Nearly 40% of 2019 farm income will come from federal aid and insurance

iluvatar5150 · Nov 4, 2019

Ana the Ist said:
Then what exactly do you have collective ownership of? A claim of a possible maybe service which may not have any real value?

Does that seem remotely similar to the definition of socialism lol?

If the definition of "socialism" includes services, then yes.

That's a legal contract....that you willingly entered....and a bad one at that. My internet went down for 2 days once and my bill was adjusted accordingly. All I had to do was call the company and notify them. You entering a bad legal contract isn't the same.

Most of what you wrote was irrelevant to the point I was making, which was that the level of service guarantee I get form a public service (i.e. the FD) is similar to that I get from a private company.

As an aside - it's not a bad contract. It's a pretty typical consumer-grade contract. Your ISP may have refunded you for the time you paid for the outage, or maybe a bit more than that if they were feeling nice, but they didn't incur a penalty for failing to meet a guaranteed uptime. On a commercial account with a dedicated line, you can get guaranteed throughput speeds and guaranteed up-times where failure to meet those specs results in the provider paying a penalty substantially higher than what they charged for that amount of time in the first place. I used to help manage a small office where our T1 had a guaranteed uptime that would result in us getting an entire month's bill refunded if it was down (IIRC) more than a couple minutes over the course of a month.

How does the computer know what's on the screen? How did it already know Linux before someone wrote the computer language? How does it flip switches and how does it ever learn more words in the language? Can you give me an example of Linux coding and a step by step example of what happens when you type it in?

I don't even know what you're going on about. You're just obfuscating.

In Marx's understanding....products were the things or goods (material objects) created by the means of production (factories and their machinery) which can then be exchanged for capital.

A service would be work someone is obligated to perform for you for capital....like a chimney sweep or someone painting your house.

In Marx's definition, which is the one you all seem concerned about, we are entitled to collective ownership of the means of production (socialism) but not so for the work of services.

Was that so hard?

Ana the Ist · Nov 4, 2019

iluvatar5150 said:
If the definition of "socialism" includes services, then yes.

It doesn't....though some socialist theory would argue otherwise. For example, if we were to abolish private property and I had shared ownership of the equity of everyone's house (which would be difficult....realistically, we'd have to subdivide into communes or soviets) then we could say that I have extracted some sort of value for the service provided by firefighters regardless of whether or not they showed up or save the house I'm living in from burning down.

My guess is that you aren't talking about all the various political philosophies that fall under the rather broad umbrella of socialist theory.

Most of what you wrote was irrelevant to the point I was making, which was that the level of service guarantee I get form a public service (i.e. the FD) is similar to that I get from a private company.

It's not though...and I explained why.

As an aside - it's not a bad contract. It's a pretty typical consumer-grade contract. Your ISP may have refunded you for the time you paid for the outage, or maybe a bit more than that if they were feeling nice, but they didn't incur a penalty for failing to meet a guaranteed uptime.

The contract is that I pay them for service. When they fail to provide the service, I don't have to pay. I can even tell you the value of the service.

None of these things apply to firefighters.

I don't even know what you're going on about. You're just obfuscating.

You don't know the answers?

Was that so hard?

Not if it ends here.

ThatRobGuy · Nov 4, 2019

Ricky M said:
I've long thought that your tax returns should include a section in which to direct distribution. Where you could direct say 10% to Defense and 25% to social programs and 20% to foreign aid and so on, up to 100%. It would be interesting to see where people would actually put their money.

It would be rather interesting to see how that would play out, but in a polarized environment like the one we're in now, I suspect we'd end up with certain things being over-funded and something under-funded (or not funded at all)

...I think the logistics of how to aggregate all of that and come up with finalized numbers would be quite the chore.

ThatRobGuy · Nov 4, 2019

Ana the Ist said:
This is you arguing that deciding where tax money goes is somehow fundamentally different....though you failed to explain why.

I have explained why...if there were a program like then one @Ricky M described, where your tax paperwork allowed you to specify where you wanted the taxes to go, then that would be true.

However, right now, the best we've got is electing someone, and hoping that A) they keep their word about their policy positions, and B) that they can actually effect change once they're actually in office.

For instance, if you're living in a time when one party has 2/3 of congress, if you're voting for the party that only has 1/3, even if they try their best to represent your interests, the efforts are likely to fail.

Just as a random example, if you were in a time when 3/4 of the house was (R), and 2/3 of the Senate was (R), and you voted for a (D) candidate who campaigned on trying to get universal healthcare passed, it's unlikely that would actually materialize as they're going to get outvoted every time.

ThatRobGuy · Nov 4, 2019

Ana the Ist said:
No...I didn't miss it...I deleted it because you already agreed they were different circumstances.

Remember when you agreed that giving to charity isn't the same as helping out my sister? Remember the reason why I said I wouldn't give to charity?

Well it's not like my sister earned the money either. You already acknowledged that the reasoning for one doesn't apply to the other because they are different circumstances.

Yes, I agreed there were different circumstances. However, the circumstances aren't what I'm talking about when referring to the inconsistency, I'm talking about the justification and reasoning given by those claiming to oppose one circumstance, but not another.

Saying "I don't support the Pittsburgh Steelers because I don't believe in football", then saying in the next breath "I'm rooting for the Browns!" would be inconsistency. (because you'd be rooting for a football team, after you've just said you don't believe in football)

Saying "I don't support the Steelers, but I'm rooting for the Browns", and justifying it with "Because I hate Pittsburgh, but love Cleveland" wouldn't be inconsistent, that'd be a perfectly consistent position.

When many folks on the right are discussing government spending (using the term "socialism" to describe it, incorrectly in many cases), they're exhibiting the former with their reasoning, and not the latter.

If the folks on the right simply said "I'm okay with the government giving my money to farmers because I like them, but not inner-city liberals because I don't like them", they'd at least be speaking consistently, as opposed to simply saying "I don't believe in government giving my money to people who didn't earn it"

The distinction here is speaking in vague platitudes vs. speaking with specificity.

ThatRobGuy · Nov 4, 2019

Ana the Ist said:
To my knowledge, most cattle isn't pasture fed for life. I can only imagine the havoc wreaked on the industry if it was.

Most aren't currently...in fact, most aren't pasture fed at all...but they should be.

Ana the Ist said:
Again, thanks for your opinion.

That's not my opinion, that's the opinion of medical professionals and dietitians. Many of our health related issues are due to people over consuming things like red meat, and over consuming products that have been pumped full of high fructose corn syrup. The medical community is largely in agreement on that one...

Ana the Ist said:
I don't see how that matters if most cattle is corn fed now.

It matters if the cows are only being corn fed as a byproduct of the fact that farmers are being artificially encourages to grow more corn. More land usage for corn means less pasture for cows to graze on.

Ana the Ist said:
I'll try to explain it as simply as I can....let's say we stop propping up corn and soy, we open the market completely. The next year the Chinese market overproduces and drives prices down....or some fungus destroys a part of the corn crop....and
1000 farms go bust.

Maybe 100 of those farms reinvest and try their luck with a different crop....the other 900 sell their land and machinery and it gets turned into condos and parking lots.

This continues for 5 years and the next thing you know, instead of only importing 30% of our fruits and vegetables....we're depending on foreign food sources for 40%.

We may be able to sustain 40%....but at some point, whether it's 50% or 60% or whatever (we actually are at 30% now) we're in catastrophic trouble. All it would take is one major event to put our nation in a serious crisis. It's not like cell phones, or some other factory made widget that we don't need....it's food. I can't eat someone's Art History degree....I can't eat someone's hip replacement.

The only comparable industry that comes to mind is the weapons industry. We cannot afford to become dependent upon foreign sources for things like bullets, guns, and bombs.

I mean seriously, do you know how many wars were fought over food? Seige warfare itself was entirely built around controlling food sources. WW2 was basically built around the pretext of controlling farmland.

I feel like I'm explaining the painfully obvious. It's fun to watch you claim that free markets won't destroy the food industry...but I don't trust your amateur opinion.

A) If farmers had the crop diversity we had prior to the 1980's subsidy bill, they wouldn't "go bust" simply from losing one particular crop.

B) If demand was so low for a particular crop that they had to subsidize it, and use the majority of it for things other than direct consumption due to over-production, it's not a food product that would cause devastation if yield rates were low on a particular year. If a crop were so vital that we literally couldn't do without it, then demand wouldn't have dropped to the point where the government had to subsidize it in order to make it viable.

C) If over half of a particular crop is being used for purposes other than direct consumption of said crop, then it has no business being funded under a farm bill that was aimed at providing food stability.

D) We wouldn't have to worry about importing more fruits & vegetables if farmers were using more of their land for that instead of soy & corn.

E) The whole reason corn & soy are "less risky" is precisely because of the subsidy program. The government agreed to insure those two crops, but not any of the others (at the behest of the corporate interests who wanted to use the corn as raw materials)

rambot · Nov 4, 2019

Just wanted to put this out there if Ken still believe the poor for it sweeter;
Nearly two-thirds of Americans say Trump has not helped their financial standing, voter poll finds

Ana the Ist · Nov 4, 2019

ThatRobGuy said:
Yes, I agreed there were different circumstances. However, the circumstances aren't what I'm talking about when referring to the inconsistency, I'm talking about the justification and reasoning given by those claiming to oppose one circumstance, but not another.

Different circumstances can have different reasoning.

Saying "I don't support the Pittsburgh Steelers because I don't believe in football", then saying in the next breath "I'm rooting for the Browns!" would be inconsistency. (because you'd be rooting for a football team, after you've just said you don't believe in football)

Right...because it's the same circumstances.

When many folks on the right are discussing government spending (using the term "socialism" to describe it, incorrectly in many cases), they're exhibiting the former with their reasoning, and not the latter.

'Government spending" isn't one circumstance....it's thousands. There's literally thousands of different things that the government spends money on for wildly different reasons.

There's no reason why anyone has to apply the same reasoning for all government spending. It would be hypocritical say...to not support funding for a school "because they didn't earn it" then support funding for a different school...those are the same (or at least extremely similar) circumstances.

One doesn't have to apply the same reasoning for not funding a school to giving aid to foreign allies. They are completely different circumstances.

Ana the Ist · Nov 4, 2019

ThatRobGuy said:
I have explained why...if there were a program like then one @Ricky M described, where your tax paperwork allowed you to specify where you wanted the taxes to go, then that would be true.

It's true now....politicians regularly describe how they intend to spend tax money. You get a vote just like everyone else.

For instance, if you're living in a time when one party has 2/3 of congress, if you're voting for the party that only has 1/3, even if they try their best to represent your interests, the efforts are likely to fail.

Just as a random example, if you were in a time when 3/4 of the house was (R), and 2/3 of the Senate was (R), and you voted for a (D) candidate who campaigned on trying to get universal healthcare passed, it's unlikely that would actually materialize as they're going to get outvoted every time.

I'm not sure what you're complaining about here.

Ana the Ist · Nov 4, 2019

ThatRobGuy said:
Most aren't currently...in fact, most aren't pasture fed at all...but they should be.

According to who? We have a large amount of land for grazing now....I don't know if we can get more, or if what we have now could possibly support a massive increase in cattle. Frankly, I doubt if you know either.

That's not my opinion, that's the opinion of medical professionals and dietitians.

Neither of who raise cattle. What do ranchers say?

It matters if the cows are only being corn fed as a byproduct of the fact that farmers are being artificially encourages to grow more corn.

Artificially? You have any proof cattle ranchers don't want cheap feed that fattens up cattle quickly?

A) If farmers had the crop diversity we had prior to the 1980's subsidy bill, they wouldn't "go bust" simply from losing one particular crop.

Lo because nothing has changed in the past 40 years? Farms go bust now. You want to upend the whole industry.

B) If demand was so low for a particular crop that they had to subsidize it

It's not subsidized due to low demand lol. Demand is actually high....subsidizing them let's them artificially lower prices. This keeps food cheap which in turn benefits the poorest of us. Think of it as food stamps only instead of handing the poor stamps for food, we're handing farmers a check to sell at a lower price.

This benefits the poorest of us the most....since they don't pay federal taxes but they too get the benefit. If you stopped subsidizing corn, everything that corn goes into would dramatically increase in cost due to the high demand.

C) If over half of a particular crop is being used for purposes other than direct consumption of said crop, then it has no business being funded under a farm bill that was aimed at providing food stability.

I'm not heating my house with corn....what do you think it's used for other than consumption?

D) We wouldn't have to worry about importing more fruits & vegetables if farmers were using more of their land for that instead of soy & corn.

You mistakenly believe that we import it because not enough is made here... in reality, it's cheaper imported.

E) The whole reason corn & soy are "less risky" is precisely because of the subsidy program. The government agreed to insure those two crops, but not any of the others (at the behest of the corporate interests who wanted to use the corn as raw materials)

Again, in this post, you've demonstrated you don't really understand the market. If we flood the market with fruits and vegetables that are cheaper to import....what's going to happen? First, supply will outstrip demand....and prices will drop. Along with prices, profits for farms will drop. When that happens....farms go bust.

Moral Orel · Nov 5, 2019

Ana the Ist said:
Wouldn't it just be easier to explain why law enforcement isn't socialism? Because I feel like you're trying to force some weak argument for the vague expectation of service from firefighters into the socialist framework just to make some easily destroyed argument that law enforcement and the military are the same.

If that's not your goal here....fine, let's continue with firefighters. If it is your goal...I feel like just explaining why law enforcement and military are never socialism.

That's not quite the goal. I'll be honest, you aren't far off. I think firefighters would be the easiest to show as a socialized service, and if I could do that, it would give me a foothold to show that police are a socialized service. Military would be the hardest. I don't think if I were able to show firefighters fit, it would make it easy to show that police fit though. What's most important to me is that we pick one thing and stick to that. I don't want to leave a lot of room for making things all convoluted. So if you want to go with cops, we'll go with that. Not the military as well, just law enforcement. Sound fair? If so, let me know what the means of production are for cops like I asked about firefighters.

Ana the Ist said:
In Marx's definition, which is the one you all seem concerned about, we are entitled to collective ownership of the means of production (socialism) but not so for the work of services.

Uh, if I'm part of "you all" I don't think the definition we've been working under matches Marx's definition very well. His is a lot more specific than that one.

Ana the Ist · Nov 5, 2019

Moral Orel said:
That's not quite the goal. I'll be honest, you aren't far off. I think firefighters would be the easiest to show as a socialized service, and if I could do that, it would give me a foothold to show that police are a socialized service. Military would be the hardest. I don't think if I were able to show firefighters fit, it would make it easy to show that police fit though. What's most important to me is that we pick one thing and stick to that. I don't want to leave a lot of room for making things all convoluted. So if you want to go with cops, we'll go with that. Not the military as well, just law enforcement. Sound fair? If so, let me know what the means of production are for cops like I asked about firefighters.

Military and law enforcement fall under the same category....so if explaining law enforcement is easy, then military is even easier.

The shortest way to explain this is that laws don't exist without some degree of enforcement. They can exist as concepts, or as words on paper, but without any executive body enforcing laws....they're never anything more than that.

What that means in all practical sense is that all legal concepts can be willfully ignored. All of them. That includes concepts like "property" and "ownership" and "money". Carried out to it's furthest extension...this would basically mean that you don't really even have a government, or nation.

If everyone in the entire nation agreed to stop funding the police....the necessary funds would simply be taken from everyone by force. They would have to, or it would be the end of the nation. That makes the idea that you "own" the police, collectively or otherwise, rather absurd. You can't actually own anything without law enforcement...it would have to already exist first just to be able to own anything. This is why it's described as a "function of the state". It perpetuates the very existence of the state.

We can then describe the desire to write laws and the choice of a nation to have some degree of self determination of legislation as "sovereignty". The most basic function (even if it does nothing else) of the military is the protection of this sovereignty. Again, even if the vast majority of people didn't want a military or didn't want to participate in a war....if that war is necessary to protect sovereignty....people would be forced into military service. The risk of losing sovereignty is the risk of the death of the nation. Again, military would fall under "function of the state", and while there are other functions of the state....few are as unavoidable as law enforcement and the military.

That's a short, condensed kind of explanation....but does that make sense? It literally doesn't matter who how these are funded at all...we do not own them collectively or otherwise.

ThatRobGuy · Nov 5, 2019

Ana the Ist said:
Neither of who raise cattle. What do ranchers say?

On the topic of human nutrition, a rancher's position is of little value (unless they're particularly well education on the topic of diet and human biology).

Grass-Fed vs. Grain-Fed Beef — What’s the Difference?

Ana the Ist said:
Artificially? You have any proof cattle ranchers don't want cheap feed that fattens up cattle quickly?

Oh I have no doubts that ranchers want a way to fatten them up as quick & cheap as possible, that doesn't mean they're producing an optimal product for human consumption.

Ana the Ist said:
It's not subsidized due to low demand lol. Demand is actually high....subsidizing them let's them artificially lower prices.

Demand from corporate entities is high (for usage for things like ethanol & livestock feed as well as companies that use it as raw materials for making sweeteners). Demand from consumers who want to consume corn in the form of natural corn is actually quite low.

If you look at one of my previous posts, there are links that explain that use 50% of our nation's available farmland for corn & soy, however, consumption of those two things (directly, meaning, in their actual plain food form, not indirect consumption via processed foods and sweeteners) is only around 10% of the yield.

Ana the Ist said:
I'm not heating my house with corn....what do you think it's used for other than consumption?

A substantial portion of it is used for ethanol, and another large portion is used for making sweeteners for processed foods.

It’s Time to Rethink America’s Corn System

ThatRobGuy · Nov 5, 2019

Ana the Ist said:
It's true now....politicians regularly describe how they intend to spend tax money. You get a vote just like everyone else.

I'm not sure what you're complaining about here.

I'm not complaining, just explaining...

Your original question when you asked what the difference was between direct charity contributions and contributions via governments spending:

You said...
This is you arguing that deciding where tax money goes is somehow fundamentally different (than the aforementioned charity examples from your previous post)....though you failed to explain why.

I did explain why...in detail.

It's fundamentally different because one you have 100% control over, while the other is done using congress as a proxy, and often times the money doesn't go where you want it and much of it gets lost in the administration and bureaucracy...unlike choosing to give a buck to a homeless person, or helping your sister out with her car (which was your example I believe).

I feel like our debates seem to have a repeating pattern here...you accuse me of some sort of inconsistency or double-standard, and then ask for an explanation. I make a lengthy post explaining, then you reply, omitting the explanation I provided (in an efforts to remove context from my post), then imply that I haven't provided an explanation or justification for anything.

ThatRobGuy · Nov 5, 2019

Ana the Ist said:
Different circumstances can have different reasoning.

Right...because it's the same circumstances.

'Government spending" isn't one circumstance....it's thousands. There's literally thousands of different things that the government spends money on for wildly different reasons.

There's no reason why anyone has to apply the same reasoning for all government spending. It would be hypocritical say...to not support funding for a school "because they didn't earn it" then support funding for a different school...those are the same (or at least extremely similar) circumstances.

One doesn't have to apply the same reasoning for not funding a school to giving aid to foreign allies. They are completely different circumstances.

Then they need to be more descriptive when vocalizing their positions rather than making blanket statements as a means of dog-whistling.

Moral Orel · Nov 5, 2019

Ana the Ist said:
What that means in all practical sense is that all legal concepts can be willfully ignored. All of them. That includes concepts like "property" and "ownership" and "money". Carried out to it's furthest extension...this would basically mean that you don't really even have a government, or nation.

Hmm... I think we need to examine the bare-bones definition of what a "nation" is. This is political and economic theory after all. So how about this one:

Nation
A large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.

So if a Carnival Cruise ship full of hippies crashed on the beach of an uncharted desert island, they can form their own nation without a military, or laws, or police. If a little government didn't slowly evolve, it would be chaos for sure. But that wouldn't mean that it isn't a nation.

ETA I'm not trying to skip over the rest of your post, but I'm digesting it in pieces. Feel free to comment as I go, or wait for a more complete response.

Ana the Ist · Nov 5, 2019

ThatRobGuy said:
Then they need to be more descriptive when vocalizing their positions rather than making blanket statements as a means of dog-whistling.

Then vote for a politician who does. I'm not sure how specific you want them, most have webpages detailing these things.

Ana the Ist · Nov 5, 2019

Moral Orel said:
Hmm... I think we need to examine the bare-bones definition of what a "nation" is. This is political and economic theory after all. So how about this one:

Nation
A large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.

That's probably the most generalized definition for it....and not at all what you and I mean when we talk about nations.

A group of people wandering around in the Amazon is probably more accurately described as a tribe....yet they could fit your definition of nation there.

Ana the Ist · Nov 5, 2019

ThatRobGuy said:
I'm not complaining, just explaining...

Your original question when you asked what the difference was between direct charity contributions and contributions via governments spending:

You said...
This is you arguing that deciding where tax money goes is somehow fundamentally different (than the aforementioned charity examples from your previous post)....though you failed to explain why.

I did explain why...in detail.

It's fundamentally different because one you have 100% control over, while the other is done using congress as a proxy, and often times the money doesn't go where you want it and much of it gets lost in the administration and bureaucracy...unlike choosing to give a buck to a homeless person, or helping your sister out with her car (which was your example I believe).

I acknowledged that you don't have 100% control over where the money goes....it's not all your money, so that makes sense.

That doesn't explain why we would have to apply the same reasoning for where the money goes in wildly different circumstances.

Ana the Ist · Nov 5, 2019

Moral Orel said:
Hmm... I think we need to examine the bare-bones definition of what a "nation" is. This is political and economic theory after all. So how about this one:

Nation
A large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.

So if a Carnival Cruise ship full of hippies crashed on the beach of an uncharted desert island, they can form their own nation without a military, or laws, or police. If a little government didn't slowly evolve, it would be chaos for sure. But that wouldn't mean that it isn't a nation.

ETA I'm not trying to skip over the rest of your post, but I'm digesting it in pieces. Feel free to comment as I go, or wait for a more complete response.

It's probably worth pointing out that when speaking with Americans, I tend to use nation in the place of state so not to confuse anyone.

State-a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.

This partially comes from our history of viewing ourselves as unique states and I imagine because the state of the USA is weird to say.

Nearly 40% of 2019 farm income will come from federal aid and insurance

Well-Known Member

Aggressively serene!

Part of the IT crowd

Part of the IT crowd

Part of the IT crowd

Part of the IT crowd

Senior Member

Aggressively serene!

Aggressively serene!

Aggressively serene!

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Aggressively serene!

Part of the IT crowd

Part of the IT crowd

Part of the IT crowd

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Aggressively serene!

Aggressively serene!

Aggressively serene!

Aggressively serene!

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency