President Trump nixes federal workers pay raises,leftists lose their minds

[candycorn]

The point being that we've always subsidized farmers (including your hero) so don't act like this is something Trump invented. If you look at the link, you will see under DumBama, we subsidized farmers more that 12 billion for 2016.

And the extra $12B?

We will likely save more than that by cutting food stamps. Plus for the next ten years, we will be spending 90 billion dollars less than projected:

Congressional Budget Office Updates Farm Bill Math

Food stamps? Shouldn’t the food be free since Trump has paid them already?

Do I have to sit here and explain everything to you?

No…but do explain this.

We can’t afford a pay raise for government employees but we can afford to give $12B to farmers who already got a subsidy.

How can you be for the latter but not for the former under the guise that “we can’t afford it”?

Won’t you just admit that you’re fine with Trump doing it because farmers voted for him and you’re against the pay raise because government employees are not as dependable a voting faction for your blob?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

EWG's Farm Subsidy Database

EWG's Farm Subsidy Database

The point being that we've always subsidized farmers (including your hero) so don't act like this is something Trump invented. If you look at the link, you will see under DumBama, we subsidized farmers more that 12 billion for 2016.

I completely oppose all farm subsidies. But leftists complaining about handouts, you just can't take them seriously. They are losers and liars. That's all they have

No, they are fine with handouts as long as they are the ones giving them. Notice how in the last 10 years, they are only concerned what they got under Trump and not DumBama?

And while I agree with you about subsidies, without them, that would send a signal to commodities investors and long contracts would be flying off the shelves meaning the price of food products would skyrocket. Then we would have to listen to how Republicans are trying to starve poor people because they can't afford to eat.

You seem to be fine with handouts too as long as a republican voting block is the one who gets them.

Didn't I just write a few posts ago that I'm not crazy about handouts? Read all the posts before you reply.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We can’t afford a pay raise for government employees but we can afford to give $12B to farmers who already got a subsidy.

How can you be for the latter but not for the former under the guise that “we can’t afford it”?

As I explained, subsidies help the American consumer. Giving pay raises doesn't. Nobody is starving working for the federal government. Nobody is living check to check. They are doing fine, and many in the private sector have not seen raises in several years yet alone just one.

 

[kaz]

So? We still gave $12B to people not doing anything more than they were doing before they got the $12B of Trump socialism. If we have the money to spend to give away $12B...we have money to spend on other things that are not a Trump voting block. Can we now deduct from your "answer" that the price of food will go down as a result of this socialist gift?

EWG's Farm Subsidy Database

EWG's Farm Subsidy Database

The point being that we've always subsidized farmers (including your hero) so don't act like this is something Trump invented. If you look at the link, you will see under DumBama, we subsidized farmers more that 12 billion for 2016.

I completely oppose all farm subsidies. But leftists complaining about handouts, you just can't take them seriously. They are losers and liars. That's all they have

No, they are fine with handouts as long as they are the ones giving them. Notice how in the last 10 years, they are only concerned what they got under Trump and not DumBama?

And while I agree with you about subsidies, without them, that would send a signal to commodities investors and long contracts would be flying off the shelves meaning the price of food products would skyrocket. Then we would have to listen to how Republicans are trying to starve poor people because they can't afford to eat.

I'm not sure why you started with "no," I agree with what you said.

I still want to end farm subsidies. It's ridiculous that we pay farmers subsidies to grow the crops they want to grow instead of the ones that the market wants and needs. I doubt once it was all shaken out that food prices would even go up and we'd cut out all that Federal spending. That we can't economically grow food in this country is preposterous. It's just yet another welfare program

 

[candycorn]

The point being that we've always subsidized farmers (including your hero) so don't act like this is something Trump invented. If you look at the link, you will see under DumBama, we subsidized farmers more that 12 billion for 2016.

I completely oppose all farm subsidies. But leftists complaining about handouts, you just can't take them seriously. They are losers and liars. That's all they have

No, they are fine with handouts as long as they are the ones giving them. Notice how in the last 10 years, they are only concerned what they got under Trump and not DumBama?

And while I agree with you about subsidies, without them, that would send a signal to commodities investors and long contracts would be flying off the shelves meaning the price of food products would skyrocket. Then we would have to listen to how Republicans are trying to starve poor people because they can't afford to eat.

You seem to be fine with handouts too as long as a republican voting block is the one who gets them.

Didn't I just write a few posts ago that I'm not crazy about handouts? Read all the posts before you reply.

Oh…why are you here then?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

EWG's Farm Subsidy Database

EWG's Farm Subsidy Database

The point being that we've always subsidized farmers (including your hero) so don't act like this is something Trump invented. If you look at the link, you will see under DumBama, we subsidized farmers more that 12 billion for 2016.

We also subsidized farmers more that 12 billion for 2018, the 12 billion is in addition to the normal subsidized amounts.


So, about this comment you made in this thread...

The raises this year alone would be three times that amount....

There are around 2.1 million non-military Fed employees. If their raises this year would be 3 times 12 billion, that would be 36 billion.

That would make the average raise for each Fed employee $17,000, and at 2% of their salary that would make the average Fed salary roughly $857.000 a year. That is bullshit, so your "3 times as much" number is bullshit.

Well there are all kinds of estimates out there, but the most centered one is at least 25 billion which is more than twice that amount given to farmers.

Ok, lets look at that number then.

There are around 2.1 million non-military Fed employees. If the total raises was 25 billion dollars, as you claim, then each person would be getting a raise on average of $11,900. And since the raises were 2%, that would make the average Fed salary $595,000 a year.

Is it your belief that the average Fed employee makes $595,000 a year?

Would you like me to Google the math since you don't know how?

 

[candycorn]

We can’t afford a pay raise for government employees but we can afford to give $12B to farmers who already got a subsidy.

How can you be for the latter but not for the former under the guise that “we can’t afford it”?

As I explained, subsidies help the American consumer. Giving pay raises doesn't. Nobody is starving working for the federal government. Nobody is living check to check. They are doing fine, and many in the private sector have not seen raises in several years yet alone just one.

Are farmers starving? No.

Shouldn’t we subsidize people who actually are starving?

Let me guess…the metric you use will now change to something else. “Well, they are starving because….”

 

[kaz]

EWG's Farm Subsidy Database

EWG's Farm Subsidy Database

The point being that we've always subsidized farmers (including your hero) so don't act like this is something Trump invented. If you look at the link, you will see under DumBama, we subsidized farmers more that 12 billion for 2016.

I completely oppose all farm subsidies. But leftists complaining about handouts, you just can't take them seriously. They are losers and liars. That's all they have

No, they are fine with handouts as long as they are the ones giving them. Notice how in the last 10 years, they are only concerned what they got under Trump and not DumBama?

And while I agree with you about subsidies, without them, that would send a signal to commodities investors and long contracts would be flying off the shelves meaning the price of food products would skyrocket. Then we would have to listen to how Republicans are trying to starve poor people because they can't afford to eat.

You seem to be fine with handouts too as long as a republican voting block is the one who gets them.

You're obviously not reading the discussion. You just made that up because it's what you want us to think.

The joke is that you claim to be against subsidies/welfare

 

[Doc1]

The point being that we've always subsidized farmers (including your hero) so don't act like this is something Trump invented. If you look at the link, you will see under DumBama, we subsidized farmers more that 12 billion for 2016.

And the extra $12B?

We will likely save more than that by cutting food stamps. Plus for the next ten years, we will be spending 90 billion dollars less than projected:

Congressional Budget Office Updates Farm Bill Math

Food stamps? Shouldn’t the food be free since Trump has paid them already?

Do I have to sit here and explain everything to you?

No…but do explain this.

We can’t afford a pay raise for government employees but we can afford to give $12B to farmers who already got a subsidy.

How can you be for the latter but not for the former under the guise that “we can’t afford it”?

Won’t you just admit that you’re fine with Trump doing it because farmers voted for him and you’re against the pay raise because government employees are not as dependable a voting faction for your blob?

They make enough.

In 2014, the average federal employee salary was $84,153, approximately 50% more than the average private sector worker earned. This discrepancy increases to 78% when benefits are included. The average federal worker costs the government (aka taxpayers) $119,934.Dec 21, 2015
Federal Employees Earn 50% More Than The Private Workforce ...

Federal Employees Earn 50% More Than The Private Workforce | HuffPost

 

[kaz]

We can’t afford a pay raise for government employees but we can afford to give $12B to farmers who already got a subsidy.

How can you be for the latter but not for the former under the guise that “we can’t afford it”?

As I explained, subsidies help the American consumer. Giving pay raises doesn't. Nobody is starving working for the federal government. Nobody is living check to check. They are doing fine, and many in the private sector have not seen raises in several years yet alone just one.

Are farmers starving? No.

Shouldn’t we subsidize people who actually are starving?

Let me guess…the metric you use will now change to something else. “Well, they are starving because….”

Yeah, that's your standard. Handouts only for people who are starving. You're such a liar, that isn't your standard. You want welfare for people who get Democrats votes

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The point being that we've always subsidized farmers (including your hero) so don't act like this is something Trump invented. If you look at the link, you will see under DumBama, we subsidized farmers more that 12 billion for 2016.

We also subsidized farmers more that 12 billion for 2018, the 12 billion is in addition to the normal subsidized amounts.


So, about this comment you made in this thread...

The raises this year alone would be three times that amount....

There are around 2.1 million non-military Fed employees. If their raises this year would be 3 times 12 billion, that would be 36 billion.

That would make the average raise for each Fed employee $17,000, and at 2% of their salary that would make the average Fed salary roughly $857.000 a year. That is bullshit, so your "3 times as much" number is bullshit.

Well there are all kinds of estimates out there, but the most centered one is at least 25 billion which is more than twice that amount given to farmers.

Ok, lets look at that number then.

There are around 2.1 million non-military Fed employees. If the total raises was 25 billion dollars, as you claim, then each person would be getting a raise on average of $11,900. And since the raises were 2%, that would make the average Fed salary $595,000 a year.

Is it your belief that the average Fed employee makes $595,000 a year?

Would you like me to Google the math since you don't know how?

I did the math, the math is 100% correct.

Do not try and weasel out of this one like you normally do.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

EWG's Farm Subsidy Database

EWG's Farm Subsidy Database

The point being that we've always subsidized farmers (including your hero) so don't act like this is something Trump invented. If you look at the link, you will see under DumBama, we subsidized farmers more that 12 billion for 2016.

I completely oppose all farm subsidies. But leftists complaining about handouts, you just can't take them seriously. They are losers and liars. That's all they have

No, they are fine with handouts as long as they are the ones giving them. Notice how in the last 10 years, they are only concerned what they got under Trump and not DumBama?

And while I agree with you about subsidies, without them, that would send a signal to commodities investors and long contracts would be flying off the shelves meaning the price of food products would skyrocket. Then we would have to listen to how Republicans are trying to starve poor people because they can't afford to eat.

I'm not sure why you started with "no," I agree with what you said.

I still want to end farm subsidies. It's ridiculous that we pay farmers subsidies to grow the crops they want to grow instead of the ones that the market wants and needs. I doubt once it was all shaken out that food prices would even go up and we'd cut out all that Federal spending. That we can't economically grow food in this country is preposterous. It's just yet another welfare program

When I was trading in the commodities market I mostly invested in grains since they were low priced contracts. Doing research, not all farmers can grow the same kind of crops. Then we started to burn up our food supply to create ethanol which did absolutely zero good when it comes to the environment, but it greatly increased our grocery bill.

Some crops are much harder to grow than others, and it heavily relies on weather. When ethanol hit the market, everybody dropped what they were growing to grow sugar cane. That left us depleted of other grains. The problem with that is what they used to grow was fed to livestock, so the price of pork, beef and chicken took huge hikes in price along with other items made from those grains.

So you are a farmer and after all the bills are paid, you want to make 60K a year. Not too unreasonable. But then you have a bad year and a low harvest. You only make 25K that year. The only way for you to survive is to more than double the price of your goods whatever that may be.

With government subsidies, they reimburse you that other 35K, and thus you don't really need to increase your prices to the consumer. It's safer to plant those harder to grow crops because you won't lose anything.

 

[kaz]

The point being that we've always subsidized farmers (including your hero) so don't act like this is something Trump invented. If you look at the link, you will see under DumBama, we subsidized farmers more that 12 billion for 2016.

I completely oppose all farm subsidies. But leftists complaining about handouts, you just can't take them seriously. They are losers and liars. That's all they have

No, they are fine with handouts as long as they are the ones giving them. Notice how in the last 10 years, they are only concerned what they got under Trump and not DumBama?

And while I agree with you about subsidies, without them, that would send a signal to commodities investors and long contracts would be flying off the shelves meaning the price of food products would skyrocket. Then we would have to listen to how Republicans are trying to starve poor people because they can't afford to eat.

I'm not sure why you started with "no," I agree with what you said.

I still want to end farm subsidies. It's ridiculous that we pay farmers subsidies to grow the crops they want to grow instead of the ones that the market wants and needs. I doubt once it was all shaken out that food prices would even go up and we'd cut out all that Federal spending. That we can't economically grow food in this country is preposterous. It's just yet another welfare program

When I was trading in the commodities market I mostly invested in grains since they were low priced contracts. Doing research, not all farmers can grow the same kind of crops. Then we started to burn up our food supply to create ethanol which did absolutely zero good when it comes to the environment, but it greatly increased our grocery bill.

Some crops are much harder to grow than others, and it heavily relies on weather. When ethanol hit the market, everybody dropped what they were growing to grow sugar cane. That left us depleted of other grains. The problem with that is what they used to grow was fed to livestock, so the price of pork, beef and chicken took huge hikes in price along with other items made from those grains.

So you are a farmer and after all the bills are paid, you want to make 60K a year. Not too unreasonable. But then you have a bad year and a low harvest. You only make 25K that year. The only way for you to survive is to more than double the price of your goods whatever that may be.

With government subsidies, they reimburse you that other 35K, and thus you don't really need to increase your prices to the consumer. It's safer to plant those harder to grow crops because you won't lose anything.

Ethanol is a complete scam, both parties love it. Democrats love pseudo environmental policies. Ethanol doesn't net reduce carbon emissions, but Democrats can talk about greenhouse gases with a fake program that doesn't work, their favorite kind. Republicans love farm subsidies. So we have a program that doesn't work and is expensive, politicians love it.

And bonus, it makes engines burn hotter which wears them out faster. A DC program that delivers nothing to the people except bills. Political dreams for politicians of both parties.

If we stopped subsidizing farmers, how they grow crops now would change. They would adapt and become more efficient. Government never drives down prices in the end. They prop up bad systems keeping them high

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The point being that we've always subsidized farmers (including your hero) so don't act like this is something Trump invented. If you look at the link, you will see under DumBama, we subsidized farmers more that 12 billion for 2016.

I completely oppose all farm subsidies. But leftists complaining about handouts, you just can't take them seriously. They are losers and liars. That's all they have

No, they are fine with handouts as long as they are the ones giving them. Notice how in the last 10 years, they are only concerned what they got under Trump and not DumBama?

And while I agree with you about subsidies, without them, that would send a signal to commodities investors and long contracts would be flying off the shelves meaning the price of food products would skyrocket. Then we would have to listen to how Republicans are trying to starve poor people because they can't afford to eat.

I'm not sure why you started with "no," I agree with what you said.

I still want to end farm subsidies. It's ridiculous that we pay farmers subsidies to grow the crops they want to grow instead of the ones that the market wants and needs. I doubt once it was all shaken out that food prices would even go up and we'd cut out all that Federal spending. That we can't economically grow food in this country is preposterous. It's just yet another welfare program

When I was trading in the commodities market I mostly invested in grains since they were low priced contracts. Doing research, not all farmers can grow the same kind of crops. Then we started to burn up our food supply to create ethanol which did absolutely zero good when it comes to the environment, but it greatly increased our grocery bill.

Some crops are much harder to grow than others, and it heavily relies on weather. When ethanol hit the market, everybody dropped what they were growing to grow sugar cane. That left us depleted of other grains. The problem with that is what they used to grow was fed to livestock, so the price of pork, beef and chicken took huge hikes in price along with other items made from those grains.

So you are a farmer and after all the bills are paid, you want to make 60K a year. Not too unreasonable. But then you have a bad year and a low harvest. You only make 25K that year. The only way for you to survive is to more than double the price of your goods whatever that may be.

With government subsidies, they reimburse you that other 35K, and thus you don't really need to increase your prices to the consumer. It's safer to plant those harder to grow crops because you won't lose anything.

Ethanol is a complete scam, both parties love it. Democrats love pseudo environmental policies. Ethanol doesn't net reduce carbon emissions, but Democrats can talk about greenhouse gases with a fake program that doesn't work, their favorite kind. Republicans love farm subsidies. So we have a program that doesn't work and is expensive, politicians love it.

And bonus, it makes engines burn hotter which wears them out faster. A DC program that delivers nothing to the people except bills. Political dreams for politicians of both parties.

If we stopped subsidizing farmers, how they grow crops now would change. They would adapt and become more efficient. Government never drives down prices in the end. They prop up bad systems keeping them high

Either that or they would't grow anything at all. If you are a farmer hit with two or three bad seasons, you might as well sell the land to somebody that wants to put a mall there or something like that.

Yes, government subsidies and the commodities market do keep prices down for consumers. That's why both parties subsidize the farmers. The commodities market was created specifically to stabilize prices.

Of course farmers are always trying to improve farming for their advantage, but there is no magical cure to droughts or floods. At times it's an insect problem that kills crops. It's simply not predictable.

 

[kaz]

I completely oppose all farm subsidies. But leftists complaining about handouts, you just can't take them seriously. They are losers and liars. That's all they have

No, they are fine with handouts as long as they are the ones giving them. Notice how in the last 10 years, they are only concerned what they got under Trump and not DumBama?

And while I agree with you about subsidies, without them, that would send a signal to commodities investors and long contracts would be flying off the shelves meaning the price of food products would skyrocket. Then we would have to listen to how Republicans are trying to starve poor people because they can't afford to eat.

I'm not sure why you started with "no," I agree with what you said.

I still want to end farm subsidies. It's ridiculous that we pay farmers subsidies to grow the crops they want to grow instead of the ones that the market wants and needs. I doubt once it was all shaken out that food prices would even go up and we'd cut out all that Federal spending. That we can't economically grow food in this country is preposterous. It's just yet another welfare program

When I was trading in the commodities market I mostly invested in grains since they were low priced contracts. Doing research, not all farmers can grow the same kind of crops. Then we started to burn up our food supply to create ethanol which did absolutely zero good when it comes to the environment, but it greatly increased our grocery bill.

Some crops are much harder to grow than others, and it heavily relies on weather. When ethanol hit the market, everybody dropped what they were growing to grow sugar cane. That left us depleted of other grains. The problem with that is what they used to grow was fed to livestock, so the price of pork, beef and chicken took huge hikes in price along with other items made from those grains.

So you are a farmer and after all the bills are paid, you want to make 60K a year. Not too unreasonable. But then you have a bad year and a low harvest. You only make 25K that year. The only way for you to survive is to more than double the price of your goods whatever that may be.

With government subsidies, they reimburse you that other 35K, and thus you don't really need to increase your prices to the consumer. It's safer to plant those harder to grow crops because you won't lose anything.

Ethanol is a complete scam, both parties love it. Democrats love pseudo environmental policies. Ethanol doesn't net reduce carbon emissions, but Democrats can talk about greenhouse gases with a fake program that doesn't work, their favorite kind. Republicans love farm subsidies. So we have a program that doesn't work and is expensive, politicians love it.

And bonus, it makes engines burn hotter which wears them out faster. A DC program that delivers nothing to the people except bills. Political dreams for politicians of both parties.

If we stopped subsidizing farmers, how they grow crops now would change. They would adapt and become more efficient. Government never drives down prices in the end. They prop up bad systems keeping them high

Either that or they would't grow anything at all. If you are a farmer hit with two or three bad seasons, you might as well sell the land to somebody that wants to put a mall there or something like that.

Yes, government subsidies and the commodities market do keep prices down for consumers. That's why both parties subsidize the farmers. The commodities market was created specifically to stabilize prices.

Of course farmers are always trying to improve farming for their advantage, but there is no magical cure to droughts or floods. At times it's an insect problem that kills crops. It's simply not predictable.

A lot of farmers do need to get out of farming. Government never spends money to help people. They do it to buy votes. Both parties do it that way. Their career is farming, they don't want to change professions. When cars came, we had too many blacksmiths. Technology changes the economics.

Farming should be done economically efficiently. Farmers would solve the problems. Some would get bigger, some would go under. That's the way capitalism works.

But congress NEVER drives down prices in the long run. Everything from airlines to telephones proves that deregulating reduces prices dramatically. Phones and planes are both cheaper now than when they were deregulated decades ago

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, they are fine with handouts as long as they are the ones giving them. Notice how in the last 10 years, they are only concerned what they got under Trump and not DumBama?

And while I agree with you about subsidies, without them, that would send a signal to commodities investors and long contracts would be flying off the shelves meaning the price of food products would skyrocket. Then we would have to listen to how Republicans are trying to starve poor people because they can't afford to eat.

I'm not sure why you started with "no," I agree with what you said.

I still want to end farm subsidies. It's ridiculous that we pay farmers subsidies to grow the crops they want to grow instead of the ones that the market wants and needs. I doubt once it was all shaken out that food prices would even go up and we'd cut out all that Federal spending. That we can't economically grow food in this country is preposterous. It's just yet another welfare program

When I was trading in the commodities market I mostly invested in grains since they were low priced contracts. Doing research, not all farmers can grow the same kind of crops. Then we started to burn up our food supply to create ethanol which did absolutely zero good when it comes to the environment, but it greatly increased our grocery bill.

Some crops are much harder to grow than others, and it heavily relies on weather. When ethanol hit the market, everybody dropped what they were growing to grow sugar cane. That left us depleted of other grains. The problem with that is what they used to grow was fed to livestock, so the price of pork, beef and chicken took huge hikes in price along with other items made from those grains.

So you are a farmer and after all the bills are paid, you want to make 60K a year. Not too unreasonable. But then you have a bad year and a low harvest. You only make 25K that year. The only way for you to survive is to more than double the price of your goods whatever that may be.

With government subsidies, they reimburse you that other 35K, and thus you don't really need to increase your prices to the consumer. It's safer to plant those harder to grow crops because you won't lose anything.

Ethanol is a complete scam, both parties love it. Democrats love pseudo environmental policies. Ethanol doesn't net reduce carbon emissions, but Democrats can talk about greenhouse gases with a fake program that doesn't work, their favorite kind. Republicans love farm subsidies. So we have a program that doesn't work and is expensive, politicians love it.

And bonus, it makes engines burn hotter which wears them out faster. A DC program that delivers nothing to the people except bills. Political dreams for politicians of both parties.

If we stopped subsidizing farmers, how they grow crops now would change. They would adapt and become more efficient. Government never drives down prices in the end. They prop up bad systems keeping them high

Either that or they would't grow anything at all. If you are a farmer hit with two or three bad seasons, you might as well sell the land to somebody that wants to put a mall there or something like that.

Yes, government subsidies and the commodities market do keep prices down for consumers. That's why both parties subsidize the farmers. The commodities market was created specifically to stabilize prices.

Of course farmers are always trying to improve farming for their advantage, but there is no magical cure to droughts or floods. At times it's an insect problem that kills crops. It's simply not predictable.

A lot of farmers do need to get out of farming. Government never spends money to help people. They do it to buy votes. Both parties do it that way. Their career is farming, they don't want to change professions. When cars came, we had too many blacksmiths. Technology changes the economics.

Farming should be done economically efficiently. Farmers would solve the problems. Some would get bigger, some would go under. That's the way capitalism works.

But congress NEVER drives down prices in the long run. Everything from airlines to telephones proves that deregulating reduces prices dramatically. Phones and planes are both cheaper now than when they were deregulated decades ago

Consumers can do without telephones, planes, computers, but everybody has to eat. The less food being grown, the higher the price for food.

You are going to pay one way or the other. If your weekly grocery bill is $100.00, imagine if it went to $150.00. Then what do we do about kids in school? If they can no longer buy a lunch for a $1.85, then we have to give them $2.50 everyday. We can't leave out those who receive free lunch, and that would still cost the taxpayers.

Food stamp allotment would have to increase as well. Maybe 70 billion a year to 100 billion a year. Food pantries would go dry as more people will keep their food purchases for themselves instead of donating them to charity.

You see, when it comes to starvation, nobody on either side of the political spectrum is going to let that happen. One way or another, subsides or not, Americans are going to eat.

 

[bodecea]

How many government workers will vote for the GOP in November?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I completely oppose all farm subsidies. But leftists complaining about handouts, you just can't take them seriously. They are losers and liars. That's all they have

No, they are fine with handouts as long as they are the ones giving them. Notice how in the last 10 years, they are only concerned what they got under Trump and not DumBama?

And while I agree with you about subsidies, without them, that would send a signal to commodities investors and long contracts would be flying off the shelves meaning the price of food products would skyrocket. Then we would have to listen to how Republicans are trying to starve poor people because they can't afford to eat.

I'm not sure why you started with "no," I agree with what you said.

I still want to end farm subsidies. It's ridiculous that we pay farmers subsidies to grow the crops they want to grow instead of the ones that the market wants and needs. I doubt once it was all shaken out that food prices would even go up and we'd cut out all that Federal spending. That we can't economically grow food in this country is preposterous. It's just yet another welfare program

When I was trading in the commodities market I mostly invested in grains since they were low priced contracts. Doing research, not all farmers can grow the same kind of crops. Then we started to burn up our food supply to create ethanol which did absolutely zero good when it comes to the environment, but it greatly increased our grocery bill.

Some crops are much harder to grow than others, and it heavily relies on weather. When ethanol hit the market, everybody dropped what they were growing to grow sugar cane. That left us depleted of other grains. The problem with that is what they used to grow was fed to livestock, so the price of pork, beef and chicken took huge hikes in price along with other items made from those grains.

So you are a farmer and after all the bills are paid, you want to make 60K a year. Not too unreasonable. But then you have a bad year and a low harvest. You only make 25K that year. The only way for you to survive is to more than double the price of your goods whatever that may be.

With government subsidies, they reimburse you that other 35K, and thus you don't really need to increase your prices to the consumer. It's safer to plant those harder to grow crops because you won't lose anything.

Ethanol is a complete scam, both parties love it. Democrats love pseudo environmental policies. Ethanol doesn't net reduce carbon emissions, but Democrats can talk about greenhouse gases with a fake program that doesn't work, their favorite kind. Republicans love farm subsidies. So we have a program that doesn't work and is expensive, politicians love it.

And bonus, it makes engines burn hotter which wears them out faster. A DC program that delivers nothing to the people except bills. Political dreams for politicians of both parties.

If we stopped subsidizing farmers, how they grow crops now would change. They would adapt and become more efficient. Government never drives down prices in the end. They prop up bad systems keeping them high

Either that or they would't grow anything at all. If you are a farmer hit with two or three bad seasons, you might as well sell the land to somebody that wants to put a mall there or something like that.

Yes, government subsidies and the commodities market do keep prices down for consumers. That's why both parties subsidize the farmers. The commodities market was created specifically to stabilize prices.

Of course farmers are always trying to improve farming for their advantage, but there is no magical cure to droughts or floods. At times it's an insect problem that kills crops. It's simply not predictable.

This is the main reason for government intervention in the Ag sector, to keep prices steady to avoid economic damage to the whole country.

In 2012 when 2/3 of the nation was in drought conditions, and about 90% of the growing reigns were, the impact on the economy would have been massive if the prices reflected the actual losses by the farmers. There were entire fields left unharvested because they yield was so bad that it would have cost more to harvest than they could have made selling the product.

There have been a lot of lessons learned since then and I think you will find that when the next Census of Ag comes out early next year that the amount of irrigated land has grown immensely, especially in the Midwest and the plains states.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How many government workers will vote for the GOP in November?

About the same as the amount that voted GOP last time.

 

[kaz]

I'm not sure why you started with "no," I agree with what you said.

I still want to end farm subsidies. It's ridiculous that we pay farmers subsidies to grow the crops they want to grow instead of the ones that the market wants and needs. I doubt once it was all shaken out that food prices would even go up and we'd cut out all that Federal spending. That we can't economically grow food in this country is preposterous. It's just yet another welfare program

When I was trading in the commodities market I mostly invested in grains since they were low priced contracts. Doing research, not all farmers can grow the same kind of crops. Then we started to burn up our food supply to create ethanol which did absolutely zero good when it comes to the environment, but it greatly increased our grocery bill.

Some crops are much harder to grow than others, and it heavily relies on weather. When ethanol hit the market, everybody dropped what they were growing to grow sugar cane. That left us depleted of other grains. The problem with that is what they used to grow was fed to livestock, so the price of pork, beef and chicken took huge hikes in price along with other items made from those grains.

So you are a farmer and after all the bills are paid, you want to make 60K a year. Not too unreasonable. But then you have a bad year and a low harvest. You only make 25K that year. The only way for you to survive is to more than double the price of your goods whatever that may be.

With government subsidies, they reimburse you that other 35K, and thus you don't really need to increase your prices to the consumer. It's safer to plant those harder to grow crops because you won't lose anything.

Ethanol is a complete scam, both parties love it. Democrats love pseudo environmental policies. Ethanol doesn't net reduce carbon emissions, but Democrats can talk about greenhouse gases with a fake program that doesn't work, their favorite kind. Republicans love farm subsidies. So we have a program that doesn't work and is expensive, politicians love it.

And bonus, it makes engines burn hotter which wears them out faster. A DC program that delivers nothing to the people except bills. Political dreams for politicians of both parties.

If we stopped subsidizing farmers, how they grow crops now would change. They would adapt and become more efficient. Government never drives down prices in the end. They prop up bad systems keeping them high

Either that or they would't grow anything at all. If you are a farmer hit with two or three bad seasons, you might as well sell the land to somebody that wants to put a mall there or something like that.

Yes, government subsidies and the commodities market do keep prices down for consumers. That's why both parties subsidize the farmers. The commodities market was created specifically to stabilize prices.

Of course farmers are always trying to improve farming for their advantage, but there is no magical cure to droughts or floods. At times it's an insect problem that kills crops. It's simply not predictable.

A lot of farmers do need to get out of farming. Government never spends money to help people. They do it to buy votes. Both parties do it that way. Their career is farming, they don't want to change professions. When cars came, we had too many blacksmiths. Technology changes the economics.

Farming should be done economically efficiently. Farmers would solve the problems. Some would get bigger, some would go under. That's the way capitalism works.

But congress NEVER drives down prices in the long run. Everything from airlines to telephones proves that deregulating reduces prices dramatically. Phones and planes are both cheaper now than when they were deregulated decades ago

Consumers can do without telephones, planes, computers, but everybody has to eat. The less food being grown, the higher the price for food.

You are going to pay one way or the other. If your weekly grocery bill is $100.00, imagine if it went to $150.00. Then what do we do about kids in school? If they can no longer buy a lunch for a $1.85, then we have to give them $2.50 everyday. We can't leave out those who receive free lunch, and that would still cost the taxpayers.

Food stamp allotment would have to increase as well. Maybe 70 billion a year to 100 billion a year. Food pantries would go dry as more people will keep their food purchases for themselves instead of donating them to charity.

You see, when it comes to starvation, nobody on either side of the political spectrum is going to let that happen. One way or another, subsides or not, Americans are going to eat.

I can't process the question that we end our socialist system and institute capitalism in food and prices will go up. Ending socialism has never led to higher prices ever just as instituting it has never led to lower prices ever.

Government pays farmers to not grow crops, they pay them to grow crops they can't sell. They keep too many farmers in business. They prevent optimization and realizing economies of scale.

Like all welfare whores, farmers gear their business plans to suckle government titties, not to serve markets.

And you ask so what if we end that and prices skyrocket? Why would that possibly happen?