US to give farmers $12bn trade war bailout

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos

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.

You are not obligated to pay my bills, but you are obligated to pay the farmers bills? Jesus man do you even hear yourself?

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos
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).

Its semantics. I call it punishment, because I don't like Trump and feel that those who do like Trump shouldn't be insulated from Trump's idiocy while I have to pay to insulate them. I could easily call it an 'investment opportunity' for farmers to finally put some skin in the game and carry the weight of change they want.

a reply to: Wayfarer

Look, we'll just have to agree, to disagree. I'm not going to convince you otherwise, nor will you convince me. /shrug

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos
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).

Its semantics. I call it punishment, because I don't like Trump and feel that those who do like Trump shouldn't be insulated from Trump's idiocy while I have to pay to insulate them. I could easily call it an 'investment opportunity' for farmers to finally put some skin in the game and carry the weight of change they want.

Yes, you've been very clear I understand you... Punish the political opposition.... Until they vote the way you'd like...

I can't get behind that. Neither would I support it going the otherway. I don't suggest punishing people who voted for Obama over his failed policies. How silly would it sound if I proposed sending Obama supports to fight in Syria against their choice....

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos
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).

Its semantics. I call it punishment, because I don't like Trump and feel that those who do like Trump shouldn't be insulated from Trump's idiocy while I have to pay to insulate them. I could easily call it an 'investment opportunity' for farmers to finally put some skin in the game and carry the weight of change they want.

Yes, you've been very clear I understand you... Punish the political opposition.... Until they vote the way you'd like...

I can't get behind that. Neither would I support it going the otherway. I don't suggest punishing people who voted for Obama over his failed policies. How silly would it sound if I proposed sending Obama supports to fight in Syria against their choice....

The punishment is not meted out by you or I or anyone. The 'punishment' is cause/effect from voting for Trump. I am not 'punishing' them because I think they're going to change voting habits ever, rather they wanted a trade war, they got one and low and behold, its actually going to cost them money!

The fact that they got exactly what they wanted, it didn't work out the way they wanted and now you and I have to foot the bill for their misjudgment, is immoral.

PS - Your Obama example above is a strawman. Try coming up with an actual similar situation and then maybe I'll engage you in that area.

a reply to: Wayfarer


It wasn't a strawman, it was an intended ridiculous idea to show how silly your point was... Also things did work out the way they hoped, incase you haven't heard the news the E.U. has caved to the U.S.. The Trade-War that never was, has officially been declared non-existent.

I once read that cow flatulence contributes more to global warming than anything else. You can't just stick a cork in every cow's ass, but, you may not have figured this out yet, human flatulence, on top of cow flatulence, is maybe like a snowball, rolling down a hill. That may become a bad metaphor, if things get a few degrees warmer. Anyway, this trade war could be good. The government could buy up all the beans, and, to curb human flatulence, burn them all. But then bean burning could cause global warming. Still, maybe better than a couple billion Chinese, eating American beans? By the way, does America export anything else? I wonder if we could get Trump to buy stuff we say we had hoped to sell to the Chinese? It may be worth driving a big truck to Aldi, load it up, and sell it to Trump, at Trader Joe's prices? Sometimes, I don't think there is a good solution to global warming, think we may just have to wait until summer is over. At least, if global warming got out of hand, we wouldn't have to worry about a repeat of the Titanic disaster. If you had been on the Titanic, you would probably be all for bean burning, as a matter of fact.

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos
a reply to: Wayfarer


It wasn't a strawman, it was an intended ridiculous idea to show how silly your point was... Also things did work out the way they hoped, incase you haven't heard the news the E.U. has caved to the U.S.. The Trade-War that never was, has officially been declared non-existent.

The more you mention about this the more apparent your lack of understanding becomes.

If abortion clinics (and for arguments sake lets assume they all supported Obama) voted for Obama because he says he's going to make America the abortion capitol of the world, but in fact what ends up happening is somewhere else beats us at the game and now all these new Abortion clinics that were built don't have enough customers to stay in business, so Obama decides they shouldn't suffer for it and gives them a 25 billion dollar bail out to keep them all afloat.

In that scenario, it makes no difference whether Obama was the president, whether Trump was the president, whether it was abortion providers or farmers. They both hedged their bets on their choice for political leader would engage in actions that were profitable to them, and when said leader fails to deliver, neither should be propped up with taxpayer money, else they don't learn from their mistakes, the market is weakened because an artificial construct is keeping poorly run enterprises afloat, and all the while you and I are the ones footing the bill.

Regarding the trade war being 'non-existent': Have all our old trade agreements been reinstated? Has any new agreement been made (other than the agreement to work out their disagreements)? I guess you and I have a different definition of 'existent'.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos
a reply to: Wayfarer


It wasn't a strawman, it was an intended ridiculous idea to show how silly your point was... Also things did work out the way they hoped, incase you haven't heard the news the E.U. has caved to the U.S.. The Trade-War that never was, has officially been declared non-existent.

The more you mention about this the more apparent your lack of understanding becomes.

If abortion clinics (and for arguments sake lets assume they all supported Obama) voted for Obama because he says he's going to make America the abortion capitol of the world, but in fact what ends up happening is somewhere else beats us at the game and now all these new Abortion clinics that were built don't have enough customers to stay in business, so Obama decides they shouldn't suffer for it and gives them a 25 billion dollar bail out to keep them all afloat.

In that scenario, it makes no difference whether Obama was the president, whether Trump was the president, whether it was abortion providers or farmers. They both hedged their bets on their choice for political leader would engage in actions that were profitable to them, and when said leader fails to deliver, neither should be propped up with taxpayer money, else they don't learn from their mistakes, the market is weakened because an artificial construct is keeping poorly run enterprises afloat, and all the while you and I are the ones footing the bill.

Well, atleast we both agree that Planned Parenthood should not receive Fed funding. Glad we reached a common ground there !

Regarding the trade war being 'non-existent': Have all our old trade agreements been reinstated? Has any new agreement been made (other than the agreement to work out their disagreements)? I guess you and I have a different definition of 'existent'.

I guess we do. Can you tell me what day the trade war started ? And far have tariffs been reciprocally increased ? Like are they upto %110, %200 where are we in this trade-war at the moment ?

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos
a reply to: Wayfarer


It wasn't a strawman, it was an intended ridiculous idea to show how silly your point was... Also things did work out the way they hoped, incase you haven't heard the news the E.U. has caved to the U.S.. The Trade-War that never was, has officially been declared non-existent.

The more you mention about this the more apparent your lack of understanding becomes.

If abortion clinics (and for arguments sake lets assume they all supported Obama) voted for Obama because he says he's going to make America the abortion capitol of the world, but in fact what ends up happening is somewhere else beats us at the game and now all these new Abortion clinics that were built don't have enough customers to stay in business, so Obama decides they shouldn't suffer for it and gives them a 25 billion dollar bail out to keep them all afloat.

In that scenario, it makes no difference whether Obama was the president, whether Trump was the president, whether it was abortion providers or farmers. They both hedged their bets on their choice for political leader would engage in actions that were profitable to them, and when said leader fails to deliver, neither should be propped up with taxpayer money, else they don't learn from their mistakes, the market is weakened because an artificial construct is keeping poorly run enterprises afloat, and all the while you and I are the ones footing the bill.

Well, atleast we both agree that Planned Parenthood should not receive Fed funding. Glad we reached a common ground there !

Regarding the trade war being 'non-existent': Have all our old trade agreements been reinstated? Has any new agreement been made (other than the agreement to work out their disagreements)? I guess you and I have a different definition of 'existent'.

I guess we do. Can you tell me what day the trade war started ? And far have tariffs been reciprocally increased ? Like are they upto %110, %200 where are we in this trade-war at the moment ?

You are a contradiction, wrapped in an enigma, and stuffed under a MAGA hat.

So to reiterate, giving federal funding to conservative leaning farmers, good. Giving federal funding to liberal leaning entities, bad. At least you've made peace with your hypocritical nature.

June 18th was the rough start of tariffs on Chinese goods (relevant to the immediate discussion of the OP), and the official beginning of enforcement June 30th. China reciprocated in matching equivalent tariffs on US agri-goods at roughly the same time (give or take a day). Specifically, they levied a 25% tariff on a slew of us agricultural goods (such as soybeans) in the amount of roughly 50 billion. By July 6th 34 billions worth of China's aforementioned counter-tariffs went into effect.