Farm bill ends subsidies, cuts food stamps

[Lurker66]

Cool lesson. FWIW, I dont disdain comercial agriculture, its a business. The conservative side of me doesnt agree with subsidizing farms with tax dollars. As for the insurance. ...if a farmer can buy it, cool, but when things dont work out, either for the insurance company or the farmer, dont put the taxpayer on the hook.

And I agree about the "damn high risks and uncertain returns" but if ya cant make a profit, thats not really a taxpayers concern. I feel for the plight of farmers much like the plight of the small business man, but im not beholding to any particular "business" when it comes to tax money. Just makes no sense to help a farmer buy insurance for crops that might fail or helping a business buy insurance for a product that he cant sell. Thats not what tax dollars are for.

 

[Jestik]

We are the breadbasket of the world.

 

[henschman]

How come its always repeal and replace, instead of just repeal?

I suppose the food stamp reductions are good news at least.

 

[Commander Keen]

How come its always repeal and replace, instead of just repeal?

I suppose the food stamp reductions are good news at least.

I like this line of thinking.

 

[NikatKimber]

Cool lesson. FWIW, I dont disdain comercial agriculture, its a business. The conservative side of me doesnt agree with subsidizing farms with tax dollars. As for the insurance. ...if a farmer can buy it, cool, but when things dont work out, either for the insurance company or the farmer, dont put the taxpayer on the hook.

And I agree about the "damn high risks and uncertain returns" but if ya cant make a profit, thats not really a taxpayers concern. I feel for the plight of farmers much like the plight of the small business man, but im not beholding to any particular "business" when it comes to tax money. Just makes no sense to help a farmer buy insurance for crops that might fail or helping a business buy insurance for a product that he cant sell. Thats not what tax dollars are for.

If the .gov didn't have a hand in the regulation of prices, then you would have a case.

Farms have a hard time making ends meet because the price of milk, beef, and other produce is partially government regulated.

Yes, food is a necessity. But if you are willing to forgo the ability to grow it yourself, and pay someone else to do it; then that person should be able to make a reasonable living doing so.

 

[LightningCrash]

Yes, food is a necessity. But if you are willing to forgo the ability to grow it yourself, and pay someone else to do it; then that person should be able to make a reasonable living doing so.

And we're back near the McDonald's living wage argument; I don't think it's the government's duty to use the threat of force to ensure someone makes a reasonable living.

 

[Lurker66]

How come its always repeal and replace, instead of just repeal?

I suppose the food stamp reductions are good news at least.

I think that saves tax payers about 6.3 million dollars. Now divide that by the number of people who are in the workforce. Roughly 146 million and we save about $21 a year.... yay, good news.

 

[SoonerBorn]

Don't farmers get the benefit of the government making sure the consumer prices of their produce don't go too low as well? Seriously, just asking.

 

[NikatKimber]

Don't farmers get the benefit of the government making sure the consumer prices of their produce don't go too low as well? Seriously, just asking.

Maybe so, but then what is the difference between insuring they sell "enough" (or get comped for it), and making sure what they sell isn't too "low"?

And whose definition of "low"?

 

[SoonerBorn]

Maybe so, but then what is the difference between insuring they sell "enough" (or get comped for it), and making sure what they sell isn't too "low"?

And whose definition of "low"?

I just asked a question. I was looking for an answer to it. I wasn't looking for hypotheticals and more questions. So, does anyone know the answer to my question?