Farm Bailout Now Twice As Expensive As Auto Bailout

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2012
24,909
23,807
Baltimore
✟549,105.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

At $28 billion so far, the farm rescue is more than twice as expensive as the 2009 bailout of Detroit’s Big Three automakers, which cost taxpayers $12 billion. And farmers expect the money to keep flowing: In an August survey by Purdue University and the CME Group, 58% said they anticipate another round of trade aid next year.
 

LostMarbels

All-Lives-Matter
Jun 18, 2011
11,954
3,864
48
Orlando Fl
✟173,798.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Except the farmers are getting bailed out directly using the tariff funds themselves. We still have $65 billion in that fund and it is periodically growing. The fund has its own revenue stream. No taxes going into it.

upload_2019-9-22_3-4-56.png


U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
 
  • Agree
Reactions: paul1149
Upvote 0

Tanj

Redefined comfortable middle class
Mar 31, 2017
7,682
8,316
59
Australia
✟277,286.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Except the farmers are getting bailed out directly using the tariff funds themselves. We still have $65 billion in that fund and it is periodically growing. The fund has its own revenue stream. No taxes going into it.

View attachment 263579

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

Tariffs are taxes. They are paid by Americans, not foreigners. The revenue stream is 100% tax on Americans. In fact, even the little logo you proudly displayed has the word "tax" in it.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,314
11,279
✟432,016.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married

Ugh...

I suppose that it's just a drop in the bucket of poor economic/financial decisions this president has made. The weird thing is that under basically any other president, this would be big news. Under Trump though....it's a footnote.

I the upside is that farmers actually deserve it. They're weathering a government created crisis...not asking for a handout to save themselves from poor business practices and then giving millions to themselves in bonuses. It's still a big pricetag that seems to have been easily avoided.
 
Upvote 0

ToddNotTodd

Iconoclast
Feb 17, 2004
7,718
3,785
✟253,753.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
As a conservative, I’m against these socialist hand outs. These farmers made their own bed, and now they need to lie in it. We need to keep these liberals in Washington in check.

Wait... Your telling me the president is responsible?

As a conservative, I’m for these beneficial aid packages, in order to protect our farmers, who are being victimized by Hillary Clinton and George Soros.
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
32,628
35,902
Los Angeles Area
✟816,566.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Tariffs are taxes. They are paid by Americans, not foreigners. The revenue stream is 100% tax on Americans. In fact, even the little logo you proudly displayed has the word "tax" in it.

Sounds like wealth redistribution. Wait, that's what farm and corporate subsidies have always been.
 
Upvote 0

RocksInMyHead

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!
May 12, 2011
6,790
7,390
PA
✟315,887.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Except the farmers are getting bailed out directly using the tariff funds themselves. We still have $65 billion in that fund and it is periodically growing. The fund has its own revenue stream. No taxes going into it.

View attachment 263579

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
As an addendum to Tanj's post (about a concept that has been explained to you multiple times), that number is ALL tariff tax revenue. Our tariffs were not zero before Trump enacted his tariffs on China. So even if it was money coming in from foreign sources (which it isn't), about half of it was already spoken for as part of the existing budget. In other words, for every dollar of tariff revenue from Trump's tariffs (which comes from American importers, not foreign exporters), we're giving a dollar to farm subsidies. So not only is additional money not being introduced into the economy, but the government is also not seeing any additional revenue from its tariffs because all of the money goes to bailouts.

Taking things further, if the tariffs have the desired result of fewer people buying Chinese goods, then there will be significantly less tariff revenue. However, the farmers will still need subsidies, because China still won't be buying their harvests. This means that the money will have to come from other sources - in other words, the government would be losing money on the deal.
 
Upvote 0

LostMarbels

All-Lives-Matter
Jun 18, 2011
11,954
3,864
48
Orlando Fl
✟173,798.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
As an addendum to Tanj's post (about a concept that has been explained to you multiple times), that number is ALL tariff tax revenue. Our tariffs were not zero before Trump enacted his tariffs on China. So even if it was money coming in from foreign sources (which it isn't), about half of it was already spoken for as part of the existing budget. In other words, for every dollar of tariff revenue from Trump's tariffs (which comes from American importers, not foreign exporters), we're giving a dollar to farm subsidies. So not only is additional money not being introduced into the economy, but the government is also not seeing any additional revenue from its tariffs because all of the money goes to bailouts.

Taking things further, if the tariffs have the desired result of fewer people buying Chinese goods, then there will be significantly less tariff revenue. However, the farmers will still need subsidies, because China still won't be buying their harvests. This means that the money will have to come from other sources - in other words, the government would be losing money on the deal.


Lets not forget it was reported the auto bailout was actualy 80 billion. Oh right, was that a differnt bailout? How many times did we pay for the auto industry?

upload_2019-9-22_20-35-28.png


I understand what you are saying. We are still bleeding, and any 'revenue' at the american importer's expense is not 'new' revenue. It is more of a duty tax. I get that. You are correct. I was saying it is not coming from our federal budget. 'It' is it's own revenue stream.

Last year however we lost $419 Billion in trade. Now we spent $28 Billion on aid to the farmers. Honestly, we would save billions not even trading with them. I think anyone would be happy to reduce their losses/shrinkage by $‭391‬ billion a year. Even if that isn't an achievable figure, the way I see it, if we are able to absorb the cost of the farm aid, and still reduce our losses below $419 billion, we are saving money.

An example. Let's say we get the costs considering farm aid and everything trade with China entails down to $200 billion. That still puts us $219 billion ahead of what we are currently spending while trading with them. However, I still believe the ideal situation would be fair and reciprocal trade where both parties benefit.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

LostMarbels

All-Lives-Matter
Jun 18, 2011
11,954
3,864
48
Orlando Fl
✟173,798.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
As a conservative, I’m against these socialist hand outs. These farmers made their own bed, and now they need to lie in it. We need to keep these liberals in Washington in check.

Wait... Your telling me the president is responsible?

As a conservative, I’m for these beneficial aid packages, in order to protect our farmers, who are being victimized by Hillary Clinton and George Soros.

I am for this because Trump is trying to take care of the famers while his policies are enacted. He is not just shrugging his shoulders and letting the farmers get wiped out.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Lets not forget it was reported the auto bailout was actualy 80 billion. Oh right, was that a differnt bailout? How many times did we pay for the auto industry?

View attachment 263662

I understand what you are saying. We are still bleeding, and any 'revenue' at the american importer's expense is not 'new' revenue. It is more of a duty tax. I get that. You are correct. I was saying it is not coming from our federal budget. 'It' is it's own revenue stream.

Last year however we lost $419 Billion in trade. Now we spent $28 Billion on aid to the farmers. Honestly, we would save billions not even trading with them. I think anyone would be happy to reduce their losses/shrinkage by $‭391‬ billion a year. Even if that isn't an achievable figure, the way I see it, if we are able to absorb the cost of the farm aid, and still reduce our losses below $419 billion, we are saving money.

An example. Let's say we get the costs considering farm aid and everything trade with China entails down to $200 billion. That still puts us $219 billion ahead of what we are currently spending while trading with them. However, I still believe the ideal situation would be fair and reciprocal trade where both parties benefit.
Who's "we?" A trade deficit is not paid for directly by American consumers, but tariffs are.
 
Upvote 0

LostMarbels

All-Lives-Matter
Jun 18, 2011
11,954
3,864
48
Orlando Fl
✟173,798.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Who's "we?" A trade deficit is not paid for directly by American consumers, but tariffs are.

Galactic apes from the planet Gargone. If you do not even understand who is 'we' in a post in an American Politics forum, discussing American tariffs/trade... why even bother?
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Galactic apes from the planet Gargone. If you do not even understand who is 'we' in a post in an American Politics forum, discussing American tariffs/trade... why even bother?
Who pays for the trade deficit?
Who pays for tariffs on imported goods?
 
Upvote 0

LostMarbels

All-Lives-Matter
Jun 18, 2011
11,954
3,864
48
Orlando Fl
✟173,798.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Who pays for the trade deficit?
Who pays for tariffs on imported goods?
A trade deficit does not get 'paid off'. Being in trade deficit means you buy more than you sell. Think about the country as a business. If you buy more goods then you sell you will get into debt. You will also put your own people out of work because they aren't needed to produce the goods.

A simplistic way to veiw it is capital. Money has value. Cell phones, cars, live stock, all have value. The man with the most gold has that most money. If you are the one producing for the demand you are the one making money. Also, simple supply and demand. Control the supply, you control the demand. And everyone's coming to you with their money for your supply. OPEC has done it for decades. Just on a whim they can regulate the entire world's gas prices. Supply. Demand. And in this case capital in oil.

Is it bad for an economy to have a trade surplus of hundreds of billions? The nation will not prosper as well as those who deficit spend and have a deficit in the hundreds of billions?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2012
24,909
23,807
Baltimore
✟549,105.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Lets not forget it was reported the auto bailout was actualy 80 billion. Oh right, was that a differnt bailout? How many times did we pay for the auto industry?

$80 billion was the amount loaned to the auto industry; most of that was paid back. $12 billion (or possibly 14, I’m seeing different numbers) was the amount we lost on it and had to write down.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

LostMarbels

All-Lives-Matter
Jun 18, 2011
11,954
3,864
48
Orlando Fl
✟173,798.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
$80 billion was the amount loaned to the auto industry; most of that was paid back. $12 billion (or possibly 14, I’m seeing different numbers) was the amount we lost on it and had to write down.

Ok, so what would have happened had we not spent that money?
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
32,628
35,902
Los Angeles Area
✟816,566.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Lets not forget it was reported the auto bailout was actualy 80 billion.

The Treasury received stock in the companies in exchange for the money. And later sold that stock to recoup most of the investment.

With the farmers, we're not even getting soybeans in exchange for the money.
 
Upvote 0

LostMarbels

All-Lives-Matter
Jun 18, 2011
11,954
3,864
48
Orlando Fl
✟173,798.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
The Treasury received stock in the companies in exchange for the money. And later sold that stock to recoup most of the investment.

With the farmers, we're not even getting soybeans in exchange for the money.

Good point. This is a straight up aid. The only way to recoup is thru better trade.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

RocksInMyHead

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!
May 12, 2011
6,790
7,390
PA
✟315,887.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
However, I still believe the ideal situation would be fair and reciprocal trade where both parties benefit.
But that was the situation. Trade deficits aren't necessarily a bad thing, especially if you're only looking at the balance with a single country.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: FireDragon76
Upvote 0