Farm Subsidies Abolition Bill

[Ebowed]

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.

[Ebowed]

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.

[Ebowed]

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.

[Ebowed]

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

Because somebody has to and no one else will

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[Ebowed]

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.

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.

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.

[Ebowed]

Theoretically, choice would be necessary in the markets in order for competition to thrive.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because someone has to, and no one else will

[/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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Ebowed]

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.

[Ebowed]

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.

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.

[Ebowed]

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.

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?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[Ebowed]

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.

[Ebowed]

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.

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.

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

[Ebowed]

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.

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

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.

[Ebowed]

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 have already addressed this point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Ebowed]

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.

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

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:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

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

[Ebowed]

Anyway while we're at it:

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.

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

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

So, you want to stop babysitting farms...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

... but here you advocate more regulation?

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

[Ebowed]

Actually, I didn't advocate anything.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Ebowed]

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.

[Ebowed]

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.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[Ebowed]

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.

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

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.

[Ebowed]

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.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

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.

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.

[Ebowed]

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

[Ebowed]

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.

[Ebowed]

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.

[Ebowed]

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'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.

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.

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

[Ebowed]

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.