Agr terminology, "experiencing food insecurity."

Well, fuck the Dept of Agr...there are millions of kids in the US who go to bed hungry and that is a national tragedy.

Necrosis · 05-16-2008, 11:25 PM

[QUOTE=dc_dux]How many Congresscritters can you purchase when you are poor and hungry? [QUOTE]

Quite a few. If that were not the case, Democrats would try to end illegal immigration.

Baraka_Guru · 05-17-2008, 06:40 AM

It's not so much about who's going hungry or not; it's about lobby groups and marketing dollars that skew our thoughts on nutrition and food habits. There is an overabundance of food. What's at issue is who's being fed and for what purpose.

There is money in meat and dairy because they are more of a luxury good. Broccoli and oats aren't nearly as sexy. Ask the McDonald's marketing department.

Source: Health vs. Pork: Congress Debates the Farm Bill

aceventura3 · 05-17-2008, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

If you believe in the necessity of a government social safety net, this bill was the only way that was going to happen.

I disagree. If we need a bill to feed needy children, seniors and the disabled why couldn't we pass a bill to do that? I think we could.

However, politicians in Washington seem to have this need to play "smoke and mirror" games. Hence you get a "farm bill" when 2/3's of it is a welfare for the poor and the other third is welfare for rich farmers. You get your favorite non-urban politician saying how everyone benefits from the farm bill by helping the good ol' traditional family farmer. You get your urban politician saying everyone benefits by making sure we feed our starving children. Then you get someone like Pelosi saying everyone wins because it is major reform, when it is not. If that is the way you think the system has to work, we strongly disagree.

I still don't know Obama's take on this, with him being a "reformer" candidate from a farming state with a few major urban areas. It has to be tough for him to support the subsidies to the wealthy farmers and the burden placed on the middle class through taxation and increased costs. If he fails to speak honestly about this, I will be disappointed. However, even if he takes your position, that he supports the bill because of "compromise", I will disagree with him but at least respect his honesty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

It's not so much about who's going hungry or not; it's about lobby groups and marketing dollars that skew our thoughts on nutrition and food habits. There is an overabundance of food. What's at issue is who's being fed and for what purpose.

There is money in meat and dairy because they are more of a luxury good. Broccoli and oats aren't nearly as sexy. Ask the McDonald's marketing department.

Source: Health vs. Pork: Congress Debates the Farm Bill

This is an excellent graphic. Again, I don't get our liberal friends. Why do they take on some causes but not others. For example smoking is a health risk, but so is a diet high in fat and sugar. They seem to want to take the choice of smoking away from people, while they subsidize diets high in fat and sugar. They want to have emission and gas mileage standards so a guy can't own certain exotic sports cars, but they subsidize the wasteful production, pollution, etc. of beef. Why aren't they consistent?

dc_dux · 05-17-2008, 02:49 PM

The only response I have is what I said before:

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

An estimated 10 million people below or near the poverty line, many of whom are children, will get a needed increase in supplemental nutrition assistance (food stamps) benefits or be eligible for the first time.

For the first time, the bill also denies all supports to people with more than $500,000 adjusted gross income, denies "direct" payments to people with more than $750,000 in farm income, and eliminates the "three-entity rule" (the shell game used to establish corporations and other entities, which allowed the amount of payments received to exceed statutory limits).

For me, these are reasons enough to conclude that since passage of a farm bill was inevitable, these positive changes make it acceptable. I dont particularly like making concessions that I otherwise would oppose, but I will IF it is the only way to get what I believe is essential....thats the nature of politics.

ace....there is absolutely nothing to suggest that "if we need a bill to feed needy children, seniors..." that Republicans would support such a free standing bill. They never have supported similar safety net programs in sufficient numbers in the past so why would they now?

Baraka's graph lays it out pretty well in one respect.

The dairy industry and the livestock industry are serious financial contributors...mostly to Republicans. As opposed to supporters of child hunger and/or food nutrition programs (Childrens Defense Fund, Food Research and Action Center, etc), NONE of which make political contributions.

Where I disagree with Baraka's chart/link is the statement....

The Farm Bill... governs what children are fed in schools and what food assistance programs can distribute to recipients.

Parents determine what they buy with food stamps....most use them as wisely as they can, given the quality and selection available in many inner city grocery stores (have you been in one...the quality/selection is appalling). We know that some recipients are not so responsible, but there is no evidence that those are more than a very small minority.

Schools are also making progress in changing their nutrition programs (see Making it Happen: School Nutrition Success Programs), albeit not as quickly or as widespread as it should be. Without adequate funding, these successes are far less likely to continue or be adopted by more schools.

aceventura3 · 05-19-2008, 08:04 AM

DC,

You put yourself in the position of defending the indefensible.

Now you say government policy of artificially keeping the prices of some farm commodities low has no impact on consumption patterns. Just for the record, it does. On top of that poor people are more responsive than the wealthy would be. If "government cheese" is free, poor people will be more inclined to eat "government cheese". If "government oranges" were free, poor people will be more inclined to eat "government oranges".

If after researching it, you admit the Farm bill is bad for American's no one will think less of you. I think the real problem is that people don't give this issue much or any thought, including our leaders in Washington.

dc_dux · 05-19-2008, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

DC,

You put yourself in the position of defending the indefensible.

Now you say government policy of artificially keeping the prices of some farm commodities low has no impact on consumption patterns. Just for the record, it does. On top of that poor people are more responsive than the wealthy would be. If "government cheese" is free, poor people will be more inclined to eat "government cheese". If "government oranges" were free, poor people will be more inclined to eat "government oranges".

If after researching it, you admit the Farm bill is bad for American's no one will think less of you. I think the real problem is that people don't give this issue much or any thought, including our leaders in Washington.

ace. I am quite comfortable with my defense of accepting the bill as the best possible means of providing a critcally necessary increase in funding for food stamps and related nutrition programs in order to provide aid to more than 10 million Americans in need.

The additional changes in the bill of signficantly decreasing the $$ amount provided to wealthy farmers in the form of support subsidies, along with new limits and restrictions on recipients of those subsidies, make it even more acceptable.

As I noted...this was the only way to get an increase in essential programs to suport more than 10 million urban and rural poor and working class Americans.

You suggested a free standing bill would be better but there is no evidence or past record that Republicans would support such a bill.

The Republicans did not support a free standing bill to raise the minimum wage. It had to be added to an emegency supplement bill in order to be enacted.

They did not support a veto-proof extension of the State Childrens Health Program at any increased level of funding, beyond inflationary adjustments, which resulted in fewer children of working class families served.

They opposed a free-standing bill to extend the Family Medical Leave Act to enable workers to provide longer term caring for a wounded vet returning from Iraq.

They have stalled in committee a free standing bill to provide emergency unemployment compensation in states with chronically high and long-term unemployment...

So...I am comfortable with my defense of the only bill that would have increased food stamps and nutrition programs this year.

It would not have been my first choice to achieve that goal...but there are times when the political reality requires that compromises and accommodations be made to achieve the same goal.

But thanks for your concern with my reputation.

One final thought....

For someone who puts himself in the position of "defending the indefensible" invasion and occupation of Iraq...at a cost of over $1/2 TRILLION (to date), 4,000+ American casualties, 25,000+ American wounded, nearly 100,000 Iraqi dead, more than 4 millions Iraqis displaced from their homes and NO END IN SIGHT....I find it it is just a tad arrogant and condescencing to question what others believe is defensible.

I would prefer to suggest that we have honestly held policy differences.

aceventura3 · 05-19-2008, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace. I am quite comfortable with my defense of accepting the bill as the best possible means of providing a critcally necessary increase in funding for food stamps and related nutrition programs in order to provide aid to more than 10 million Americans in need.

"Best possible means of providing critically...", suggests that compromising for the benefit of wealthy farmers is the only possible approach available. We know that is not true. I simply suggest if people acted in a manner consistent with their stated principles and less concerned about political power we could accomplish the goal of having a safety net for those in need. Your premise that Republican would never support this or that is speculative at best. Not willing to do the work to get a bill that benefits American's is taking the easy way out. I expect more from our leadership in Washington.

Quote:

As I noted...this was the only way to get an increase in essential programs to suport more than 10 million urban and rural poor and working class Americans.

Why do you ignore the costs? Their are the obvious hard dollar costs in the form of taxes paid by the middle class and those not benefiting from the bill. There are the increased costs associated with idling land that would otherwise be put into production. The are the costs of allocating limited resource to inefficient means of food production from more efficient means of food production. There are the costs associated with high fat/high sugar diets being subsidized. There are the environmental costs of subsidizing beef production. There are costs associated with restrictions on free trade. You don't know what the net cost is, most people in Washington who support the bill don't know what the net cost is. Worse, it appears that there is no concern over what the net cost is.

Quote:

You suggested a free standing bill would be better but there is no evidence or past record that Republicans would support such a bill.

The Republicans did not support a free standing bill to raise the minimum wage. It had to be added to an emegency supplement bill in order to be enacted.

This is not a partisan issue to me. I simple do not support this bill. I did not support it in 2002 and I have never supported a "farm subsidy" bill.

Quote:

They did not support a veto-proof extension of the State Childrens Health Program at any increased level of funding, beyond inflationary adjustments, which resulted in fewer children of working class families served.

If you want to discuss that issue, there is a thread on that topic. Using the lack of Republican support of the SCIP bill as a reason to conclude that Republican's won't support a bill for needy children, elderly and disabled is a fallacious use of logic.

Quote:

They opposed a free-standing bill to extend the Family Medical Leave Act to enable workers to provide longer term caring for a wounded vet returning from Iraq.

Ditto, see above.

Quote:

They have stalled in committee a free standing bill to provide emergency unemployment compensation in states with chronically high and long-term unemployment...

Quote:

So...I am comfortable with my defense of the only bill that would have increased food stamps and nutrition programs this year.

Ditto, see above.

Quote:

It would not have been my first choice to achieve that goal...but there are times when the political reality requires that compromises and accommodations be made to achieve the same goal.

But thanks for your concern with my reputation.

I think Obama's words suggest that Washington is broken, I agree with him and think the Farm Bill is an example of what is broken. You seem to support Obama, are his words empty, is he cut from the same cloth as everyone else?

Quote:

One final thought....

For someone who puts himself in the position of "defending the indefensible" invasion and occupation of Iraq...at a cost of over $1/2 TRILLION (to date), 4,000+ American casualties, 25,000+ American wounded, nearly 100,000 Iraqi dead, more than 4 millions Iraqis displaced from their homes and NO END IN SIGHT....I find it it is just a tad arrogant and condescencing to question what others believe is defensible.

I would prefer to suggest that we have honestly held policy differences.

I did support the Iraq war and initially I supported the occupation. I changed my veiw on the occupation some time ago and even stated in one of the many threads on the subject. My view is that we (America) do not have have the will to see this war to its conclusion at this time, especially while Bush is President. I also believe we will either conclude the war with victory or we will have to fight an ongoing war and ultimately pay a much higher price and we will end up back in ME. Our current war policy his half-assed. We either need to be in it 100% or out of it 100%. We are wasting money and resources at this time. I defended the war which was very defensible, but I do not currently support the occupation given our nation being unwilling to fully support our commander in chief.

And, yes - I am arrogant. I generally won't defend the indefensible. It is insightful that you picked up on my arrogance. Or, perhaps not, in most cases it takes people about 30 seconds of interaction time to come to that conclusion. I have been working on humility, I thought I was failing, but how could that be possible. It is not, and it has taken you, what at least a year... Thanks for the compliment.

dc_dux · 05-19-2008, 11:50 AM

ace.....what is deemed defensible is a matter of political perspective.

You think drilling in ANWR is defensible...I dont
You think permanent tax cuts for the top 2% of wage earners is defensible...I dont.
You think invading Iraq was defensible...I dont
I could probably name numerous other issues

And we can each offer our sources to support our position..but I am not going to play that game with you here...so there is no point.

As to Obama, neither one of us was privy to his decision making process. It could be he voted for the farm bill for the same reasons I support it..because it was the only way to get needed funding for critical programs for the poor and working class... or it could be because he is like others in Washington who cave to the well-financed lobbyists.

Finally, ace....dont kid yourself. I have commented on your arrogance and your extreme "pit bull" responses on numerous occasions...most recently when you "relapsed" (your own assessment, if I recall) and completely lost control, challenging me and Tully (if I recall) to name any three presidents so that you could PROVE they were as guilty of violating the Constitution and the oath of office as Bush. I think we both suggested you chill out.

But I am pleased, for your sake, that you are still working on it!

aceventura3 · 05-19-2008, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace.....what is deemed defensible is a matter of political perspective.

Nope. People can disagree on an issue while there are defensible arguments on both sides of the question. On the other hand there can be points of view on an issue that can not be defended with logic and reason. There are a few basic rules of logic. Your position that the Farm bill is the only way...is basically wrong before you complete the sentence. I think you know it is wrong, but your try to defend it anyway. I may be arrogant, but I do have the ability to admit when I am wrong -do you? I know I make it difficult for people to concede openly, we could just leave it unspoken. But as you know when I "smell blood"...well you know.

dc_dux · 05-19-2008, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Your position that the Farm bill is the only way...is basically wrong before you complete the sentence. I think you know it is wrong, but your try to defend it anyway.

ace...I said it was a bad bill, but the best possible under the circumstances, with cuts in crop subsidies and new eligibility restrictions on the wealthiest recipients of those subsidies.

If you can point to any evidence that would suggest that Republicans would support a free-standing bill for food stamps and nutrition programs at a sufficient funding level and in sufficient numbers to prevent a minority of Republicans from blocking it in the Senate...then I will concede that there was a better way to get this critical funding before the current bill expires.

Past voting patterns on related children and family programs or social safety net programs do not support your supposition...ratings of voting records of Republicans by children/family advocacy organizations do not support your supposition...comments by some Republicans during the farm bill debate do not support your supposition ...and simple vote counting doesnt support your supposition.

ace...show me anything to back up your claim that Republicans would vote for a free-standing bill. (I know of one issue where Republicans came around on a good, somewhat related bill...but then Bush fucked it up with a signing statement that messed with the intent of Congress...but I wont tell you what it is...do your own homework before making such a claim! )

hell...if you can identify that one bill, I will concede ... even with all the other circumstantial evidence I cited against your position.

aceventura3 · 05-19-2008, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

If you can point to any evidence that would suggest that Republicans would support a free-standing bill for food stamps and nutrition programs at a sufficient funding level and in sufficient numbers to prevent a minority of Republicans from blocking it in the Senate...then I will concede that there was a better way to get this critical funding before the current bill expires.

I am a registered Republican and I would support free standing legislation that would ensure children, elderly and disabled Americans have access to food, health care and shelter.

dc_dux · 05-19-2008, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I am a registered Republican and I would support free standing legislation that would ensure children, elderly and disabled Americans have access to food, health care and shelter.

ace....I applaud your support...but the last time I checked, you were not a Republican member of Congress.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

But as you know when I "smell blood"...well you know.

I would suggest again that we have honestly held policy differences...and leave at that....unless you find the "scent of blood" too overpowering.

aceventura3 · 05-20-2008, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace....I applaud your support...but the last time I checked, you were not a Republican member of Congress.

I would "leave it at that", but your comment here illustrates a problem. I am a registered Republican and I stated that I would be willing to support a stand alone bill to help needy people without subsidies to the rich. You seem to think that Republicans in Congress would not support such a bill. In order for your belief to be correct you have to assume that there are not enough Republicans like me to accomplish that. You don't know if that is true, but you assume it is based on the evidence of Republicans not supporting bad legislation. I would suggest people in Washington at least attempt to pass uncompromised legislation based on their principles and values, I am betting if they do - the American people would be better served.

Also, are you involved in some illegal CIA internet monitoring activity? How do you know that I am not a Republican member of Congress? Who did you check with? Should I be concerned? Should I be expecting a visit from some friends of Nancy Pelosi? Am I going to get audited by the IRS after Obama or Clinton moves into the White House?

05-14-2008, 03:38 PM	#2 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	I have expressed opposition to the so-called "farm bill" (it should more properly be called the "millionaires agri-business" welfare bill) every time it comes up for reauthorization in anything resembling the current form. (The last time as 2002). It is the largest "corporate welfare" program in the country. Even with the new income restrictions that the Dems forced into this year's bill, the bulk of the subsidies still go to agri-business and "hobby" farmers (like Ted Turner and David Rockefeller)...just marginally less than previous recent farm bills. But it has always been as much a regional issue as it is a partisan issue. So, if it will pass with a veto-proof majority, I applaud Pelosi for at least forcing the inclusion of new income restrictions (as weak as they are) and more funding for urban working poor in the form of Dept of Agr. food stamp and child nutrition program increases. So yeah, I support the veto. We can find other means of upping the support programs for those who really need it....small family farmers and urban and rural poor. added: ace...where was the Bush veto of the $200+ billion farm bill in 2002, when there was a Republican majority in Congress? President Signs Farm Bill IMO, that one should have been vetoed as well. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 05-15-2008 at 03:48 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

05-15-2008, 12:01 PM	#8 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	ace...we are obviously looking at different numbers and I honestly dont know which set is correct, but I am not inclined to accept the IBD or WSJ analysis, knowing their bias, and the National Ag Law Center has different base numbers than I have seen elsewhere....partly because their 2007 numbers are based on an early draft and not the final bill. My understanding of the 2002 farm bill was the total funding was $195b, with about $35b of that for nutrition/food stamps and about $100b for crop subsidies and the rest for "other". In any case, under both sets of numbers, funding for nutrition and food stamps is up and funding for crop subsidies is down....and for the crop subsidies portion, there is a new income cap. IMO, its an acceptable trade off and probably the only way Dems would ever get the votes to avoid a veto of increased funding for food stamps, child nutrition and related programs. But then again, I really havent payed much attention to farm policy and dont claim any expertise...and I dont have the time right now to do an extensive search. If I am way off base, I might flip flop again and support a veto, but I need reliable sources __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 05-15-2008 at 12:07 PM..

05-17-2008, 06:40 AM	#19 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	It's not so much about who's going hungry or not; it's about lobby groups and marketing dollars that skew our thoughts on nutrition and food habits. There is an overabundance of food. What's at issue is who's being fed and for what purpose. There is money in meat and dairy because they are more of a luxury good. Broccoli and oats aren't nearly as sexy. Ask the McDonald's marketing department. Source: Health vs. Pork: Congress Debates the Farm Bill __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

05-19-2008, 08:04 AM	#22 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	DC, You put yourself in the position of defending the indefensible. Now you say government policy of artificially keeping the prices of some farm commodities low has no impact on consumption patterns. Just for the record, it does. On top of that poor people are more responsive than the wealthy would be. If "government cheese" is free, poor people will be more inclined to eat "government cheese". If "government oranges" were free, poor people will be more inclined to eat "government oranges". If after researching it, you admit the Farm bill is bad for American's no one will think less of you. I think the real problem is that people don't give this issue much or any thought, including our leaders in Washington. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

05-19-2008, 11:50 AM	#25 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	ace.....what is deemed defensible is a matter of political perspective. You think drilling in ANWR is defensible...I dont You think permanent tax cuts for the top 2% of wage earners is defensible...I dont. You think invading Iraq was defensible...I dont I could probably name numerous other issues And we can each offer our sources to support our position..but I am not going to play that game with you here...so there is no point. As to Obama, neither one of us was privy to his decision making process. It could be he voted for the farm bill for the same reasons I support it..because it was the only way to get needed funding for critical programs for the poor and working class... or it could be because he is like others in Washington who cave to the well-financed lobbyists. Finally, ace....dont kid yourself. I have commented on your arrogance and your extreme "pit bull" responses on numerous occasions...most recently when you "relapsed" (your own assessment, if I recall) and completely lost control, challenging me and Tully (if I recall) to name any three presidents so that you could PROVE they were as guilty of violating the Constitution and the oath of office as Bush. I think we both suggested you chill out. But I am pleased, for your sake, that you are still working on it! __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 05-19-2008 at 12:07 PM..

05-16-2008, 07:14 AM	#12 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	dc, I don't get how you can say it's a good idea to give money away to big businesses jsut because the same bill also gives money to causes you like. That logic, roughly speaking, is exactly what you rejected with the Bush tax cuts. The difference is that this involves government directly transferring money rather than just leaving it in the economy.

05-16-2008, 02:01 PM	#16 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	I don't know why rich farmers need tax money at all, period. And I also don't know why poor people should be looking to the federal government. The whole flippin' bill is a monstrous purchase of votes by Congresscritters, using taxpayer money to pay for it.

05-16-2008, 11:25 PM	#18 (permalink)
Necrosis Tilted	[QUOTE=dc_dux]How many Congresscritters can you purchase when you are poor and hungry? [QUOTE] Quite a few. If that were not the case, Democrats would try to end illegal immigration.