Farm Subsidies Abolition Bill

[Ebowed]

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

[12th Doctor]

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.

[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.

[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.

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.

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.

[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.

[12th Doctor]

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.

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?

[12th Doctor]

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.

[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.

[12th Doctor]

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.

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]

You must be logged in to read this 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.

[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.

[12th Doctor]

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

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Ebowed]

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:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[12th Doctor]

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.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Never denied that, I only explained it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Ebowed]

When did I change the subject?

I changed the subject because I feel the need to defend against multitude of misguided and misinformed attacks that you are hurling against me.

Hmm.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[12th Doctor]

When did I change the subject?

I changed the subject because I feel the need to defend against multitude of misguided and misinformed attacks that you are hurling against me.

Hmm.

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....

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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 must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Ebowed]

On the other hand, you are legendary for being disagreeable.

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...

[Siege40]

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

[DanielX]

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 .

[CheeseWhiz]

doncha' know .

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

[DanielX]

doncha' know .

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

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

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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

Well you can veto things if you want to

[CheeseWhiz]

doncha' know .

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

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

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

[MasterJedi]

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

[12th Doctor]

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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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

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.