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.

 

Tennessee Republican Floats Secession Threat

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ko-Dan Armada



That isn't true since there are plenty of "blue" states who are heavy Ag producers.



This is a logical fallacy, specifically cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

Because there are "blue states" that are heavy AG producers does not follow that all AG producers receive equal subsidies. The specific list of states your link rattled off are among the largest recipients of Agriculture Adjustment Act, and related, funding.

In other words:

X = Y does not mean L = Y


So, no blue states receive such funding on the same level?

Even though they actually produce more agricultural products?

Why is that?




posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by Ko-Dan Armada
 


ederal funding, FY 2006, dollars per person
All Federal funds 7,990 8,125 8,089
(rural) (urban) (total)
Federal funding by purpose
Agriculture and natural resources 126 28 54
Community resources 510 691 642
Defense and space 486 591 563
Human resources 169 158 161
Income security 6,143 4,787 5,151
National functions 555 1,871 1,518

Federal funding by type of payments (object codes)
Grants 1,565 1,236 1,324
Direct loans 46 -158 -103
Guaranteed/insured loans 255 483 422
Retirement/disability payments 3,072 2,579 2,711
Other direct payments to
individuals 1,931 1,483 1,603
Direct payments, not to
individuals 125 63 80
Procurement contracts 686 1,740 1,457
Salaries and wages 309 700 595

www.ers.usda.gov...

This data is from 2006, but as you can see AQ funds are not the cause of high federal funding for the state. Tenncare happens to be one of the bigger ones.



[edit on 24-7-2010 by antonia]


Interesting...nice socialist programs, there.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by __rich__

Originally posted by Ko-Dan Armada



That isn't true since there are plenty of "blue" states who are heavy Ag producers.



This is a logical fallacy, specifically cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

Because there are "blue states" that are heavy AG producers does not follow that all AG producers receive equal subsidies. The specific list of states your link rattled off are among the largest recipients of Agriculture Adjustment Act, and related, funding.

In other words:

X = Y does not mean L = Y


So, no blue states receive such funding on the same level?

Even though they actually produce more agricultural products?

Why is that?


That's correct. No blue states receiving funding at the same level as a percentage of total funding.

Which blue states produce more A3-eligible agricultural products? If you could just rattle off a few that would be super. Thanks!

[edit on 24-7-2010 by Ko-Dan Armada]



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Ko-Dan Armada
 


That would actually be California. They are by and large the largest producer of all food goods in the U.S.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by Ko-Dan Armada
 


That would actually be California. They are by and large the largest producer of all food goods in the U.S.


Unfortunately the USDA disagrees with you.

www.infoplease.com...

(obviously above numbers do not include viniculture, however, wine grapes are not a subsidy-eligible crop)


[edit on 24-7-2010 by Ko-Dan Armada]



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ko-Dan Armada

Originally posted by __rich__

Originally posted by Ko-Dan Armada



That isn't true since there are plenty of "blue" states who are heavy Ag producers.



This is a logical fallacy, specifically cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

Because there are "blue states" that are heavy AG producers does not follow that all AG producers receive equal subsidies. The specific list of states your link rattled off are among the largest recipients of Agriculture Adjustment Act, and related, funding.

In other words:

X = Y does not mean L = Y


So, no blue states receive such funding on the same level?

Even though they actually produce more agricultural products?

Why is that?


That's correct. No blue states receiving funding at the same level as a percentage of total funding.

Which blue states produce more A3-eligible agricultural products? If you could just rattle off a few that would be super. Thanks!

[edit on 24-7-2010 by Ko-Dan Armada]


"Corn ethanol subsidies totaled $7.0 billion in 2006 for 4.9 billion gallons of ethanol..."

zfacts.com...

Corn production by state:

1. Iowa ................. 1, 769,000,000 bushels
2. Illinois ................ 1,473,450,000 bushels
3. Nebraska ........... 1,239,750,000 bushels
4. Minnesota .......... 1,032,750,000 bushels
5. Indiana ................. 760,350,000 bushels

www.kycorn.org...



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 10:40 PM
link   
I think the point being missed here is Wamp screams about the Fed's yet Tennessee gets more money from them than many other states. And it's not for farming as I just showed. Tennessee pays less than it receives. Wamp is just pandering. He wouldn't do anything.

And can i just say I scared the hell out of one his phone workers. She called me and it was the 5th time his people had called me in a week. Well...let's just say my response involved a sports airhorn and screeching. They haven't called since.

[edit on 24-7-2010 by antonia]



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by __rich__

Originally posted by Ko-Dan Armada

Originally posted by __rich__

Originally posted by Ko-Dan Armada



That isn't true since there are plenty of "blue" states who are heavy Ag producers.



This is a logical fallacy, specifically cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

Because there are "blue states" that are heavy AG producers does not follow that all AG producers receive equal subsidies. The specific list of states your link rattled off are among the largest recipients of Agriculture Adjustment Act, and related, funding.

In other words:

X = Y does not mean L = Y


So, no blue states receive such funding on the same level?

Even though they actually produce more agricultural products?

Why is that?


That's correct. No blue states receiving funding at the same level as a percentage of total funding.

Which blue states produce more A3-eligible agricultural products? If you could just rattle off a few that would be super. Thanks!

[edit on 24-7-2010 by Ko-Dan Armada]


"Corn ethanol subsidies totaled $7.0 billion in 2006 for 4.9 billion gallons of ethanol..."

zfacts.com...

Corn production by state:

1. Iowa ................. 1, 769,000,000 bushels
2. Illinois ................ 1,473,450,000 bushels
3. Nebraska ........... 1,239,750,000 bushels
4. Minnesota .......... 1,032,750,000 bushels
5. Indiana ................. 760,350,000 bushels

www.kycorn.org...



That's a great fact about corn production! Way to go!

Unfortunately, this is also a logical fallacy, namely you are affirming the consequent by assuming X implies Y on the basis that Y implies Z.

This is a discussion about total agricultural output versus subsidies, not output of one specific crop.

Nebraska Subsidies: $1.4 billion
California Subsidies: $650,000,000

Nebraska Subsidies Per Capita: $780/per person
California Subsidies Per Capita: $19/per person

I trust you get the picture.

www.pbs.org...



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by antonia
I think the point being missed here is Wamp screams about the Fed's yet Tennessee gets more money from them than many other states. And it's not for farming as I just showed. Tennessee pays less than it receives. Wamp is just pandering. He wouldn't do anything.



[edit on 24-7-2010 by antonia]


This is what I was saying, and armada is trying to counter that TN is among one of the states that pretend to hate Fed Government , yet would actually "be better off" without their agricultural (and many other) Fed subsidies.

I think your facts already have proven that the AG subsidy argument is false, anyway.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by antonia
I think the point being missed here is Wamp screams about the Fed's yet Tennessee gets more money from them than many other states.


Again, your argument is fallacious.

As we've seen, agricultural subsidies are of little direct benefit - and usually direct detriment - to a state's residents. They are designed to underwrite the commodity trading market by propping up agribusiness.

The half-a-billion in defense spending in Tennessee doesn't go to buy cotton candy and new cars for the residents. It pays for troop salaries, veteran's disbursements, etc.

The only real way to measure this is in welfare payments and infrastructure investment state-vs-state. Paying the salary of an Army private from Oregon who is attending Armor School at Fort Knox hardly represents a federal cash bonanza giveaway.

Grabbing onto some numbers and regurgitating them up without context or any deeper understanding usually leads to the kind of logical fallacies occurring in this thread.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ko-Dan Armada

Originally posted by __rich__

Originally posted by Ko-Dan Armada

Originally posted by __rich__

Originally posted by Ko-Dan Armada



That isn't true since there are plenty of "blue" states who are heavy Ag producers.



This is a logical fallacy, specifically cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

Because there are "blue states" that are heavy AG producers does not follow that all AG producers receive equal subsidies. The specific list of states your link rattled off are among the largest recipients of Agriculture Adjustment Act, and related, funding.

In other words:

X = Y does not mean L = Y


So, no blue states receive such funding on the same level?

Even though they actually produce more agricultural products?

Why is that?


That's correct. No blue states receiving funding at the same level as a percentage of total funding.

Which blue states produce more A3-eligible agricultural products? If you could just rattle off a few that would be super. Thanks!

[edit on 24-7-2010 by Ko-Dan Armada]


"Corn ethanol subsidies totaled $7.0 billion in 2006 for 4.9 billion gallons of ethanol..."

zfacts.com...

Corn production by state:

1. Iowa ................. 1, 769,000,000 bushels
2. Illinois ................ 1,473,450,000 bushels
3. Nebraska ........... 1,239,750,000 bushels
4. Minnesota .......... 1,032,750,000 bushels
5. Indiana ................. 760,350,000 bushels

www.kycorn.org...



That's a great fact about corn production! Way to go!

Unfortunately, this is also a logical fallacy, namely you are affirming the consequent by assuming X implies Y on the basis that Y implies Z.

This is a discussion about total agricultural output versus subsidies, not output of one specific crop.

Nebraska Subsidies: $1.4 billion
California Subsidies: $650,000,000

Nebraska Subsidies Per Capita: $780/per person
California Subsidies Per Capita: $19/per person

I trust you get the picture.

www.pbs.org...


I'm not assuming anything. You asked specifically: "Which blue states produce more A3-eligible agricultural products?".

Well, I showed a few that grow more corn and receive subsidies for it. If you meant total AG output:

1. California 31,835,183 13.20%
2. Texas 16,498,398 6.84%
3. Iowa 14,652,946 6.07%
4. Nebraska 11,779,728 4.88%
5. Minnesota 9,794,912 4.06%
6. Illinois 9,708,304 4.02%
7. Kansas 9,502,727 3.94%
8. North Carolina 8,210,497 3.40%
9. Wisconsin 6,864,150 2.85%
10. Florida 6,84

stuffaboutstates.com...

What percentage of that is A3 eligible, I don't know, but it seems reasonable that there are plenty of blue states that are Ag dependent, yet still don;t get the subsidies the Red states that claim to hate the Feds get.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by __rich__

I think your facts already have proven that the AG subsidy argument is false, anyway.



Would that be in the same way his "facts" proved his other claim, that California is the largest agricultural producer in America?

Again, the US Department of Agriculture:

www.infoplease.com...

Naturally you should feel free to wave whichever flag you want, unencumbered by facts. I just thought you should have the opportunity to select Logic and Reason as opposed to irrational chest-thumping.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Ko-Dan Armada
 


www.fas.usda.gov...

The USDA says they are the largest producer. It's not my opinion.

Oh and by the way, that "a" at the end of my name means I don't have a penis.

[edit on 24-7-2010 by antonia]



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by __rich__

I'm not assuming anything. You asked specifically: "Which blue states produce more A3-eligible agricultural products?".




I did ask that! Right on!

When I pluralized PRODUCT, however, I thought it was inferred I was asking about products - en totale - not corn.

It's fun to pick and choose a specific product to prop an argument, isn't it?

Unfortunately, it doesn't lend itself to Logic or Reason.


Originally posted by __rich__

Well, I showed a few that grow more corn and receive subsidies for it. If you meant total AG output:

1. California 31,835,183 13.20%
2. Texas 16,498,398 6.84%
3. Iowa 14,652,946 6.07%
4. Nebraska 11,779,728 4.88%
5. Minnesota 9,794,912 4.06%
6. Illinois 9,708,304 4.02%
7. Kansas 9,502,727 3.94%
8. North Carolina 8,210,497 3.40%
9. Wisconsin 6,864,150 2.85%
10. Florida 6,84



Again - it's really SUPER you've been able to find a bunch of facts. Way to go! Research is FUN, isn't it?

However, I think we should stick to the only relevant fact, namely, the one that would support the blanket assertion you made. That is: which "blue states" receive more A3 agricultural subsidies than red states. If you could rattle those off that would be great! Thanks!


Originally posted by __rich__
What percentage of that is A3 eligible, I don't know\\



uh-oh, spaghetti-o!



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by debris765nju
 

All they care about is money. Other than the states banding together, that's probably the only other way people have to get their attention and bring about change.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by Ko-Dan Armada
 


www.fas.usda.gov...

The USDA says they are the largest producer. It's not my opinion.

Oh and by the way, that "a" at the end of my name means I don't have a penis.

[edit on 24-7-2010 by antonia]


Once again - and I really don't know how I can explain this in a clearer way - viniculture is not subsidy-eligible. California produces super-yummy wines! Love 'em! However, those aren't subsidy-eligible. Bummer!


Please, I would rather not have to repeat that again. Thanks!

[edit on 24-7-2010 by Ko-Dan Armada]



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ko-Dan Armada

Originally posted by __rich__

I'm not assuming anything. You asked specifically: "Which blue states produce more A3-eligible agricultural products?".




I did ask that! Right on!

When I pluralized PRODUCT, however, I thought it was inferred I was asking about products - en totale - not corn.

It's fun to pick and choose a specific product to prop an argument, isn't it?

Unfortunately, it doesn't lend itself to Logic or Reason.


Originally posted by __rich__

Well, I showed a few that grow more corn and receive subsidies for it. If you meant total AG output:

1. California 31,835,183 13.20%
2. Texas 16,498,398 6.84%
3. Iowa 14,652,946 6.07%
4. Nebraska 11,779,728 4.88%
5. Minnesota 9,794,912 4.06%
6. Illinois 9,708,304 4.02%
7. Kansas 9,502,727 3.94%
8. North Carolina 8,210,497 3.40%
9. Wisconsin 6,864,150 2.85%
10. Florida 6,84



Again - it's really SUPER you've been able to find a bunch of facts. Way to go! Research is FUN, isn't it?

However, I think we should stick to the only relevant fact, namely, the one that would support the blanket assertion you made. That is: which "blue states" receive more A3 agricultural subsidies than red states. If you could rattle those off that would be great! Thanks!


Originally posted by __rich__
What percentage of that is A3 eligible, I don't know\\



uh-oh, spaghetti-o!


Did you miss this:

Federal funding, FY 2006, dollars per person
All Federal funds 7,990 8,125 8,089
(rural) (urban) (total)
Federal funding by purpose
Agriculture and natural resources 126 28 54
Community resources 510 691 642
Defense and space 486 591 563
Human resources 169 158 161
Income security 6,143 4,787 5,151
National functions 555 1,871 1,518

Federal funding by type of payments (object codes)
Grants 1,565 1,236 1,324
Direct loans 46 -158 -103
Guaranteed/insured loans 255 483 422
Retirement/disability payments 3,072 2,579 2,711
Other direct payments to
individuals 1,931 1,483 1,603
Direct payments, not to
individuals 125 63 80
Procurement contracts 686 1,740 1,457
Salaries and wages 309 700 595

www.ers.usda.gov...

This data is from 2006, but as you can see AQ funds are not the cause of high federal funding for the state. Tenncare happens to be one of the bigger ones.

----

Your entire argument that these red states only get more subsidies because they are the biggest AG producers, and amazingly, they don't really want the subsidies, and would be better off without them is absurd.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by __rich__

Originally posted by Ko-Dan Armada

Originally posted by __rich__

I'm not assuming anything. You asked specifically: "Which blue states produce more A3-eligible agricultural products?".




I did ask that! Right on!

When I pluralized PRODUCT, however, I thought it was inferred I was asking about products - en totale - not corn.

It's fun to pick and choose a specific product to prop an argument, isn't it?

Unfortunately, it doesn't lend itself to Logic or Reason.


Originally posted by __rich__

Well, I showed a few that grow more corn and receive subsidies for it. If you meant total AG output:

1. California 31,835,183 13.20%
2. Texas 16,498,398 6.84%
3. Iowa 14,652,946 6.07%
4. Nebraska 11,779,728 4.88%
5. Minnesota 9,794,912 4.06%
6. Illinois 9,708,304 4.02%
7. Kansas 9,502,727 3.94%
8. North Carolina 8,210,497 3.40%
9. Wisconsin 6,864,150 2.85%
10. Florida 6,84



Again - it's really SUPER you've been able to find a bunch of facts. Way to go! Research is FUN, isn't it?

However, I think we should stick to the only relevant fact, namely, the one that would support the blanket assertion you made. That is: which "blue states" receive more A3 agricultural subsidies than red states. If you could rattle those off that would be great! Thanks!


Originally posted by __rich__
What percentage of that is A3 eligible, I don't know\\



uh-oh, spaghetti-o!


Did you miss this:

Federal funding, FY 2006, dollars per person
All Federal funds 7,990 8,125 8,089
(rural) (urban) (total)
Federal funding by purpose
Agriculture and natural resources 126 28 54
Community resources 510 691 642
Defense and space 486 591 563
Human resources 169 158 161
Income security 6,143 4,787 5,151
National functions 555 1,871 1,518

Federal funding by type of payments (object codes)
Grants 1,565 1,236 1,324
Direct loans 46 -158 -103
Guaranteed/insured loans 255 483 422
Retirement/disability payments 3,072 2,579 2,711
Other direct payments to
individuals 1,931 1,483 1,603
Direct payments, not to
individuals 125 63 80
Procurement contracts 686 1,740 1,457
Salaries and wages 309 700 595

www.ers.usda.gov...

This data is from 2006, but as you can see AQ funds are not the cause of high federal funding for the state. Tenncare happens to be one of the bigger ones.

----

Your entire argument that these red states only get more subsidies because they are the biggest AG producers, and amazingly, they don't really want the subsidies, and would be better off without them is absurd.



AWESOME! You found some stats for Tennessee. Way to go!!!

However, I'm still looking for a fact that would back your blanket assertion for "all red states." Can you shoot that over, please? Fourth request. Thanks!

(also, please see my comment 7-10 up in response to that specific stat vis a vis defense spending versus infrastructure development)



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 11:07 PM
link   



AWESOME! You found some stats for Tennessee. Way to go!!!

However, I'm still looking for a fact that would back your blanket assertion for "all red states." Can you shoot that over, please? Fourth request. Thanks!

(also, please see my comment 7-10 up in response to that specific stat vis a vis defense spending versus infrastructure development)


Are you referring to my original comment?

"It's interesting how the states who usually whine about Central Government are the biggest welfare recipients.

They stick out their hands and beg for subsidies but then scream about secession."



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Ko-Dan Armada
 


Really? Are you from around here?



The only real way to measure this is in welfare payments and infrastructure investment state-vs-state. Paying the salary of an Army private from Oregon who is attending Armor School at Fort Knox hardly represents a federal cash bonanza giveaway.


Ft. Knox is in Kentucky.

I get what you are trying to argue, but it just isn't true. Most of the Federal Funding goes to Tenncare and various other social programs here. As for military salaries, yes they do benefit from that as they collect sales tax and property tax from soldiers who live in the state. So no, Tennessee will not function without Federal Funding. Tenncare won't function, colleges will probably lose their funding, people won't get their food stamps.

Nope, succession isn't an option.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join