So the criteria is now something that allows a nation to exist, as opposed to "a public good"? Can a nation not exist without firefighters?
Upvote
0
So the criteria is now something that allows a nation to exist, as opposed to "a public good"? Can a nation not exist without firefighters?Is it?
I get that some people probably think that a nation could exist without any police, military, or foreign allys....but I don't see how.
So the criteria is now something that allows a nation to exist, as opposed to "a public good"? Can a nation not exist without firefighters?
So why does that same answer not apply to healthcare? There are far more sick people than there are fires.Because these fire departments are so big now that the only way in which to support them would be from tax monies.
M-Bob
ThanksDon't let that sour you on the rest of us Atheists, we can be pals lol
How many farmers do you know because I live in a rural area and I can about promise you that most around here will vote for him over just about any dem that is on the ticket.It was so nice of Trump to screw his biggest supporters.
Every farmer I know cant wait to vote him out!
Depends on if you take your stuff to the national market or if you largely produce your OWN food.Except farms are currently failing due to Trump's policies.
An element you didn't include is climate. Where I'm at, corn and soybeans are pretty much all that will grow. Onions, tomatoes, etc have to be grown in hothouses. And a large portion of it is used in making ethanol, which the govment subsidizes as a clean burning fuel.The glaring issue with your rebuttal is you seem to be making "corn" synonymous with the overall idea of "food"
I specifically said corn (which is one of the higher subsidized crops).
And to go even further, it's not as if corn would completely cease to exist in the market if the subsidy was removed. It just means that production amounts would taper down to meet the actual market demand, meaning that farmers could free up their land for other crops (that do have a high enough demand that they don't need to be subsidized), and the portions of their land still dedicated to corn would result in a higher income per acre as without the over-inflated supply, it could fetch a higher price once it hits the market for the people who would still undoubtedly buy it.
It's important to point out that the whole reason corn had to start being subsidized in the first place was precisely because it was a particular food source that the market decided they could do with less of in a time when the weekly food budgets were a little tighter. As there are options that were the same price, that are much healthier and give more bang for the buck. (and that's still true today)
It should be quite telling that the government has to spend over $10 billion a year in subsides, just to make it so that corn can be sold for a price that's as low as other healthier veggies that don't need to be subsidized.
No only that, but a negative side effect of the over-production of corn has been that corn and corn-byproducts have been used to make other food products more unhealthy just so they could find something to do with it.
A large portion of the corn goes to making artificial sweeteners that are added to products in amounts that are much higher than necessary, and force-feeding it to livestock who shouldn't be eating corn in the first place (thus making a less healthy meat product).
If it were a case where no vegetable at all would be affordable or available without a subsidy intervention, then that would be a different scenario.
It should also be noted that an indirect effect of subsidizing corn is that it causes an increase in the price of other vegetables that actually do have a higher demand. When farmers are encouraged to uses a huge portion of their land for corn, that means less land for other things. When there's less land for other veggies, that means lower supply which, in turn, means higher prices.
And out here, corn fed cattle are fed the stalks and cobs, not the kernels.Something going on for 60 years doesn't mean it's a good thing...it could just mean that elected leaders tend to be terrible when it comes to inaction on things that could create meaningful change lol.
I listed out several reason for why corn subsidies are a bad idea, I went into much more detail in my post above, but there are some real problems with encouraging farmers to use a disproportionate amount of their available land for the over-production of a crop for which there's a lower direct-consumption demand that doesn't offer a whole lot in terms of nutrition.
This article makes a lot of those same points
https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...642a3c-9434-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html
When there's less land to be used for other healthier vegetables that actually do have a larger public demand, it shrinks the supply of those vegetables thus raising their prices. Having Broccoli, Carrots, and Spinach being more expensive in order to make corn & soy artificially cheaper isn't doing any favors (outside of merely keeping soy & corn farmers employed)
Another major issue is what's done with the corn surplus in the forms of artificial sweeteners and forcefeeding it to livestock (who should be eating grass). They're dumping corn syrup in everything just because they need to find something do with it.
The original subsidy model introduced in the 30's (that was partially to help stave off the harsher effects of the tough economic environment of the time) was far different than the iteration that was introduced in the 1980's.
Basically, it took much of the risk out of farming corn & soy, but not out of the other, healthier, fruits & veggies.
Since other major corporations are guaranteed buyers of the product (companies that produce things that heavily rely on soy & corn syrup), the government is willing to pay a huge amount of the farmer's insurance premiums. So it became a form of risk management for farmers.
If you look at the article I linked, in terms of direct purchase price for the crop itself for direct consumers (IE: people who just want to buy some corn to eat as a side dish), the subsidies only drop the price by around 5% for us - so we pay 0.95 for corn instead of 1.00.
The major benefactors of that are the corporate purchasers of corn who want to use it for things like high fructose corn syrup.
So it's not a case where these subsidies are hugely benefiting American food consumers, it's benefiting companies like Nabisco when they want to get their raw materials cheaper when they're producing Teddy Grahams.
Or another way of looking at it, our farm subsidy model more closely resembles corporate welfare to companies like Nabisco and Kellogg than it does actually creating lower food prices for American consumers buying produce at the grocery store.
The big boys ARE buying out all the small farms.Do you wish for a lot of the smaller farmers to go out of business and then have the big boys take over most all of the farm lands?
Seems that's what would happen?
Do you think working and owning a farm is an easy way to make a living?
M-Bob
Aunts, uncles, cousins... quite a few.How many farmers do you know because I live in a rural area and I can about promise you that most around here will vote for him over just about any dem that is on the ticket.
because I know around here ( rural GA we are still pretty red and if Trump is the person he will win because we STRONGLY disagree with the democrats in most cases that I know anyway.Aunts, uncles, cousins... quite a few.
but if the really small farms are not providing food for the masses why would they buy them out since we are not interested in selling to large companies?The big boys ARE buying out all the small farms.
Well I will give you that, most of the midwest is still red. And yes the dems will not offer a truly viable alternative. Which is why we need to make the effort to send a message by VOTING FOR THIRD PARTIES.because I know around here ( rural GA we are still pretty red and if Trump is the person he will win because we STONGLY disagree with the democrats in most cases that I know anyway.
Bankruptcy, subsidies, and let's not forget that favorite of corporate america, pure greed.but if the really small farms are not providing food for the masses why would they buy them out since we are not interested in selling to large companies?
Yes, I agree people need to vote third party, but the problem is sense they do not as my grandfather say sometimes you are voting AGANIST a person whether than really for the other one. When third parties get maybe 5% of the total vote people will usually vote for the main party with which they most agree. Although I have a LOT of respect for people who run third party.Well I will give you that, most of the midwest is still red. And yes the dems will not offer a truly viable alternative. Which is why we need to make the effort to send a message by VOTING FOR THIRD PARTIES.
People need to wake up to the fact that red or blue, the coolaid's poisoned.
I don't want an example, I want criteria to define it by. First it was "a public good" then it was "allows a nation to exist". Now it seems you want to define criteria based on whether it's a product that has a monetary value.There's an argument there....for sure. One could argue that fires are minimally damaging localized events that are generally recovered from quickly.
Then one could argue that situations like the Chicago Fire or most of the wildfires in California in the past 20 years represent a real danger to the economy and therefore the nation itself.
You want a good example of socialism? Food stamps. We all pay in, the government controls the means of production, and the product itself isn't something abstract like "justice" or "national security". It's a quantifiable thing that has real value and gets distributed according to regulations.
Does that make it bad? No....I think it's great that people like myself are willing to put food on the table of those less fortunate. I think we're generally all better off for it.
...actually, that's not a hypothetical fantasy, it played out at the company my brother worked for and they got called out on the carpet for it by some disgruntled employees.
In a nutshell, the employer had been doing a self-insured health plan for their employees, in which they covered half the cost of the policy, and employee covered the other half via paycheck deduction (pretty common practice actually...that's what my company does as well).
When ACA kicked in, there was a small increase in the cost of policies (partly due to poor structuring of ACA compliance rules, but that's a separate topic), however, the company saw that as a strategic time to flip the model for that and only cover 30% and leaving the employees to cover 70%, and then, in the year-end meeting, made ACA the scapegoat for "why the insurance line item deduction is getting bigger for you guys in the upcoming year".
Luckily, a few employees actually read that 40 page packet (that most companies send out, and most people don't read) that listed the breakdown of how the benefits program was funded, and proceeded to call them out for it. Especially when it was uncovered that there was also a plan to increase the executive team (director level and up) bonuses by 5% that year.
Basically, they were trying to slash a benefit that was supposed to be a selling point for people taking the job in the first place, use it to increase their own bonuses, and when the employees were upset, tried to blame "ObamaCare" for it.
As someone who does sit in a lot of those meetings (granted, I'm only toward the top of the org chart, but in an IT capacity, so I don't get invited to all of the inner-circle meetings), people tend to underestimate just how greedy those guys can be. You have guys with high six figure (sometimes seven figure) incomes, who would literally rather do a round of layoffs and kick 20 people to the curb than take a minor pay cut (even though the corporate issues were due to poor strategizing on their part in the prior fiscal year).
And they won't even do the dirty work themselves, they'll pawn it off on the upper-middle management layer and make them be the ones to sit down and tell 20 people "sorry, we have to let you go"
I don't want an example, I want criteria to define it by. First it was "a public good" then it was "allows a nation to exist". Now it seems you want to define criteria based on whether it's a product that has a monetary value.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?