NEWS: Bush to Red States: Thanks, Suckers!

Well, in theory all of it helps the whole country. Social security for seniors in Baton Rouge helps the whole country, e.g.

True. But most of the farms in California make stuff that people actually want to eat. Same is true for farms in Florida. The farms that make crap that no one wants are in those square red states, for the most part.

those square red states and the few blue ones also in the midwest grow most of this country's wheat, corn, potatoes, oats, barley, rice & beans. Plus way more of this country's produce than the sunny states seem to realize. But you are right nobody wants to eat that stuff.

[Edited on Feb 09, 2005 by thejuanupsman]

Well, I meant more that I want to eat some of it. But I don't want to eat 100x what I am eating right now. I can't afford new pants.

The french subsidize their farmers far more than we ever have. That is why their prices are so high. That being said they have the sense to limit most of their subsidies to small farms. not BIg Ag.

Subsidies don't help small farmers. They hurt small farmers by propping up Big Ag which is where most of the subsidies go. My family would still be farming if it weren't for subsidies.

touche. Overproduction is a problem. Ending subsidies to corp. farms should help with that. Overall I think slashing subsidies is a good thing, but, would like to see some encouragement/incentive for small farmers to keep going. Alternatively we could stop Big Ag from farming in unsafe ways and we wouldn't have to worry about small farms competing. Big Ag can't make it without unsafe practices & subsidies. Small farmers can if we eliminate those roadblocks to them competing.

You say that as if the particular brand of subsidies in america are the only kind of subsidies possible.
Income supports rather than price supports would solve all of the problems at once.

Well, perhaps farmers can make ends meet by ratting on the neighbours who save seed on crops grown from Monsanto seeds (which is in violation of the Monsanta 'license')......

It doesn't solve the problem of not incentivizing people to take part in economically inefficient activities, does it?

Instead of paying people to do something that isn't economically rational, why not use the resources to provide temporary support and training so that those people can do something, you know, productive?

I'm just saying.

In the long term it is economically efficient and prudent to secure domestic food supplies. It is also prudant to protect rural economies and societies which are dependent on locally owned and operated farming enterprises.
And if subsidies could be used to encourage high quality farm produce rather than high quantity farm production then there will be many positive externalities attached.

I don't know that it is economically efficient to secure domestic food supplies when it is possible to get certain food staples abroad for import. Certain types of products are inefficient to import, such as highly perishable foodstuffs. But the market will sort that out...

As for "prudent" -- do you mean this in a foreign policy sense? As in, it's imprudent to be dependent on foreign grain? I don't see it because these commodities are not monopolized in any particular region or country. If Thailand doesn't want to sell rice to the US or Ireland, I'm sure there are any number of producers that would be willing and happy to meet the demand instead.

Why is it prudent to allow outmoded rural economies and societies to exist artificially outside of global market conditions by providing them with subsidies? There is nothing inherently bad in allowing such economies and societies to perish, so long as there is a real effort to provide the individuals in those economies and societies with the resources to transition into productive economies and societies that create actual, honest to goodness value. Why reify rural economies and societies?

it is prudent to not take risks with extremely valuable resources.

Transport costs might not always remain as low as they are now (especially with the looming oil crisis),
The Doller's value could drop significantly making imports much more expensive,
There could be an unstable international security situation, there could be diseases or blights that necessitate import restrictions from entire regions,
the effects of climate change could reduce global food production thereby driving up international food prices and reducing the propensity to trade. (the reason it is deemed uneconomical to to roduce locally is because global food prices are low at the moment)

if small farmers are shut down then traditional knowledge and skills will be lost, also, the land will be bought up for cheap by corporations or Wealthy individuals who have little or no regard for the welfare of the land or the local communities.

I was with you up until the second paragraph. I don't know that those things are convinging arguments though given the opportunity costs of keeping labor and land out of productive use and the infrastructural costs in keeping these "traditional" sectors connected to the rest of the economy, on top of the cost of subsidies themselves.

As for the evil corporations and wealthy individuals ... this is just an absurd generalization. One of the greatest conservationists in the US right now is Ted Turner who owns immense tracts of land in the midwest and around the country. The local communities may perish, but as I said there is nothing inherently wrong with communities perishing as long as the blow is softened by help in joining new communities. Measured transition is a good thing.

No, I say that as if those are the types of subsidies we have. Income supports have been tried here. They never last. It alwys ends up being replaced by something that helps Big Ag. Something that might solve the problems isn't feasible if you know the political climate here won't accept it.

yes your right that it is a "wait and see" sittuation with the current switch of money.

I mentioned the three cities I did in order to show you that I am aware of Houston's lay out, and it's suburbs. I go there once a year to visit my parents.

While I understand your points I can not agree with you that the possibility that the money MAY be better spent should override the fact that with good guidance the local law enforcement COULD make it better spent. This is based primarily off of the theory that the less paper pushing you have to do, the more effective you'll be. My worry comes from the switch from local, to federal law enforcement in these major metro areas.

If you need an illustration of why I am reluctant to trust it, look at Sept 11th, and the insane battle that happened between the federal offices about "who was to blame". Just because HLS is one organization doesn't mean it wont suffer the same problems.

I'm gonna start calling everytime a person doesn't respond to my re-buttle a victory from now on.

just thought I would stick that out there.

it shows an inability to do more than an the first "attack" if you can't follow up your arguement once responded to. Thus

Victory

As I said they had gotten money from many different Fed programs each with it's own grant process and oversight. If several of these programs are stopped and one program is put in place, I fail to see how you can automatically say it will cost more. Objectively I am not sure that it won’t cost more or that there will not be less money for cops. I am sure that you’re not looking at it objectively and that your numbers are skewed to support your beliefs. By the way I didn't respond earlier because I had to work.