NEWS: Bush to Red States: Thanks, Suckers!

POLITICS: Bush to Red States: Thanks, Suckers!

President Bush is set to unveil proposals to cut farm and commodity subsidies, reports the New York Times.

I must say, it warms the cockles of my heart to see Bush stick it to the poor slobs who voted against their interests for him. On top of this, farm subsidies are a complete waste of taxpayer funds -- part of the giant sucking sound from the cities into the hinterland. Plus, this is the first drop in the bucket towards closing the budget deficit. I bet you didn't see that one coming, Red States! Pow, right in the kisser!

bumpski

It's the same conclusion I drew until I read that part of the article. I sort of don't know what to make of this. Mixed emotions.

More derring-do from Dubya. Farm subsidies are one of the most pernicious forms of corporate welfare that there is, and one of the most politically suicidal to take on. Not to mention, they're an impediment to free trade and an economic hurdle for third-world economies. If Democrats actually cared about cutting the deficit (which they love attacking the president on), they would support him on this.

Of course, they won't. They'll see it as an opportunity to make political hay (har har) in rural areas. They'll attack the president, putting their party interests ahead of the national interest, as usual.





[Edited on Feb 07, 2005 by stockula]

This is going to be hugely unpopular where I live. It'll be fun to watch my Senators, both strong supporters of Bush, try to defend this decision. Especially since Sen. McConnell has been good to local farmers. You can say goodbye to the local farmer though.

[Edited on Feb 07, 2005 by skinwalker]

Wow.

They aren't a total waste, it is somewhat important that this country doesn't completely rely on foreign food to feed itself.

Of course it's the piece of shit corporation farms that take the lion's share of the money, so eh...

He cut lots of other things that are dangerous to touch, such as national parks funding, and education (gasp!). Also HUD (this should please republicans). I forget what else. I only heard about it on the radio, and my rage built to the point where I fled my car. Oh, I think medicaid. And VA medical benefits. Which is aweosme. Fuck the veterans, what did they ever do for us? (please note the sarcasm. please? I like veterans. They're like 18 shades of nifty).

I can't say I'm upset to see corporate farm subsudues under the axe.

Hoew Bush has the gall to leave funding for the war out of the budget is beyond me, though - and his assumptions about cutting the defecit are laughable fiction that nobody will fall for, even the blindest of GOP yes-men.

Id love to see the info you got this from.

I'm not going to source s5's info, but I will say Bush's budget makes one thing clear; tax cuts for rich people are more important than healthcare for veterans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/07/politics/07budget.html

Voters don't care about economic issues. The election proved they care more about stopping people from having butt sex.

The farmers just got kicked right in the baby maker

yea he is just kind of shitting on his base at the moment.

I also read he is giving the finger to the gay marriage amendment thing. that he made a statement saying it was up to the states?

so he's fucking:

students (education)
poor people (medicade)
Veterans (cuts to VA benifits)
Did I say Veterans?????? (He's CUTTING VA HEALTH CARE)
Local Law enforcement (cutting federal money by 2.8 billion to cops)
Farmers (see above)
Christian Nut Jobs who can't wait for Jesus to melt all them "faggots" with his laser vision. (not supporting Gay Marriage Federal Ban)



Can anyone say Orwellian Yet?

It's called Double Speak. He says one thing does another. The greatest liar, thief, bigot, and tyrant in the history of the United States of America's Executive Branch!

[Edited on Feb 08, 2005 by heresy200]

that had been the word until the sotu speech, where he did mention a constitutional amendment, as far as i remember.

SUCKER! hee hee

Agreed. Even if this doesn't make much of a dent in the deficit, I'm glad to see it happen. The problem is when people honestly believe that most farms in the US are small family farms that are only being kept in business by subsidies (not that the government should be in the business of propping up a failed business model anyway), when the reality of massive corporate farms taking huge handouts is quite a bit different.

Silly red states.

So is this a good thing or a bad? Aren't alot of the cuts items that he increased speending for? I understand that even with his new plan VA medical care is up 40% from Clinton. Everyone should of known that the local law enforcement money whould go down, but how much is repaced by Homeland Security money? (which gives a lot to my local departments) Is it too much or not enough?

ADDED
Found this link to Bushes budget. I also saw 3.6 billion in additional money going to first responders ( fire, police) so I'm wondering how that works out.

[Edited on Feb 08, 2005 by bones_708]

subsidising farming is not necessarily a bad thing. (Income supports would be much more useful than price supports). Small farmers should be supported all around the world, the benefits far far outweigh the costs.
Also if subsidies are allowed, there could be better management of resources, farmers could be encouraged to adopt more environmentally friendly practices and to grow more socially beneficial crops by tying certain practises to the level of subsidy they recieve (organic farming for example)

Once again, Of course this will never happen.