Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Simple Question. Will you vote for Trump?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="farmerbyron" data-source="post: 2841146" data-attributes="member: 4953"><p>In a perfect world, I'm with you. However, our govt has decided that there is a vested govt interest in cheap food. Fed people are happy people and hungry folks are pretty pissy. As such, subsidized crop insurance is the vehicle to keep us farmers in business through natural disasters. They are quite frequent and without subsidies, crop insurance would not exist. This would mean more of us go out of business and less food being produced and food costs dramatically higher than they are. </p><p></p><p>Might also want to analyze where the bulk of the spending in the 2014 farm bill takes place. Subsidies to farmers amount to a fart in a whirlwind compared to food stamps and even more so when you consider the entirety of federal spending. </p><p></p><p><a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_Act_of_2014#Provisions_of_the_bill" target="_blank">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_Act_of_2014#Provisions_of_the_bill</a></p><p></p><p>According to Brad Plumer at The Washington Post, the spending in the bill (FY 2014-2023) breaks down in the following manner:</p><p></p><p>Food stamps and nutrition</p><p>$756 billion</p><p>Crop insurance</p><p>$89.8 billion</p><p>Conservation</p><p>$56 billion</p><p>Commodity programs</p><p>$44.4 billion</p><p>Everything else</p><p>$8.2 billion</p><p>In total, this spending represents about 2.1% of projected federal spending over that time period.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Now that we are way off topic lets circle back around to Trump and trade agreements. The president can call for revising trade agreements all he wants but ultimately if the other countries are happy with the current agreements, they aren't changing. Now any future agreements can certainly try be negotiated towards protectionism. However, other countries will not just sit idly by and get the shaft of their goods being taxed while US goods come to them tariff free. Also, if the US does not negotiate an attractive enough deal, there is a whole world of other countries that are willing to play ball. Then before you know it, US goods will face tariffs from numerous countries in a trade partnership and not just the one country you are negotiating with.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="farmerbyron, post: 2841146, member: 4953"] In a perfect world, I'm with you. However, our govt has decided that there is a vested govt interest in cheap food. Fed people are happy people and hungry folks are pretty pissy. As such, subsidized crop insurance is the vehicle to keep us farmers in business through natural disasters. They are quite frequent and without subsidies, crop insurance would not exist. This would mean more of us go out of business and less food being produced and food costs dramatically higher than they are. Might also want to analyze where the bulk of the spending in the 2014 farm bill takes place. Subsidies to farmers amount to a fart in a whirlwind compared to food stamps and even more so when you consider the entirety of federal spending. [URL="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_Act_of_2014#Provisions_of_the_bill"]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_Act_of_2014#Provisions_of_the_bill[/URL] According to Brad Plumer at The Washington Post, the spending in the bill (FY 2014-2023) breaks down in the following manner: Food stamps and nutrition $756 billion Crop insurance $89.8 billion Conservation $56 billion Commodity programs $44.4 billion Everything else $8.2 billion In total, this spending represents about 2.1% of projected federal spending over that time period. Now that we are way off topic lets circle back around to Trump and trade agreements. The president can call for revising trade agreements all he wants but ultimately if the other countries are happy with the current agreements, they aren't changing. Now any future agreements can certainly try be negotiated towards protectionism. However, other countries will not just sit idly by and get the shaft of their goods being taxed while US goods come to them tariff free. Also, if the US does not negotiate an attractive enough deal, there is a whole world of other countries that are willing to play ball. Then before you know it, US goods will face tariffs from numerous countries in a trade partnership and not just the one country you are negotiating with. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Simple Question. Will you vote for Trump?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom