It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US to give farmers $12bn trade war bailout

page: 6
16
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

So vindictive...


I didn't ask that farmers shoulder that bill for me.


I didn't know that farmers were given considerations and out's inregard to the A.C.A.. Did their insurance premiums not climb as well ? As far as I am informed EVERYBODY is shouldering that.... But hey it's "cool" because you're OK with having yours subsidized...


Are you implying that whoever voted for Trump should be immune to whatever maladies befall Trump's actions while those who did not support/endorse Trump should?


I'm saying we're all in this together. As a Nation and as a People, for better or worse, till death (or expatriation) do us part. The mere concept of singling people out for selective punishment, because of political ideology is antithesis of a free democratic society. The notion is of it'self authoritarian and overtly petty.




posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: angeldoll
I don't want our farmers to be damaged by this. It's not their fault.

It may be their fault , farmers and rural communities are said to be where much of Trumps base is which is why he's paying the money so perhaps they are reaping what they've sown ... if you know what I mean.



posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Trumpenomics= screw yourself



posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
Trumpenomics= screw yourself


US econmics since Reagan.

Send all our jobs and wealth overseas while watching third wolrd nations prosper at the expense of the US workers.

Trump economics. Bring the jobs and money back to the US even if there are a few bumps in the road.
edit on 25-7-2018 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos
a reply to: Wayfarer

So vindictive...


I didn't ask that farmers shoulder that bill for me.


I didn't know that farmers were given considerations and out's inregard to the A.C.A.. Did their insurance premiums not climb as well ? As far as I am informed EVERYBODY is shouldering that.... But hey it's "cool" because you're OK with having yours subsidized...


Are you implying that whoever voted for Trump should be immune to whatever maladies befall Trump's actions while those who did not support/endorse Trump should?


I'm saying we're all in this together. As a Nation and as a People, for better or worse, till death (or expatriation) do us part. The mere concept of singling people out for selective punishment, because of political ideology is antithesis of a free democratic society. The notion is of it'self authoritarian and overtly petty.






Its not vindictive, its making those responsible for the effect pay the price, rather than insulate themselves from their own bad decisions. If farmers understood that trade wars hurt their business, I suspect at least some of them would be less likely to support a candidate who engages in them, and next time they vote differently. By insulating them, they learn nothing, continue to support candidates who engage in trade wars, continue to require tax payer funded bail outs, and the misery from their poor choices gets to be shared by everyone so that they don't have to come to terms with their bad decisions.



posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73


Trump economics. Bring the jobs and money back to the US even if there are a few bumps in the road.


don't you find it curious that Trump and Ivanka still have their products mfg. in Asia?

www.huffingtonpost.com...

bump in the road...indeed!!


edit on 25-7-2018 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: bastion

Our farmers were doing fine shipping their goods overseas. It's the counter tarrifs being placed against US farmers that is keeping our farmed goods from being bought overseas and has nothing to do with GMO or quality.

This whole debate proves you are wrong. How can you fail to see that?

For the record I am against GMO and serveral other things that have made it into our food industry. But that has nothing to do with this OP.



US meat and dairy has been illegal in Europe for decades due to GMO and failing to meet standards, additives, banned colourants and most if not all meat is banned as it contains growth hormone. US milk is banned due to high levels of anti-biotics, various growth hormones like rGBH and other Mansanto creations.

It's a major concern in the UK at the moment that Brexit may lead to US food produce being made legal and getting into the food supply unmarked.

I think you missed my point that the low food standards in the US are root cause of the problem. Get standards back up to international legal minimums and US agriculture won't have to be artificially subsidized (as it has been for years, the recent bailout is nothing new just accelerated damage from Trump applying an unworkable solution).



posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

Much of our countries infrastructure that helps elevate our econmy to the highest levels on the planet were built through subsidies. If it takes some money to Make our Farmers Great Again I support it.

Sometimes it it better to subsidize the few to ensure long term stability of industry. This is something the US has always done and although our infrastructure is fading, another area Trump has promised to fix because his predecessors ignored it, we still have the greatest infrastructure in the world.

Subsidies have proven to be the best system for enhancing infrastructure. Unless you can point to a nation doing it better I say we keep doing what made the US great and not try to reinvent a wheel that has been historically proven.

Do we over subsidize some industries? Yes. Is that a form of corporate welfare that we should eliminate? Yes. But to eliminate all subsidies goes against what Made America Great in the first place.
edit on 25-7-2018 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Isurrender73


Trump economics. Bring the jobs and money back to the US even if there are a few bumps in the road.


don't you find it curious that Trump and Ivanka still have their products mfg. in Asia?

www.huffingtonpost.com...

bump in the road...indeed!!



Not at all. He was a billionaire business man who took advantage of a broken system. Now he is president trying to fix the broken system that lead him to have his goods manufactured overseas.

Nearly everything Trump is doing is bad for his brand. His net worth has declined considerably since taking office.



posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Wayfarer

Much of our countries infrastructure that helps elevate our econmy to the highest levels on the planet were built through subsidies. If it takes some money to Make our Farmers Great Again I support it.

Sometimes it it better to subsidize the few to ensure long term stability of industry. This is something the US has always done and although our infrastructure is fading, another area Trump has promised to fix because his predecessors ignored it, we still have the greatest infrastructure in the world.

Subsidies have proven to be the best system for enhancing infrastructure. Unless you can point to a nation doing it better I say we keep doing what made the US great and not try to reinvent a wheel that has been historically proven.

Do we over subsidize some industries? Yes. Is that a form of corporate welfare that we should eliminate? Yes. But to eliminate all subsidies goes against what Made America Great in the first place.


This just sounds like your picking and choosing. Democratic subsidies (evil, bad, must go away). Republican subsidies (good, righteous, bigly).

For God's sake, there are Republican senators apoplectic over this since it rather smacks in the face of the very cornerstone of Republican doctrine.

Lastly, its not subsidizing things for the greater good, its subsidizing something because someone butchered the industry on purpose and is then trying to hide the pain of their mistake by transferring wealth from the taxpayers to those he directly harmed.

Its like Trump barricading all the doors/windows of one of his supporters house up because they let too much heat/cold/energy out (you know, because he promised to save people money and this is a really obvious way to do it), only to have to get a new $2000 door installed so that you can get in and out of it (paid for by the neighbors).



posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

A fully established industry should not need subsidies but very profitable companies still recieve them. Subsides should not be permanent. Subsidies should go to build infrastructure that is too expense or not cost effective to corporations.

I am not for or against the pipeline because I don't know enough. But this is a project that has such a long term return on investment it doesn't make sense for private idustry to pay. But it has a long term impact on US energy infrastructure so someone should build it. It benefits the whole nation more so than any one corporation.

Currently Trump is changing our global economic model and some industries are suffering. As we transation into trade deals that are more beneficial for the entire US it makes sense to subsidize certain industries until we know what the final econmy will look like.

A temporary investment in our infrastructure to ensure that US farms continue to produce Is a good thing in my opinion. If it turns out we lose on farming and export less in the future those farm jobs will transition to other industries.

To let the farms collapse before we have exhausted all negotiations will simply force more people on welfare which will still be subsidised by the US tax payer. So a short term subsidy makes more short term sense.

I feel the same way about US steel. Subsidizing US steel to both build back our infrastructure and asssit the industries that rely on steel is a good thing in my opinion. Too much dependence on foreign steel is not in the best interest of the US. Once the US market is back to a functioning capacity the subsidies can be eliminated.

Trump is doing things that will have a long term positive effect on the US economy. A short term rise in prices is nothing compared to the total collapse the US was headed towards. We were getting destroyed in trade and we can not continue down that path.

I am not Republican or Democrat. I don't care about talking points on either side. I investigate situations and make educated and informed decisions on what I think is best for the US economy as a whole.

I don't think some of the things Trump talks about are good for anyone but the 1%. I have no blind support for anyone or any side. I have my own mind and make my own decisions.


edit on 25-7-2018 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2018 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

Keep believing that farm subsidies are good -

articles.mercola.com...


The Environmental Working Group (EWG) also released its 2011 Farm Subsidy Database, although the USDA has reportedly refused to release all the data to confirm exactly who the billions in farm subsidies are being paid out to. Still, as EWG stated:

" … despite lawmakers' boasts of enacting major reforms in the 2008 farm bill, the new data clearly show that wealthy absentee land owners and mega farms awash in record income are once again the main beneficiaries of federal farm programs – while struggling family farmers go begging.

And once again, the database shows that many farm subsidy recipients get those fat government checks at addresses in New York City, Miami, Chicago and Los Angeles – not exactly farm country, and a far cry from the programs' original intent".



www.downsizinggovernment.org...


Agricultural Subsidies Chris Edwards April 16, 2018 The federal government spends more than $20 billion a year on subsidies for farm businesses. About 39 percent of the nation's 2.1 million farms receive subsidies, with the lion's share of the handouts going to the largest producers of corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, and rice.1

The government protects farmers against fluctuations in prices, revenues, and yields. It subsidizes their conservation efforts, insurance coverage, marketing, export sales, research, and other activities. Federal aid for crop farmers is deep and comprehensive. However, agriculture is no riskier than many other industries, and it does not need an array of federal subsidies. Farm subsidies are costly to taxpayers, but they also harm the economy and the environment.

Subsidies discourage farmers from innovating, cutting costs, diversifying their land use, and taking other actions needed to prosper in the competitive economy.



posted on Jul, 26 2018 @ 10:44 AM
link   
The Government can bail out...GM...But can't help our Farmer's OUT.....? I can't eat, or don't want too eat a GM car or truck......









posted on Jul, 26 2018 @ 10:49 AM
link   
The beans are growing and will be harvested and the contracts will be met. This is not an issue for at least a year. Does everybody understand that. Lots of time to negotiate. They cannot block signed contracts only new ones. The stupid world trade organization would step in.

Relax and let the negotiations continue.





posted on Jul, 26 2018 @ 11:10 AM
link   
I Personally don't like any kind of Government bailout......The other Car Companies would have picked up a lot of there workers other Car Companies would have gotten bigger, New ones may have Started.....My opinion...

Government staying as far away .......as Humanly possible......




posted on Jul, 26 2018 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

Punish them, so that they what ?


and next time they vote differently


Authoritarian, and petty...



posted on Jul, 26 2018 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos
a reply to: Wayfarer

Punish them, so that they what ?


and next time they vote differently


Authoritarian, and petty...



Its cause and effect. Your counter argument is that US farmers should be insulated from whatever bad decisions they make, which is about as un-American as you can get boyo.

Free market is a bitch (but you conservatives love it), so why are you so against the free market acting against the prerogatives of your cohorts?



posted on Jul, 26 2018 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos
a reply to: Wayfarer



I'm saying we're all in this together. As a Nation and as a People, for better or worse, till death (or expatriation) do us part. The mere concept of singling people out for selective punishment, because of political ideology is antithesis of a free democratic society. The notion is of it'self authoritarian and overtly petty.






This is a wonderful bit of hypocrisy seeing as how in the same breath you argue against the ACA (you know, the health care plan that was designed to take care of 'everyone since we're all in this together').

I like how you can easily use whatever word-salad you dream up to justify wealth redistribution when it suits you and then also decry it at the same time.



posted on Jul, 26 2018 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer


I'm not counter arguing about farmers, i'm counter arguing your fascist idea that people need punished for their political beliefs that differ from yours. You clearly stated punishing people so that they vote differently (the way you'd like them to vote).

Alas, the discussion is mute since the E.U. has caved to U.S., the trade-war that never was...



posted on Jul, 26 2018 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos
a reply to: Wayfarer



I'm saying we're all in this together. As a Nation and as a People, for better or worse, till death (or expatriation) do us part. The mere concept of singling people out for selective punishment, because of political ideology is antithesis of a free democratic society. The notion is of it'self authoritarian and overtly petty.






This is a wonderful bit of hypocrisy seeing as how in the same breath you argue against the ACA (you know, the health care plan that was designed to take care of 'everyone since we're all in this together').

I like how you can easily use whatever word-salad you dream up to justify wealth redistribution when it suits you and then also decry it at the same time.



There was nothing hypocritical about my statement. We're citizens to the same nation (I think anyways, you might not be a U.S. citizen /shrug). As such we bare or enjoy the up's & down's of the country together. I didn't think the concept soo esoteric.

As far as the burden of an individual's bills, like health insurance or the electric bill, or your sewer bill are upon the individual. While yes we should work together to make the country better for everyone, I am not obligated to pay your bills. The belief that one is responsible for the outlays of another is immoral, impractical and a wasted breath.... Again subsidies and communism are not the same thing, it's not even a real argument.

I have not, and do not justify redistribution of wealth.... The accusation is ridiculous.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join