Are Farm Subsidies socialism?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
[
Average kid.

Vitamin enriched grains in milk soup for breakfast.

Sandwich lightly laced with a little protein and green water leaf with a side of chips.

Decent dinner.

Rinse and repeat = health.

I love that my tax dollars go to support this crap.

You're just salty that grain makes for fatty unmarbled meat.

I don't care what you call it but I welcome every govt. check my 180acres of cotton and onions generates. As soon as the infrastructure in in place, I'm switching to hemp.

The oil and gas exploration companies out on my land also get subsidized. MAGA, or in this case, Making Texas Greater Again.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
You're just salty that grain makes for fatty unmarbled meat.

I like corn-fed beef nearly as much as I like olive-fed beef.

a reply to: olaru12

I don't care what you call it but I welcome every govt. check my 180acres of cotton and onions generates.

And I thought liver and onions was mealy.

To each their own. 🤷‍♂️

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
You're just salty that grain makes for fatty unmarbled meat.

I like corn-fed beef nearly as much as I like olive-fed beef.

Right...... Beef 😉

You understand part of the farm aid package is to feed to poor as well? That payments to not grow is to rotate fallow fields that refertilize that land? That if unrestricted, farms would over produce causing the market price to crash then hyperinflate as farmers refuse to grow that crop again after impoverishment?

Ultimately it is so farmers remain in the farming business, pay their property taxes and realize a profit under regulation. It is a means of slight price control to prevent a dependence of importing food. But the alternative is face what the former Soviet Union did under the grain embargoes because it was no longer worth farming under communism.

The same income could be made being a tour guide so why work and worry when you would live no better doing less. Which is why socialism has an appeal to those that have not accumulated personal wealth by investing personal effort.

No, the Farmer subsidies that Trump is allotting to farmers is not Socialism at all..... it is more like Insurance Payments for Crops that were negatively hit.

Trumps policies of upping Tariffs on China (for bad/unfair business practices) were not a factor in the Farmers planning for next years choice and acreage of crops-to-be-grown... the Tariff Wars were not of any concern at that time

but since then, the Tariff Wars have become a Existential Factor for the farmers, their crops & livelihood was being hammered by the negative reactions to the Trump political policies (which are correct to punish China for their thievery)

the Farmers need to Be Made Whole - & not suffer financial losses for political policies determined by non-farmer Politicians

a reply to: JAGStorm

Socialism is when the workers or the public own the means of production. So no it’s not socialism.

the Farmers need to Be Made Whole - & not suffer financial losses for political policies determined by non-farmer Politicians

What about the same for every other American.

Republicans hate hand out unless it is to them via programs like farm subsidies.

I don't like any industry or corporate subsidies. With that said, strategically, I can understand why govt would subsidize farms as you don't want your food supply to be compromised.

No.

Farm subsidies, at least in theory (if not in practice) are meant to provide stability in the food supply. Thats survival, not socialism.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
No.

Farm subsidies, at least in theory (if not in practice) are meant to provide stability in the food supply. Thats survival, not socialism.

Is survival not possible without subsidies? What happened to less government??

originally posted by: Bluntone22
You are only looking at the issue from one side.
Consider a farmers.

You plant a crop.
Pray for rain, but not to much.
You hope for the best.
You harvest with a $250k machine that you use 3 weeks out of the year.
Then somebody else tells you what you are going to get paid.


Cut the subsidies if you want but dont bitch about $8 gallons of milk.
$16 pounds of cheese.
Etc...

So my money should be taken from me by the government and given to another individual because he or she chose a career in which they couldn't make a living? Makes perfect sense. Go Murka!

originally posted by: roadgravel

the Farmers need to Be Made Whole - & not suffer financial losses for political policies determined by non-farmer Politicians

What about the same for every other American.

.

We non-farmers don’t deserve new 4x4 trucks every year, our wife’s a new Mercedes and a brick home on 50 acres.

originally posted by: JAGStorm

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
No.

Farm subsidies, at least in theory (if not in practice) are meant to provide stability in the food supply. Thats survival, not socialism.

Is survival not possible without subsidies? What happened to less government??

The issue (at least as I see it) is that you don't want the food supply subject to wild cost swings and shortages. In addition, free markets would be off shoring food as well much like our manufacturing. This is not a good position for the country to be in strategically. Imagine if most of our grain, etc were imported. In war time, a nefarious actor could starve the country by cutting off shipping routes, etc.

This is one of the reasons I don't like how all our manufacturing has been shipped overseas. If we ever had a situation like WWII again, we would be hard pressed to be able to manufacture things for war time.

Like I said, I don't like government subsidizing corporations or industries, but I can kind of see why strategically, they'd do it with farming. Of course, the issue is always that you can argue about government subsidizing everything for some reason or another.

It is pure-D socialism.

And to critical stinker's observations about socialism; the propoganda and forced labor is directed only at the individual farm owner, so that that 99% of the non-farm population never hears about it.

Farming is the single most govt-regulated sector of our economy, which is why it's on the ropes.

With most farm bills, the government tells you what ratio of grains to grow. How much wheat was an issue where I worked. The government would look at your farm with satellites, using infra-red to identify what you had planted. They would tell you to plow up the excess wheat. If you didn't, you couldn't get future farm loans, you couldn't even legally sell ANY of your grain. They would generally let you plant experimental crops, items that were not economically significant in your area; but the big three where I lived (corn, wheat, sorghum) were strictly controlled. I experimented with buckwheat for that reason.

In the mid-nineties, when Newt Gengritch and the republicans took over congress, they didn't pass a farm bill, and you could plant whatever you wanted, and take it to the bank. Corn hit $7/bushel, which made many millionaires. That year, the price floated, but there was a limited supply because people's farms were still under the loans of previous years, and so they only had whatever corn they previously planted.

1990-2000. That was the last really profitable era for farmers.

****

It's funny that DJ Trump as candidate said he'd like to get farmers off of socialized USDA-life-support. The Democrats and Republicans both believed that it would take him out in the Iowa and Ohio primaries. But farmers voted overwhelmingly for trump anyway.

One of the many changes trump made on America, was to break farmers free of the Democrat party. When I was young, even into Clintons first term, most farmers and ranchers were democrat. Life in, life out.

a reply to: JAGStorm

What I'm confused about is why some people are so quick to call many things socialism, and be completely against it, but then be perfectly OK with farm subsidies.

Because Trump said it's ok. These are the same people who have no problem with quantitative easing because Trump tweeted about it.

originally posted by: JAGStorm

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
No.

Farm subsidies, at least in theory (if not in practice) are meant to provide stability in the food supply. Thats survival, not socialism.

Is survival not possible without subsidies? What happened to less government??

If no one wants to farm because of the nature of farming, then how will we eat?

How many years of drought should a farmer starve through before deciding to get into another field? What if non edible crops are the most profitable and nothing lures farmers into growing food crops instead of crap like switch grass to make fuel from?

You can have less government. Its what we have had throughout human history. A history rife with famine, starvation....

Sounds great.

Are Farm Subsidies socialism?

At best its cronyism.

Paying people to not farm and price fixing.

originally posted by: neo96
Are Farm Subsidies socialism?

At best its cronyism.

Paying people to not farm and price fixing.

The Agriculture "industry" does have lobbiest working in DC.

www.agfuture.org...

American styled Capitalism...MAGA