Talk Elections

Farm Subsidies Abolition Bill

1. All farm subsidies are hereby abolished, effective from Fiscal Year 2006.
2. The Farm Subsidy Limit Act, and all other laws contradicting clause 1, are hereby repealed.

---

Sponsor: Sen. Ebowed

I wonder why I didn't propose this one myself; I was too weak with my limit act.

Pass this.

I wonder how long it will take till someone proposes an ammendment that will completely water this down.

I urge all Senators to pass this.

I strongly support this bill, and urge its passage.

I'll be supporting this.

Woah, Woah

Wait a second here...

I'm all for slashing farm subsities, but completely getting rid of them, no.  The problem is that most of the money that we put into farm subsities just goes to the cooperate farmers, anyway.  If we take the full amount of money that goes into this, and then subtract 90% of all that which goes to corperate farms, and then rewrite the law to make it so that only family farms can get the aid, then I would be all for this proposal, and it would still save us a Hell of a lot of money.

Someone, please amend this.

It will not happen, they are destroying every type of federal aid. Shame

If they continue this assult on federal aid, I might be forced to take some drastic measures, and I am drawing the line with this bill.

Secession. :-*

Ah, just as Bono predicted. :)

I do not believe that the government should be subsidizing any particular market. Some people justify farm subsidies on the grounds that farming is a risky endeavor. But this is true for any enterprise. When no other entrepreneurs are being especially rewarded for their risks with subsidies, I don't see why farmers should be treated any differently. Others justify farm subsidies on the grounds that the price of food tends to fluctuate. But again, this is true of any business.

Once the government starts subsidizing farmers, it enters into a vicious cycle. Farm subsidies encourage overproduction, which leads to dumping, which leads to falling prices, which leads farmers to demand more farm subsidies.

In addition to being economically harmful, I would argue that they are also quite unfair. There is no particular reason for which the government should redistribute taxpayer money to wealthy farmers (whether "family" farmers or not).

The siege i worked with in the Senate would have vetoed this crap,but unfortunately he has sublimated himself to the senate.

No offense intended, but might I ask: what is your argument in favor of the economic or social necessity of farm subsidies?

New Zealand relies on agricultural resources much more than Atlasia, and it abolished farm subsidies in 1984 without suffering any sort of agricultural downfall while saving federal money.

Soulty is making my argument for me just fine.
()

How would you suggest that such an idea be worded?  What is the requirement or the definition for being a "family" farm(er)?

I might be willing to work with you here.

Agriculture is far more prolific in, say, New Zealand than it is in Atlasia.  Because of that, you get a lot of variety in the market.  New Zealand does not have the same kind of massive conglomerates that we have here in Atlasia.  If the Agroloplies are all that is left, then there really is not much preventing an epidemic from wiping out certain agricultural populations, due to lack of variation in the species and in their locations.  Supporting smaller farms gives us, at least, some defense agains this possibility.

Also, many parts of this world depend on the agricultural products that Atlasia produces.  Unfortunatly, the subsidies have helped to create this dependence, because it does encourage farmers to grow more than what is readily sellable on the market.  However, it is something that needs to be continued, because the loss of crops that would result from the total loss of farm subsidies would cause a famine.  People, lots of people, would die.  Bottom line.  It would also increase the illegal immigration problem all over the world, as more people would move to places where food is more plentiful.

On top of that, these Walmart style farms that have result, inspite of the fact that they have been beneficial to society overall, do tend to find the cheapest possible labor, which in turn would wreck the economy of some areas of the country.

Good question.  I don't readily know.  But I am glad that I have at least got people talking about these things, because that is what we are supposed to be doing; reasoning our way around problems and taking the time to think about things rather than rushing stuff through.  Anyway, I'll think on this a bit more and see what option we have.

This is one of the easiest ways to distort the size of government. The higher prices you pay for agricultural products because of government farm policy are not included in recorded government spending.

Because of things like farm subsidies, easily more than 50% of the nation's productive resources are under the control of the government (federal, state, and local).

This is something I do know a fair bit about and all that. Too tired right now though.
Will post some stuff tomorrow

I request that a Senator asks to suspend action on this bill until Al can post tomorrow.  We will consider it a Senate Hearing, of sorts.

I fully support cutting subsidies to farming, and said so in a previous spending debate on arts, but I can't say I back immediate abolition.

It is often argued that farm subsidies help farmers. On the whole, however, I believe that they actually hurt. When the government subsidizes farmers, it encourages them to produce more than they actually should. The excess products flood the market, driving prices down. In many cases, farmers are forced to practice dumping--selling at a price that is lower than the cost of production. When prices go down, a few farmers demand even more subsidies, so that they can remain afloat. This leads to more overproduction, more dumping, a further reduction in prices, and a further demand for even more subsidies.

I think that I hardly need to remind the Senate of the grave difficulties caused by overproduction during the Great Depression.

I do not believe that such an action is necessary, Mr. Secretary. The bill must stay on the floor for at least three days before receiving a final vote; until then, I see no problem with allowing other Senators to post.

I would not object to whatever transitional measures may be necessary. But I do not wish to stretch this out any longer than it needs to be. New Zealand gave a mere eight months' notice before abolishing subsidies in 1986--despite the doomsday predictions of many, agriculture improved considerably.

As I explained before, much of the "over-production" goes into the Third World, under those reduced prices.  Without that over production, millions of people will starve to death, before we can get farms going in other parts of the world.  If people are starving, they will try to get to places where food is more abundent.  This will cause a refugee crisis elsewhere.


I realize this.  I am asking that no effort to alter the bill be made until Al testifies.

Deferent world, different economy.  Food could not be effectivly exported very far, back then.  Also, you attempt to allude to the Depression is a bit of a scare tactic, since the subsidies did not lead to depression and the current economy is quite different, as I said before.

Agricultural products from Atlasia and other Western countries, by being dumped in less-developed countries, cause considerable difficulties for the local farmers in those countries. Atlasian farmers are able to undercut them. By subsidizing their own farmers, and encouraging overproduction and dumping, the West perpetuates poverty in the "Third World."

The World Bank estimates that the abolition of farm subsidies in Western countries would lift over a hundred and fifty million people out of poverty (source (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/ipe/food.htm)). The real human benefits of abolishing distortive subsidies cannot be ignored, even if those who benefit include foreigners.

I never asserted otherwise. But overproduction surely exacerbated the suffering of farmers during the Depression.

Ah, I see. Well, I would have no problem giving that assurance.

You are correct, but this bill does not provide for the amount of time it would take (probably a few years at best) to get agricultural production running at full capacity in other parts of the world where "dumping" currently takes place.  I had acctually intended to mention this, but see that I neglected to do so.  Anyway, the transition would not be automatic, and many parts of the world still suffer from draughts and the like.  Some over production is always desireable, but if we are going to ween these countries into being self sufficient, we had better be prepared to teach them to do so, as farming has ground to a halt in many parts of the Third World, today.  I would propose that we devote some money into foriegn aid to teach people in other countries better farming techniques (which would not cost a lot) and give it some time before we stop the flow all together.

For the other easons that I mentioned, some semblence of farm aid does need to be maintianed.

P.S.  I was unaware that we were in a depression at the moment, but we sure as Hell will be if you guys keep slashing federal aid and minimum wage laws.

Well, to be accurate, we didn't slash minimum wage laws; the responsibility has merely been transferred to the regions from the federal government. And, as far as I recall, the only federal aid that has been cut is the NEA/NEH grant.

That is a very reasonable compromise, Mr. Secretary. I have no objection to introducing a transitional period in this bill. But eventually, I would hope that all farm subsidies, which distort the global and the local market, would be abolished.

"Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish, feed him for life." Members of the Senate, let us not toss fish to the Third World in the form of dumped agricultural products. Let us abolish farm subsidies, so that they may learn how to fish on their own.

I endorse the compromise the Secretary of the Treasury has proposed.

I am generally in favor of this bill, albeit I shall leave the debate to those more knowledgeable than myself. 

Ever heard of insurance?


Many parts of the world would be having their own suceseful farming if it weren't for ours and EU's subsisides. Fram subsisides kill people in the third world everyday!

I strongly support this and urge my senators to vote for the abolition of farm subsidies.

Ever heard of famine?


Many parts of the world would be having their own suceseful farming if it weren't for ours and EU's subsisides. Fram subsisides kill people in the third world everyday!
[/quote]

This was already discussed, in detail.  Pull the subsidies away now would cause millions of deaths, because the people in those regions are not prepared to farm for themselves.  We talked this out.

Pulling away farm subsidies would cause millions of deaths?  We're talking about Atlasia, not some third world country.  I don't see the point in wasting billions of dollars on what is nothing more than paying farmers to be idle.  We don't have problems with famine in Atlasia, so bringing that up is basically irrelevant.  Looking at developed nations, however, is a good model; as I said about New Zealand earlier, it relied on Agriculture much more than we do and the abolition of farm subsidies there was nothing but positive.

The issue of farm subsidies is a complex one but, unlike most other complex issues, tends only to be seen in black and white terms for reasons that I've never been able to understand.
There's also a lot of misinformation, misunderstanding and general confusion as to what farm subsidies are, what they are for and who gets them.
First off, not all farms actually get government subsidies. According the most recent set of statistics I've been able to find, just 33% of all farms in Atlasia get government subsidies. There's also a huge amont of regional diversity; about 78% of farms in North Dakota get subsidies, only 2% of farms in Hawaii do. Unsuprisingly it's wheat or cornbelt states that have the highest %'s, and states with agricultural sector based around fruit and so on, tend to have much lower numbers.

The scandal of the current subsidies setup is this; the bottom 80% of subsidy recipients get, on average, $768 a year. The top 10% of recipients (and these are invariably large, profitable farms) get on average $34,424 a year. Now, this is wrong, I hope you all understand that, and something has to be done about it.
Is simply abolishing all farm subsidies the best way to do this? No. Of course not.
Even more smaller farms will be unable to pull off the increasingly difficult balancing act of survivial in a climate of falling product prices and rising farm prices (that is; the raw materials, equipment, manpower etc. needed to operate a farm) go to the wall than do at the moment. They just won't be able to survive without state aid.
Why is that a problem? For several reasons, everything from consumer choice (products from smaller farms do generally taste nicer than those produced by agribusiness. I think this is important because I think that consumers are important), to biodiversity (as an example of how important that can be, the Irish potato blight was as devastating as it was due to a lack of genetic diversity in the Irish potato crop; the whole lot had come from one or two potatoes) but most importantly of all, the sheer human cost. Take away state aid for small farms and you will plunge a lot of communities into poverty. And set against all that, there is no real benifit in abolishing state aid to smaller farms, as I have pointed out the amont of money they get is relatively small... even in North Dakota, a wheat state, the average for the bottom 80% is only a few thousand dollars each. These dollars make all the differences for thousands of farms, but taking them away won't do much towards the deficit and it certainly won't help third world farmers.

To sum this up, the best thing to do would be to abolish state aid to agribusiness but keep it, even increase it, for small farms. We should probably give subsidies based on need rather than what crop is grown.
In doing so we can save a hell of a lot of money and give a helping hand to struggling farmers in the third world as well as Atlasia... and give some more choice for consumers as well.

I fail to see how it is the government's responsibility to ensure choice for consumers.

I don't buy the argument that taking away aid to farmers won't save us much money is a compelling reason to keep farm subsidies.  Just as with the NEA/NEH bill, money is not the only issue.  Nobody seems to be giving a reason why exactly the government should spend taxpayer dollars on farms.  Farm subsidies do nothing to help struggling farmers in Atlasia except a temporary monetary aid that can easily be taken away in times of financial emergency.  If that is what struggling farms are relying on, they will need to re-prioritize their way of doing things-- certainly New Zealand was able to adapt well following the farm subsidies abolition.

Because somebody has to and no one else will


I didn't say that. I said that abolishing aid to small farms will not save much money. Abolishing aid to agribusiness will save a lot though.


I gave several reasons. Personally my main reason is the fact that I don't want to see the actions of the government plunge people into poverty. We should be taking people out of it, not the other way round.


No, they do a lot. For most farms, making ends meet has always been very hard; it's even harder now than it used to be. A few thousand dollars mightn't sound like much, but when margins are tight it really does matter.


New Zealand's agricultural sector is very different to Atlasias; it's largely based around livestock and dominates the country's exports. It's one thing to adapt to a lack of state aid if you're a stock-rearer; quite another to do so if you're a wheat farmer.

Theoretically, choice would be necessary in the markets in order for competition to thrive.  Certainly this does not always happen as there are monopolies in various areas but I don't see how it is the government's responsibility to ensure choice.  If the consumers want something, they'll usually get it.


I know; I am stating that we should abolish both regardless of how much money it will save.


I do not believe it is the government's responsibility to ensure that every farm is able to make ends meet; if a farm cannot survive and gets special aid from the government, why not other things?  Why not support federal funding of theaters or museums that cannot survive on a commercial basis?  I realize there is a large difference between farm aid and museums, but the money wasted on farm subsidies could be better used elsewhere.  A business shouldn't need aid to survive.


In many respects, it would probably be harder for a stock-rearer to cope without aid than a wheat farmer.

It's such a shame that things don't work out like that in the real world, isn't it?


Because someone has to, and no one else will


Not usually, no. If someone wants C but can only get A or B they will generally choose B and not complain about the lack of C even though they can't get it. It's usually the retailers that determine consumer habits, rather than consumers


I support government funding of museums. But that isn't the issue here.


A small farm is more than just a business


Not at all; stock-rearing is much more stable than wheat farming. If we get rid of aid guess what happens the first year we have a sudden unexpected frost? Or too much rain? Or a drought?

Did you listen to anything I said?

First off, my comments about the possibility of crop failure were valid, because lack of genetic diversity.

Second, I was talking about the Third World when I made the comments about ending farm subsidies causing millions of deaths, because the Third World relies on the excess output that our farms produce.

Um, excuse me for sounding ignorant, this debate has quickly escalated into mass confusion for me :P  But, um, why should we pay Farmers not to grow things when the world relies in our excess output?  Again, please forgive me if this is a stupid question, I not the most knowledgable guy on this stuff.

Scaremongering. If we end subsidies, domestic outputnwill increase, not decrease, and this is a red herring, because it was not what we were talking about. If there are bad weather conditions in a given year we can just buy food from someone else.

This was already discussed, in detail.  Pull the subsidies away now would cause millions of deaths, because the people in those regions are not prepared to farm for themselves.  We talked this out.
[/quote]

I guess you mean Africa, becuase that's the only World Region I can think off that does not bitch about having no market for their excess output due to EU and US farm subsidies. As for Africa, most of Africa's trade relationships are with the EU, not us, and even if they were, the reason they can't buy food is becuase they are burneded by their own protectionism. Nothing we could do could change that.

If we abolished farm subsidies, we would not lose crops (the large agricultural businesses would continue to thrive anyway); the small farms would just continue to struggle like they're doing now.  Hardly anything would change except that we'd have more money.

[/quote]

Silliness.  No responsibility on the government's part to provide "choice."  Things do work like that in the real world- anything that relies on the government too much is doomed for failure because anything coming from the government is never stable.  The government providing money for everything and subsidizing 'small struggling farms' is just one small step towards socialism etc.


Hold on.. you want to make the government determine consumer habits now?


If we get enough produce from large businesses and the only reason we're giving money to small farms is because they're small farms.. what can I say.. something's not right there


Those same problems can hurt a stock-rearer.  Either way we've had nature problems before; not sure why we'd spend money fighting the inevitable on the issue of farm subsidies.

The idea that the farmers "we are paying farmers not to farm" is not the case.  It is just one of those things that is used by some on the Right to discredit the whole idea of Farm Aid, to make it look like some sort of Welfare for Farmers.  It is not.  They do produce.

If we abolish farm aid, the market will readjust to meet the area where need and profit are closest, right?  Well, since farms in the US way over produce, and a majority of the over production goes as aid to Third World countries, that over production will cease to exist once there is no one paying for it.  Is this not so?

Are you going to tell me that we subsidize farms so that they can over produce?  In other words, they only need the federal money to overproduce, not make ends meet?  The pro-farm subsidies coalition here needs to get their story straight and fast.

It is not the job of our government to overproduce food and send it to third world countries.  Call me skeptical but I wonder how much of that ends up in the hands of corrupt dictatorships who don't actually distribute the food to the right places.

They said Churchill was a scaremongerer too... in 1938.  How is it a redherring to bring up a point on an issue that you guys did not consider?  Is our focus really so narrow that we can't see the broader picture?

You say that we can always buy it from elsewhere.  What I said was that cooperate farming is a two edged sword, because while the "assembly line" mentality of it helps in overall output, it also creates conditions that are ripe for some sort of blight to form in the plant population.  This blight could spread all over the world in a relativly short time, if, say there was an issue with different seeds, or if gentic engineering accidentally produces an undesirable effect.  To say that that is not possible is unreasonable and short sighted.  It benefits us to have at least some variation in the market and thus, in the plant stock.

Even something as simple as bad weather can have a very negative effect if we are not over producing crops.  We spend billions subsidising other industries that are strategically important to our nation, why is this any less important than having a new bomber?  A bad year could kill literally millions.


I hardly see how that is relavant to my points about the need to keep a surplus in the market.

You aren't listening.  They are given the money to get buy, because the corperate farms can handle almost all national need, if not all of it.  Over production is a by product of this.

But if they are given money only to get by, they wouldn't be overproducing.  Hence, we are giving them too much money.

They are given the money that they need to keep farming.  The reason why they would not be farming without the money is because there is not enough demand for their product to keep them in business.  That is the whole reason for farm aid, to keep small farms in the game, where as they would be crushed by the larger cooperate farms.

Something is wrong with the system, though.  Corperate Farms are getting the money, regardless of the original intent of the aid.  We can eiliminate that problem by defining what constitutes the type of farm we are trying to help, and then only giving aid to them.  This would save us a lot of money.  Allow for the "over-production" that is needed and keep the family farm in business, thus perserving the diversity of the market.

Food should not be treated like cars.  Over production of automobiles helps no one.  The over production of foods helps in case of an emergency problem, or it can be sent to places of famine.

Well here's a novel idea:  if there isn't enough demand for their products, why force them on the consumers anyway through federal aid?


The government doesn't need to bother with preserving diversity in the market.


A better idea would be to purchase overproduced food from farms; that way they get their money and we have our emergency food.

Because food is not like a Cheve.  No one is going to die because of lax year of Cheve prosuction.  Millions could die from a bad harvest and millions are dying because of famine throughout the world.  Of "surplus" goes, for free, to feed those peopel that this Senate obviously regards as the "surplus population".


But it shoudl be concerned with maintaining diversity in the food supply, because one blight could wipeout millions.  One draught could drive food prices up and cause a food scare.  This is not a banking scare.  People die during a food scare.


We do, but they need the fuding to keep the farms going.  If we pay them 50 cents less than what they would get under ideal circustances, it won't be long before they go under.

I regard nobody as "surplus population" and the idea of encouraging famine as a method of population control is just disgusting; keep your implications and strawmans out of this debate.

Farms already have this year's money to work with- if the bill passes they don't get a subsidy in 2006 but rather produce a surplus with their subsidy from this year and then we pay them for the surplus food.

A food scare wouldn't be helped by a diversity in food- if there is not enough food, there isn't enough food, regardless of how "diverse" the food available is.

Just adding my support to this bill, though it might best be phased in over time - maybe cut it by 20% of it's current amount every year for 5 years, then we're down to zero. Since some have come to rely on the subsidies, weaning might minimize any ill effects.

NOTE:  Probably a good idea to skip to page 7...  The posts are presented here uncensored, but they're basically back-and-forth bitching, and we reached a truce anyway... so skip to pg. 7 to avoid any ugly debate posts.


They won't agree to that because cutting only a few dollars from some farms would 'cause them to go under.'

Some in this chamber have disregarded my points about Third World famine.  I didn't mention you, in particular, but no one seems to have thought very hard about the implications of this bill before they were willing to rush it into being.  I find that sad.


I'm not sure if you understand me.  I am all for doing away with a majority of Farm Aid... that being the money that is gobbled up by the largest 10% of farms.  Thus, we can save money and still achieve the goal of keeping small farms active.


Large farms often times grow seed in a controled facility and then diseminate it to their farms, all over.  If a blight were to be picked up on some of that seed, it coudl be kill all the crops that those farms are growing.  If that were to happen, then maybe, we could keep other coorperate farms, and smaller farms from getting the blight.  However, if these places do not exist, if small farms are stamped out, the chances of stoping it decrease because of lack of diversity in the population.  Also, the over-production can serve us in the case of a draught, because any localized occurance will not effect other regions.  If farms exist in other regions, then we will still have supply.  However, if there are only a few farmers, who are not as spread out, then the chances of famine increase.

These two factors are what I mean by "diversity".

You aren't listening, are you?  Go back to the begining of the thread, where I advocated a cut, and start from there.  You just wasted an hour of my life, because of a false premise.

I was, of course, referring to the small farms which you refuse to allow cuts on.  I know you support a cut on the large businesses.

With all due respect, Senator.

That's not what I gathered from your statement.  Dibble advocated a 20% cut, overall.  Far less than what I advocated.  You retorted with:


Indicating that we desired no cuts.  Which is a false portrayal of everyone's possition who is opposed to this bill as written.

I have already addressed this point.


Well those are your goals anyway... my goal is to just save money and quit babysitting farmers, not to keep small farms active.


The problem then is not encouraging small farms to stay active but to make sure that there are different farms in various areas of the country.. which is not achieved by farm subsidies.

Dibble advocated a cut on ALL farms; you only advocate one on large ones.  I did not misrepresent anyone's position.

So, you want to stop babysitting farms...


... but here you advocate more regulation?

Anyway while we're at it:


Fifty cents?  Certainly they'd lose more than that under a 20% cut.  Remember, I was referring to small farms.


Obviously not, I'm just pointing out that your goals are misplaced.

I meant that as a throw out number in standard measurment of crops/price, not as a general figure.


Obviously not, I'm just pointing out that your goals are misplaced.
[/quote]

That is not the way I see it.  Due to the sheer number of farms out there, subsidies allow for a wider geographic range.

What you seemed to have advocated was forcing large farmers to farm in certain areas.  Therefore, more regulation.

Actually, I didn't advocate anything.


Looking at it from your perspective, how do farm subsidies achieve your goal?  They don't, so all you can do is pretend I was advocating extra regulation in rebuttal.

Seeing as I don't care whether or not small farms stay active, as I'm sure you have figured out by now, when I worded it the way I did anyone would know that I was looking at it from your point-of-view.

In other words, I never advocated regulation.

Your arguments also show a fundamental lack of understanding for how the disemination of this money works.  It is not proportioned out, somoe to large farms, some to small farms, in such a way that allows for a cut to all at once.  The money is given out by "reasonable request".  Coorperate farms, for whatever reason, tend to beat smaller farms to the punch, and thus get tons of money, while smaller farms don't get as much as they should.  That is why I want a definition for "small farm".

Translation:  Oh, you didn't advocate regulation.  Oops.

I am aware of all that, and as I think I've made pretty damn clear, the solution I favor is abolishing farm subsidies altogether; I see it as pointless to reform something that I view is unnecessary in the first place.

How do we go about doing that, then, if not through regulation?



I could tell... so in that case, why are you hiding what you think then?  You first come out saying that we need more competition in the market, and that it would be more beneficial for small farms....  Why not just say that you don't care whether families and towns lose their livelyhoods.

This is one of those times that I really wish Atlasia were more reflective of the true US, because, coming from where you come from, your ass would be run out of town on a rail, advocating a possition like that.

For Christ's sake.  I DON'T ADVOCATE REGULATION because I DON'T ADVOCATE MAKING FARMERS FARM IN DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE COUNTRY.  I was looking at it from YOUR PERSPECTIVE, as I explained in the post you have quoted, and you have yet to provide a compelling argument as to how farm subsidies do ensure that farmers are in different areas.


Seeing as I admitted it, what exactly am I hiding?

Your universal traslator must be broken, Senator, because I certainly did not say that, or even imply it.

Since that is not my perspective, I can hardly see how you could be looking at it from my persepctive.  I thought since you were having so much fun mischarecterizing my possition, I would have some fun with yours.

You just changed the subject because it was clear I never advocated regulation.  Much like you changed the subject after I pointed out the difference between the cuts you and Dibble were advocating.  In other words, keep changing the subject, we can do this all night if you'd like.

Well let's see, unless you don't know what your own perspective is (and I won't rule it out), you stated that farm subsidies are necessary because if farms are concentrated in one area famine will be more likely etc.  So in other words, your perspective is pro-farm subsidies.  Mine is anti-farm subsidies.  I realize this is a difficult concept, though.

I changed the subject because I feel the need to defend against multitude of misguided and misinformed attacks that you are hurling against me.  Since I started out this thread on the defensive, I wonder how you can expect any less.

You changed the subject after being proven wrong.  Glad we're finally on the same page.

Glad to see that you are putting words in my mouth, again.  That seems to be the only weapon you have.

You admitted you changed the subject.  You did so without refuting the last thing I had to say about it.  This isn't that hard; just connect the dots.

Fine, I personally could care less what you predetermined that your possition would be before hearing the otherside out.  I'm just in here to try to advance my cause, the same as you.

I know very well what I am talking about.  You seem to be making a concerted effort to not understand this, however.

I've already heard the other side out, and unfortunately for you it only strengthened my opposition to farm subsidies.  Besides, I could say that you are also using a predetermined position in favor of farm subsidies.

Yes, I did.  I told you why I did, because I was defending a bunch of ideas at once.  Why do you keep doing this?

No, because I forged a compromise with Emsworth, straight away.  If you are looking for the moral highground here, going by your measure, I already have it.

Keep doing what?  You were only defending one thing (the Dibble 20% cut) until you accused me of wanting more regulation, which I had to defend myself from, and which got completely ignored.  Now you're saying I had a predetermined position on the issue.  Well yeah, pot calling kettle.

All you're doing is complaining that I'm attacking you, but here you are accusing me of wanting more regulation, dodging everything, ect.  It's upsetting.


I'm not looking for the moral high ground, so quit bringing up irrelevant stuff.

I said that because you kept mischarecterizing my possition on the issue.  That became the focus, because you wouldn't stop talking about it.

[/quote]


Stop attacking me and I won't do it.  I'm not the one who got us started down this cycle to begin with.

Anyway, I am finished with this sh**t.  If you have anything else to say about the issue that is not a gross mischarecterisation of what myself and Al think, then I'll be happy to address your concerns.

Mischaracterizing?  I wasn't the one subtley implying that anyone who supported this bill believed that famines were a good method of population control.

"Stop attacking" you?  Don't play victim please.  You're the only one being attacked, being mischaracterized, you're the one on the moral high ground, etc.

I would prefer you not bring Al into this because he has not wronged me in any way whatsoever- you on the other hand seemed content saying that I had a fundamental lack of understanding because I disagreed with you on an issue.

What I was implying was that anyone who favors this bill, in its current form, needs to consider what impact it will have on other people's of the world.  If you can vote for this bill, and those people lose Food Aid because of it, then there blood is on your hands.  I will not retract or alter that statement.  I stand by that.  Quite frankly, if you vote for this bill IN IT"S CURRENT FORM, Senator, you are indirectly murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent, helpless men, women and children.  I am saying this, not to degrade you, but because I don't want to see this happen and I will continue to say it for as long as I have to in order to get a better bill that will prevent that.  I am not ashamed of this, and I am hiding behind no false pretense.

Also, Senator, I am Gravely concerned on what the implimentation of this bill will do to our domestic situation.  It will cause a major paradigm shift for many parts of this country.  People will lose thier livelyhoods.  Towns will shutdown.  People will lose thier homes.

I combine this - and Damn you, sir keep in mind that these concerns are all ones that I have held from the very begining of this dicussion, I have not shifted possitions.  I have not ducked issues.  I always regarded each and every single reason I have stated as being key to why I think this is poor legislation - with my concern that the lack of diversity caused by this might reusult in undesirable conditions that we are not prepared to deal with.  You call in babysitting.  I call it survival.


I am not playing the victim, I am simply pointing out what every casual observer of this little discussion should already be aware.


I brought Al in because I was attempting to make this about the issue again, but... Al favors my possition.  You are attacking my possition.  Ergo, you are attacking Al's possition.

I said that you did not understand the way this worked, because you seemed to think that a 20% cut would mean an accross the board cut for all farm types.  As I explained, that cut would only mean that small farms would get nothing, because this money is not distributed by quota.

I've always wanted to be accused of favoring the murder of helpless women and children.  No wait, no I don't, and since that's what you have to keep accusing me of, I feel no reason to address your points which are recycled from earlier posts of yours anyway.  Although I will say, I never shifted positions or ducked anything either.  Only one person here has been ducking anything.. that would be the person who has to keep changing the subject.

You are indeed playing victim:  you attacked me by saying I favored more regulation when this was demonstratedly not true, while saying that I am the one attacking you.

I am not attacking Al's position because I don't know enough about his position to attack it.  Quit bringing him into this, surely we don't need to drag more people into this argument.

You did indeed say I had a lack of understanding:


Although I stated I was aware of all that, you just ignored it and replied to the joke section of the post ("Translation" etc).

When did I change the subject?  The subject is farm subsidies.  I have spent my time speaking about the possible implications of eliminating them.  I hardly see how that is chinging the subject.

As for the rest, well, I refuse to mince words, not on something that important.


And your charges about "babysitting", your portrayal of farm aid as farm Welfare, your misinterpritation (again and again) of what I meant by "diversity" (relating it only to the market when I was also talking about biodiversity) and repeated attempts to make it appear as though I was against any cut sort of balance that out, don't they?


Well, then I suggest you read his posts, since he posted, at length on the topic, and inserted some very infomative points.


Never denied that, I only explained it.


It was not evident by your previous post that you were aware that a 20% cut would not be an accross the board cut to all groups.  I merely sought to explain this.  I also apologize that your statements blantantly putting words into my mouth distracted me from whatever it was you had to say that was acctually to the point.

Hmm.


I never attempted to make it look as though you opposed any cut- just those on small farms.  Calling farm subsidies welfare or babysitting is hardly a nasty debate tactic.. especially when you, oh towering bastion of integrity, subtley stated that anyone who supported complete abolition of farm subsidies is pro-famine and pro-murder.


I read his posts and responded to several of them.  He has not posted to the length that you have however, so I don't know if he also believes anyone who supports this bill is pro-murder- however I do appreciate his general courtesy.

Either way, I'm tired of this; I feel like I'm speaking to a broken record, and I won't be responding to you any further.  You say you're tired of my "sh**t" and then keep dragging this on; please, give it a rest, when you have to resort to calling anyone who supports the bill someone who would be voting in favor of murdering helpless people, I don't wish to continue debating with you.  It's unfortunate, as I liked your running mate and was planning to give you my second preference.. but the respect you have for anyone who disagrees with you is sorely lacking.

Alright, ass.  I changed the subject from one point to another that was relevent within the topic of conversation, because you were making several points against my possition and I had to move around to address them all at once.  That was not, as you put it, changine the subject away from the point of the debate, which was Farm Subsidies.  Now that I have explained it in such a way that even an idiot can understand it....


Since you made your comments first, I was simply returning fire.  At least I was being honest.  You, on the otherhand, attempted to couch the fact that you don't care about small farms in a bunch of free market, BS.


But I thought you weren't aware of his possitions?  By reading what Al wrote, I can get a very good idea of what his possitions are.


You are the one who kept it going.  Sorry if I feel a need to respond to you.  I stated a fact, if you support this bill, it will deprive millions of Food Aid.  If you are uncomfortable with that idea, then my suggestion is rather simple... vote to amend it, and stop attacking me for trying to help.

And as for you later comments, I had a healthy disagreement with Emsworth, and we ironed it out and reached an understanding.  I'm sure that he would testify for my resonability.  On the other hand, you are legendary for being disagreeable.  Fine, if you don't vote for me, that is the way it works.  To be honest, I don't expect to win anyway... I'm in it because we needed a candidate after Jake left.  If everyone votes against me now, I could care less.  It won't change what I am saying.

Indeed; what is wrong with holding opinions that the majority doesn't agree with?

I'll keep to my word and stop repeating myself (i.e. not respond to the rest of your extremely immature post).

Edit:  A truce has been reached, so preferably just ignore everything from page 4 on...

I suppose it is irony that some of the most radical spending cuts have occured under one of the most, if not the most liberal President in Atlasian History. Well, cheers to that.

Siege

It's because of the EEEEEEVVVVVVIIIIIILLLLLL Libertarian Congress, doncha' know :D.

Do you say that in RL? :D  Because I do, and everybody in my “southern” household looks at me strange :P

No, not really. I got that from my brother, who got it from spending almost 5 years living in the Midwest.

Well you can veto things if you want to ;)

My dad keeps telling me that it's a Midwestern thing, but I don't know where I got it :P

Well I hope Supersoulty is still in the process of writing that amendment, don't forget about it!

Honestly, I don't know if this bill can be salvaged, even with an ammendment.  It would require some serious legislating.  If anyone would be will to help me out, to replace this bill with a comprehensive proposal, please, I am begging your assistance.

In an attempt to get this back on topic, I'll just bump this...

How much wood could a food chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood.

Heh, there, the debate is still open.  :)

Will the ethanol tax credit be kept under this bill?  Just wondering.

Al and I are currently working on revisions to the bill.  If there is anything that you would like us to include in the revisions, then please PM me.

What effects would all of these planned revisions have?

In the interests of honesty and full disclosure, this is the PM I sent to Senator Al, regarding the subject

Honestly, the strident back-and-forth in these subsequent pages became very tiresome to me, so I skipped ahead.  So could you please tell me: what exactly is it that you want, Mr. Secretary?

It is pretty well summed up in those pages.  I want to eliminate funding that goes to "mega-farms" while preserving the funding that goes to small family farms.  In so doing, we could cut about 75% (at least) of the ttal funding.

I think we can also take a small portion of the money and use it to educate Third World farmers in better farming techniques and, in so doing, we could eliminate thier dependencey on us and help out their economies.

I see no reason why I shouldn't support this.

Propose something along these lines and I'll introduce an amendment, or Senator Al can if he wishes to.

Thank you, Senator.  We are working on it.

I believe the elimination of all sugar subsidies is a good idea, for the record, I am less certain on the other farming subsidies.

Siege

Sugar subsidies are certainly the worst ones, agreed

Sorry to keep you all waiting; there's been some problems with the definition of a small farm. That seems to have been dealt with now. Shouldn't be all that long now.

I’d really rather abolition all farm subsidies, but if we have to keep it for the small farms in order for this to pass, at least it’s still a vast improvement.

Quite true. If possible, small-farm subsidies should be capped at a lower level then my original $15 billion cap.

$15 billion?  That was the total for all farm subsidies in 2003.  How much do you guys acctually know about this issue?  Anyway, the bill that Al and I are pushing calls for about $5 billion.

Do you have the votes to pass an outright repeal, or do you have to go with "compromise" nonsense?

I believe I would have enough votes to pass an outright repeal, but if anyone proposes compromise amendments, they would probably pass too. :(

I don't know that it would necessarily be a compromise.  Some believe that eliminating corporate subsidies but keeping some basic support for individual and family farms might actually be the best way to go.

Part I

Section I

The total amount of funds appropriated for Federal Farm Subsidies will be cut a total of 65%, from $16.5 billion annually to $6 billion starting the next fiscal year.

a) An additional $500 million will be set aside, each year, for the next 5 years to aid in the creation of the Third World Agricultural Independence Agency. (See Section IV)

b) The remaining $6 billion will be appropriated specifically towards agricultural operations meeting the guidelines set forth in Section II.

c) $200 million (of the remaining $6 billion) will be set aside in a permanent account, each fiscal year, to aid in emergency relief for high risk crops (i.e. wheat, grain, citrus).

Section II

a) The amount of money to be spent on state aid to farms is to be capped at $6 billion annually, except in times of agricultural crisis (which must be declared as such by the Senate).

b) Farms will recieve payments based on how low the farm in question scores on the following variables;

i) Total value of farm output
ii) Size of profit made by farm (in % terms)
iii) Ratio of agricultural labourers per acre
iv) Total value of the farm, including farm buildings and equipment

These scores will be recalculated annually

c) Money is to be shared out, according to the score, between the bottom 80% (according to the scores) of farms eligable for state aid. The lower a farms score, the higher it's % subsidies will be.

Section III

Sugar subsidies are hereby abolished as of the next fiscal year.

Part II

Section IV

The Third World Agricultural Independency Agency (TWAIA) will be established with an operating budget of $500 million per year over the next 5 years. 

a) The mission of the organization will be primarily to send personnel trained in the usage of agricultural technologies and methods to Third World nations in order to teach them to self sufficient and productive in the field of agriculture.

b) The Senate will have full oversight over this organization which will be placed under the Department of the Treasury.

c) At the end of the designated 5 year period, the Senate will review the activities of the organization and the progress that has been made in Third World nations.

1) If it is determined that proper progress has not been made, the Senate is authorized to fire all standing leaders of the Agency, but must continue funding for an additional 3 years.

2) If it is determined that the agency has reached its goals, then the Senate may vote to terminate funding.

Section V

The federal government will be authorized to establish guidelines to assure the genetic diversity of domestic agriculture.

a) All seed production facilities will be required by the FDA to preserve at least 40 separate seed lines of any flora that is produced. 

b) All companies involved in the in the large scale breeding of domesticated animals used in the production of food products will be required to preserve no fewer than 20 separate and distinct genetic lines for each species of animal breed.

Well this is the proposal that Al and I have crafted.  Any comments?

Yeah, can’t we just get rid of it all? ;)

P.S. This is a joke, this is only a joke.  In the event of a real statement from me, you will be advised to PANIC!!!

A comment? Ok I have one for you.............I'll be voting for it. :P

NOOO!!!  Vote to get rid of all Farm subsidies! :'(

Okay, I understand if you want to keep some, (not that I’m happy about it, but I do understand.)

Yes: How would the "Third World Agricultural Independency Agency" help Atlasia?

I would say that global famine would be to the detriment of our country.

Perhaps I should expand on this.  Right now, crops from first world countries have flooded Third World markets, leading to a decline in agricultural porduction.  If we are to decrease our production by lowering Subsidies, then we had better do something to help out Third World countires to become more productive in this area.  It will help our economy, in the end, when these countries acctually have some reasources to trade with us, and it will prevent the unwanted effects of mass starvation that would insue were we to simply cut these other nations off.

Another question - are we just going to send in our government agents to train these people without permission? I mean, seriously, do we have the right to decide for these countries what is best for them? What if the leadership of these nations decide "No, we don't want your people here"?

This will be run like any other aid program.  If other governments don't let us in, then we won't go in.  Plain and simple.

The question is on the passage of the above amendment. All those in favor, say Aye; those opposed, say No.

Aye

Abstain

Aye

Aye

Abstain. If this amendment passes, I think I'll amend it to make it more palatable; at present i don't like it that much.

Come on: Ebowed, Daniel, change your vote to nay!

Take a firm stance against all Farm Subsidies! :D

Nay

I change my vote to Nay.

Yay!  Now change your vote, Daniel, and we'll be tied!

That attitude has caused nothing but trouble. We're supposed to be legislators not soundbite generators.

I disagree.  Compromise is not always an option.  I don't mean that in regards to this bill or any other-- I'm just saying, never rule out going all the way with your stance.

If the amendment fails the bill won't have my vote, if it does pass you don't have to worry.

It's certainly an option in this case

I’m not asking them to be unreasonable, but it is obvious that Ebowed and DanielX don’t like this amendment very much at all, and neither do I.  I was just asking them to stand in opposition of it, instead of abstaining on it.

Abstain

Wow, this is a monument to the unreasonable nature of the "Demo-tarians".

We have given you 90% of what you want.  We have designed an approuch that cuts government speanding, keeps the market open and saves lives and you still won't sign on.  Unbelievable.

As a testament to my UNREASONABLENESS:

I change my vote to Aye.

This is due to my careful reconsidering of the issues at hand (it was specifically the foreign aid portion that concerned me) and is not the product of these attempts at guilting the several Senators.

Having read through the proposal...

Aye.

Finally we can get something going on this now.

Just to be snarky, I'll change my vote to Nay.

;D

5 Aye
2 Nay
1 Abstain

So... this can now pass, if we can get Emsworth to say so.

He is holding out.  This wouldn't be politcally motivated, would it?

P.S.  Gabu, your sig is really starting to annoy me.

If he really is holding out he's losing a lot of respect I had for him. (No proof here). I wish Colin could get on and say this has passed with the waiting time of course.

I was until now reading posts on the other half of the fantasy forum. I apologize for the delay.

The amendment has passed.

:)

Can we have a vote on this now?  It is pretty clear cut.  Either you vote for a reasonable reduction of Farm Subsidies, or you vote to keep them as is.

The question is on final passage. All those in favor, say Aye; those opposed, say No.

Aye

Aye

Aye

Aye.

I want my old bill back. :(

Yea, nonetheless.

5 Ayes
0 Nays

This has passed since we're short one Senator. :(

Senators have 24 hours to vote or change their votes.

You know what would be cool? If the final version of the bill were posted in a prominent place in the thread, either at the beginning, or in the post opening the final vote.
Oh well, I'll just have to read through eleven pages. :)

Sorry:

Section I

The total amount of funds appropriated for Federal Farm Subsidies will be cut a total of 65%, from $16.5 billion annually to $6 billion starting the next fiscal year.

a) An additional $500 million will be set aside, each year, for the next 5 years to aid in the creation of the Third World Agricultural Independence Agency. (See Section IV)

b) The remaining $6 billion will be appropriated specifically towards agricultural operations meeting the guidelines set forth in Section II.

c) $200 million (of the remaining $6 billion) will be set aside in a permanent account, each fiscal year, to aid in emergency relief for high risk crops (i.e. wheat, grain, citrus).

Section II

a) The amount of money to be spent on state aid to farms is to be capped at $6 billion annually, except in times of agricultural crisis (which must be declared as such by the Senate).

b) Farms will recieve payments based on how low the farm in question scores on the following variables;

i) Total value of farm output
ii) Size of profit made by farm (in % terms)
iii) Ratio of agricultural labourers per acre
iv) Total value of the farm, including farm buildings and equipment

These scores will be recalculated annually

c) Money is to be shared out, according to the score, between the bottom 80% (according to the scores) of farms eligable for state aid. The lower a farms score, the higher it's % subsidies will be.

Section III

Sugar subsidies are hereby abolished as of the next fiscal year.

Section IV

The Third World Agricultural Independency Agency (TWAIA) will be established with an operating budget of $500 million per year over the next 5 years. 

a) The mission of the organization will be primarily to send personnel trained in the usage of agricultural technologies and methods to Third World nations in order to teach them to self sufficient and productive in the field of agriculture.

b) The Senate will have full oversight over this organization which will be placed under the Department of the Treasury.

c) At the end of the designated 5 year period, the Senate will review the activities of the organization and the progress that has been made in Third World nations.

1) If it is determined that proper progress has not been made, the Senate is authorized to fire all standing leaders of the Agency, but must continue funding for an additional 3 years.

2) If it is determined that the agency has reached its goals, then the Senate may vote to terminate funding.

Section V

The federal government will be authorized to establish guidelines to assure the genetic diversity of domestic agriculture.

a) All seed production facilities will be required by the FDA to preserve at least 40 separate seed lines of any flora that is produced. 

b) All companies involved in the in the large scale breeding of domesticated animals used in the production of food products will be required to preserve no fewer than 20 separate and distinct genetic lines for each species of animal breed.

Aye.

It's been 24 hours, counting from the moment you made that post. 

With six ayes, the bill is passed. I present it to President Siege40 for his signature.

PS  The "Part I and Part II" located in the bill should be taken out.  I had to send it to Al in two parts, hence....

No, I voted for it specifically on the strength of the words "Part I" and "Part II". j/k

Thank you, Mr President