Farming Freedom Act (Failed)

[Lumine]

The amendment has been adopted.

[Lumine]

What now?

[Dr. Cynic]

Looks like this can be voted on now.

[TNF]

Yeah, let's end this.

[Deus Naturae]

I'm good with moving to a final vote.

[Lumine]

Sorry for being so late, a final vote has now started on this. Senators, please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[TNF]

Nay

[Dr. Cynic]

Nay

[bore]

Nay

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

NAY

[windjammer]

NAY

[Deus Naturae]

Aye

Nay voters, why do you oppose the bill?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Because this is a solution in search of a problem.

[Deus Naturae]

Because this is a solution in search of a problem.

I've already explained what the problems are, once in direct response to you. Do you disagree with my response or do you not understand it?

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Aye

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Because this is a solution in search of a problem.

I've already explained what the problems are, once in direct response to you. Do you disagree with my response or do you not understand it?

Charmed.

You explained a lot of what can or could happen. Of course, if you take any piece of legislation to its extreme interpretation, you can get to this point.

My issue was wondering what specific examples you have of these arrangements creating negative outcomes, or is it their mere existence you object to?

[Cranberry]

Nay

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Abstain


Food inflation is very costly to fixed incomes and those whose incomes have not risen in a decade. However, I am concerned about the removal of labeling requirements.

[TNF]

I voted against this bill because I oppose free markets.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I support free markets but some times a free market is better served having a regulation than not having one. For instance, labeling requirements promote standardization and save money for companies that don't have to worry about whether or not they were sold the right stuff. If it is all the same size, grade and quality such forth, I think would standardization in this sense helps to promote the free market by allowing resources to be spent on expansion and not on chasing down the right product or ensuring it meets standards demanded by the said business's customers.

[windjammer]

Sorry Deus but I don't believe in complete free market.
Of course, there are problems with the current situation, but basically abolishing every regulation isn't the answer and will instead create other problems.

[Deus Naturae]

Abstain


Food inflation is very costly to fixed incomes and those whose incomes have not risen in a decade. However, I am concerned about the removal of labeling requirements.

This would not remove labeling requirements....

[Deus Naturae]

Sorry Deus but I don't believe in complete free market.
Of course, there are problems with the current situation, but basically abolishing every regulation isn't the answer and will instead create other problems.

This wouldn't abolish every regulation...

[Deus Naturae]

Because this is a solution in search of a problem.

I've already explained what the problems are, once in direct response to you. Do you disagree with my response or do you not understand it?

Charmed.

You explained a lot of what can or could happen. Of course, if you take any piece of legislation to its extreme interpretation, you can get to this point.

My issue was wondering what specific examples you have of these arrangements creating negative outcomes, or is it their mere existence you object to?

First of all, that isn't an argument. If you believe certain statutes should continue to remain in effect, you must provide a positive justification for their continued existence.

Anyway, here are some links:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/06/how-farm-subsidies-harm-taxpayers-consumers-and-farmers-too
http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/agriculture/regulations-and-trade-barriers
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2013/09/24/agriculture-subsidies-actually-hurt-young-farmers

Again, what positive impacts do you believe stem from allowing farmers to ban other farmers from producing crops and force them to raise prices and having the government pay farmers to raise prices and produce commodities people don't want.

And FTR, I wasn't to be offensive by asking you if you couldn't understand me. I've read plenty of incomprehensible arguments on this board.

[Deus Naturae]

I voted against this bill because I oppose free markets.

Not an argument. Simply because one opposes free markets does not justify support for any form of regulation or subsidy.