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.
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
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]
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?
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.
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]
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...
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]
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.
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...
Originally posted by __rich__
I think your facts already have proven that the AG subsidy argument is false, anyway.
Originally posted by __rich__
I'm not assuming anything. You asked specifically: "Which blue states produce more A3-eligible agricultural products?".
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
Originally posted by __rich__
What percentage of that is A3 eligible, I don't know\\
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]
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!
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)
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.