Farm Bill

[kallend 2,131]

Finally expected to pass this week. I guess the GOP finally figured out that wealthy farmers who reliably vote "R" will be pissed if they don't get their welfare checks (aka price supports and subsidies).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[RonD1120 62]

kallend

Finally expected to pass this week. I guess the GOP finally figured out that wealthy farmers who reliably vote "R" will be pissed if they don't get their welfare checks (aka price supports and subsidies).

And your point is....

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[rushmc 23]

RonD1120

***
Finally expected to pass this week. I guess the GOP finally figured out that wealthy farmers who reliably vote "R" will be pissed if they don't get their welfare checks (aka price supports and subsidies).

And your point is....

Just look at the other thread he just started
Explains much

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[RonD1120 62]

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[billvon 3,096]

>And your point is....

That republicans want government welfare just as much as democrats do - they just call it something different.

[rehmwa 2]

billvon

>And your point is....

That republicans want government welfare just as much as democrats do - they just call it something different.

that's an objective and politically unbiased observation that many here have made on multiple occasions,.......

But not Kallend.....ever.

Do you really think that's his intent/point?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Opie 0]

Finally expected to pass this week. I guess the Dems finally figured out that welfare recipients who reliably vote "D" will be pissed if they don't get their welfare checks. (aka snap program).

See there it's bipartisanship finally at work

[billvon 3,096]

>Finally expected to pass this week. I guess the Dems finally figured out that welfare
>recipients who reliably vote "D" will be pissed if they don't get their welfare checks.

Exactly. Kallend complains about the republican's welfare wants while ignoring SNAP; RonD bitches about the democrat's welfare while collecting his Social Security and Medicare checks. (Now cue both to post "but that's different!")

[champu 1]

I think it's time Speakers Corner makes the leap to allowing inline images.

[kallend 2,131]

billvon

>Finally expected to pass this week. I guess the Dems finally figured out that welfare
>recipients who reliably vote "D" will be pissed if they don't get their welfare checks.

Exactly. Kallend complains about the republican's welfare wants while ignoring SNAP; RonD bitches about the democrat's welfare while collecting his Social Security and Medicare checks. (Now cue both to post "but that's different!")

Do you see any difference between giving welfare to the poor and giving it to the wealthy?

What would Jesus think?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,096]

>Do you see any difference between giving welfare to the poor and giving it to the wealthy?

Morally? Yes. Fiscally? No.

[Remster 30]

billvon

>Do you see any difference between giving welfare to the poor and giving it to the wealthy?

Morally? Yes. Fiscally? No.

Actually, fiscally (or economically anyway), extra money given to the poor gets spent and put back in the "main street" economy. Extra money given to the wealthy will go into savings / "Wall street".

Remster

[rehmwa 2]

billvon

>Do you see any difference between giving welfare to the poor and giving it to the wealthy?

Morally? Yes. Fiscally? No.

Morally - short term, or long term?

in both cases, it hurts the recipient and the giver. welfare is a lot different than personal, face to face charity - the kind that makes both the giver and the receiver better people in the long run. Blind, impersonal, no-consequences, automatic charity doesn't help anyone. (ok, it makes the people that vote for it and not have to pay it feel a false sense of self satisfaction and superiority. so we got that going for it. which is nice)


as for Remster's bumper sticker concept - it all goes into the economy either way. Not a lot of rich guys (or poor guys) just stuffing cash in mattresses....

the short of it, if everyone kept their money and just spent it as they thought they should, as individuals - it still gets into circulation too.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[lawrocket 3]

Remster

Actually, fiscally (or economically anyway), extra money given to the poor gets spent and put back in the "main street" economy. Extra money given to the wealthy will go into savings / "Wall street".

So money sitting in a bank where it can be lent out and circulated is bad? The rich spend money and the poor spend money. The rich invest and the poor spend money.

Either way, money is circulating just like Keynes thought it should.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Remster 30]

lawrocket

***

Actually, fiscally (or economically anyway), extra money given to the poor gets spent and put back in the "main street" economy. Extra money given to the wealthy will go into savings / "Wall street".

So money sitting in a bank where it can be lent out and circulated is bad? The rich spend money and the poor spend money. The rich invest and the poor spend money.

Either way, money is circulating just like Keynes thought it should.

Through very different modes.

I'm not attaching a value to either, just saying they are very different.

Remster

[billvon 3,096]

> Blind, impersonal, no-consequences, automatic charity doesn't help anyone.

I think it quite literally keeps people alive, which definitely helps them. There are long term consequences, but the primary alternative is just to let them starve. And based on a very long history of poverty, "threatening the poor with starvation so they work" doesn't cure poverty. Some people are not capable of self-reliance for a number of reasons.

This, of course, does not make welfare a fiscally good idea - just a morally good one.

There are also other alternatives - requiring people to work or get training to get any money, for example. This in the short term would cost significantly more, since you have to have a level of supervision for many people that would render any cost benefit from their work (or increase in skills) moot. But if we can figure out how to pay for it, it might have longer term benefits in the reduction (not elimination) of people who need assistance.

[rushmc 23]

First off I am no supporter of the gov and this farm bill
That said, I would want to get the fed the hell out
But
Not just the farm bill
The damned government costs farmer far more than they can ever get back from any farm bill
So
Get the hell out of everything completely or, as they do now, control them (the farmers) a bit by giving some of their own money back.

Take your pick

So you all know, I am still very close to family farming through relatives and I grew up on a farm

Bill
You was just the last post in the thread so this is not aimed at you specifically

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[turtlespeed 226]

kallend

***>Finally expected to pass this week. I guess the Dems finally figured out that welfare
>recipients who reliably vote "D" will be pissed if they don't get their welfare checks.

Exactly. Kallend complains about the republican's welfare wants while ignoring SNAP; RonD bitches about the democrat's welfare while collecting his Social Security and Medicare checks. (Now cue both to post "but that's different!")

Do you see any difference between giving welfare to the poor and giving it to the wealthy?

What would Jesus think?

Whatever he would think, should it really impact you that much?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kallend 2,131]

rushmc

The damned government costs farmer far more than they can ever get back from any farm bill

I have a colleague (engineering professor) who inherited a farm. The government pays him NOT to grow anything. So he just accepts the money from the taxpayer while being certainly in the "top 2%" on account of his regular job + consulting, and the farm lies fallow.

I like the guy but I have a BIG problem with taxpayers sending money to those who are already quite well off.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I have a colleague (engineering professor) who inherited a farm. The government pays him NOT to grow anything. So he just accepts the money from the taxpayer while being certainly in the "top 2%" on account of his regular job + consulting, and the farm lies fallow.

I like the guy but I have a BIG problem with taxpayers sending money to those who are already quite well off.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yep. Big driver of that. (IN MANY CASES) is the enviro wackos

Look up the CRP program

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[weekender 0]

kallend

***
The damned government costs farmer far more than they can ever get back from any farm bill

I have a colleague (engineering professor) who inherited a farm. The government pays him NOT to grow anything. So he just accepts the money from the taxpayer while being certainly in the "top 2%" on account of his regular job + consulting, and the farm lies fallow.

I like the guy but I have a BIG problem with taxpayers sending money to those who are already quite well off.

I think everyone has a big problem with it except those getting the payments and those pol's they vote for.

ive read the new farm bill does away with direct payments. so possibly we are going in the right direction on that matter.

WSJ- "WASHINGTON—When lawmakers unveil a bipartisan compromise on a new five-year farm bill this month, they likely will trumpet a major change in policy: ending the long-established and much-maligned system of direct payments to farmers.

Abolishing the unpopular program, in which payments have been made regardless of crop prices—and sometimes even to people who grow nothing—is a rare point of accord among Democrats and Republicans in both the House and Senate. The idea, lawmakers say, is to require farmers to put more "skin in the game" in shouldering the risks associated with agriculture."

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[rehmwa 2]

billvon

> Blind, impersonal, no-consequences, automatic charity doesn't help anyone.

, "threatening the poor with starvation so they work"

I find that to be an unfair characterization of what I was trying to say. Unless you seriously believe that if the government didn't force charity, then absolutely no other way exists. (my point wasn't to NOT have charity, my point was it is more effective for both the givers and the receivers when personal and voluntary, vs enforced through legislation)

I like the rest of your post.

Quote

does not make welfare a fiscally good idea - just a morally good one

It's not welfare that's morally good. It's charity that's good. Welfare is charity that's applied in a psychologically damaging way. Maybe better than nothing, but still, the alternatives are better. Leave it to the government to warp a concept that's good for all and change it to an 'entitlement' (just look at that word) for generations of receivers, and creates untrusting cynical givers.

But hey, at least to pols can twist it into a political philosophy abused by both sides to garner support in just about every variation possible

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

kallend

I have a colleague (engineering professor) who inherited a farm. The government pays him NOT to grow anything. So he just accepts the money from the taxpayer while being certainly in the "top 2%" on account of his regular job + consulting, and the farm lies fallow.

I like the guy but I have a BIG problem with taxpayers sending money to those who are already quite well off.

Why do you hate the planet?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[champu 1]

Remster

***>Do you see any difference between giving welfare to the poor and giving it to the wealthy?

Morally? Yes. Fiscally? No.

Actually, fiscally (or economically anyway), extra money given to the poor gets spent and put back in the "main street" economy. Extra money given to the wealthy will go into savings / "Wall street".

I think it would only be much of a difference if the poor spend said money at small private businesses where you can get a few "hops" out of it, or if they invested in themselves through trade school or something to improve their future economic chances. If a poor person buys disposable / consumable items from big national companies or pays rent with it (driving up rent costs) then a month down the road the poor person is right where they started except now the economy has grown around them, so they're worse off and need more money to make it through the next month.

You can argue, "Yay! We kept them alive for a month!" But you can't just keep giving poor people money and saying, "Here, you give this to a rich person." It may get them through the month, but now they're just a month older and in a worse position economically.

[rehmwa 2]

champu

"Yay! We kept them alive for a month!" It may get them through the month, but now they're just a month older and in a worse position economically.

wow - that pretty much sums up the entire philosophy and the real impact

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants