Farm Subsidies Abolition Bill

[12th Doctor]

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.

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.

[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.

[12th Doctor]

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?

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".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[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.

[John Dibble]

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.

[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.'

[12th Doctor]

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.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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".

[12th Doctor]

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.

[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.

[12th Doctor]

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.

[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.

[12th Doctor]

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?

[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.

[12th Doctor]

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

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

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.
[/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.

[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.

[12th Doctor]

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".

[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.

[12th Doctor]

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.

[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?

[12th Doctor]

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.

[12th Doctor]

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.

[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.

[12th Doctor]

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.

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.