re: The Deficit Has Never Been This High When the Economy Was This Strong

quote:

---

Farmers grow the food and many of them are subsidized by the government as the should be in order to remain solvent

---

Farm subsidies actually cause or exacerbate the very problems they try to prevent. Subsidies cause farmers to overproduce, forcing prices even further down. Those that are subsidized are sheltered from tighter margins while the unsubsidized are not.

And considering who gets most of the subsidies, that's not good:

"Subsidies act like a regressive tax that helps high-income businesses, not poor rural farmers. Most of the money goes toward large agribusinesses. Between 1995 and 2017, the top 10%of recipients received 77% of the $205.4 billion doled out. The top 1% received 26% of the payments. That averages out to $1.7 million per company. Fifty people on the Forbes 400 list of the wealthiest Americans received farm subsidies. On the other hand, 62% of U.S. farms did not receive any subsidies." LINK

quote:

---

So it could be argued our tax dollars do in fact pay for a safe, diverse, and abundant food supply.

---

It could also be argued that subsidies actually hurt diversity. Certain crops (corn and soy for example) are heavily subsidized while others are not.

"subsidies and other types of political agricultural planning harm the country by incentivizing farmers to plant crops that are subsidized, mandated, or both, rather than crops that make sense for their land." LINK

Sure farmers face risk just as other industries do, but that's why insurance exists.

There are many examples of why subsidies are counterproductive and harmful, and actually create or increase many of the problems they are intended to remedy.

quote:

---

Obama was responsible for all of the stimulus included in the 2009 deficit.

---

Obama, Dems, the MSM (and you) inappropriately attribute $.4 Trillion of the FY2009 deficit to W. That is either done out of ignorance or duplicity. Further, Obama, Dems, the MSM (and you) inappropriately credit later Obama budgets for ~$150 Billion in TARP receipts expensed against W.

Given fair accounting, Obama ran deficits exceeding any of W's in each of his first three budgets.

quote:

---

You don’t know jack shite about agriculture as evidenced by your long winded post. 

---

Dude, why are you so triggered. If you read the articles I linked I am referencing experts like agricultural economists that are making these points, not just me.

quote:

---

Or better yet let’s allow the government to completely control the supply of food and fiber since they have done such a great job managing everything else.

---

I'm not sure you grasp why I am against subsidies, it's because I'm against government intervention or control, not for it. More subsidies mean more government control, not less. So you're just proving my point.

Dear Lord there is too much stupid about the bailouts to digest. Have a great Sunday and be appreciative somebody like these clowns aren't running our government.

quote:

---

Of all the lies on this board against Obama, this is always the best one.

Takes the recession impact on the budget deficit that was created during W.'s presidency and places it on Obama, as if it was Obama's fault that the country fell into massive recession in 2007-2008 (when he wasn't POTUS)




They never mention that Obama drove the deficit down from 1.3 trillion with Bush's last budget (2009) and got it in the 400 billion range in multiple years.

He did that with a republican congress that would not let him move tax revenue back up on the top 2% of the wealthiest people who don't need the money.


Had Obama had a democratic congress in any of his last six years, he could have possibly gotten us back to surplus as did the democratic president before him.

The economy would have thrived even more than it did.


At least Obama got his very solid economic numbers honestly, not blowing up the deficit to over a trillion.

---

Too bad for you that Senator Obama voted for Bush's last budget and TARP.

quote:

---

The Far East, Europe and the vast majority of the rest of the world provide subsidies to their farmers so it is not a level playing field

---

I got family in MS selling a shite load of chickens and they ain't getting no subsidies.

"If this were true, how does it explain all the U.S. commodities that don’t receive subsidies?
Why does the livestock industry survive without subsidies?’ he asks. ‘Why does the specialty crop [fruit and vegetable] industry survive?’”The Congressional Research Service released an important report showing that, from 2014 to 2016, just six commodities (corn, wheat, soybeans, cotton, rice, and peanuts) received 94 percent of the farm program support, but these six commodities accounted for only 28 percent of farm receipts. " LINK

quote:

---

As you may have ascertained, I work in the field of agriculture

---

Your obviously an expert then, I stand corrected. I suppose you speak for all in your field, amirite? Then what's the use of debating someone who knows everything and speaks for all in your industry. Farm subsidies are corporate welfare, frick that shite. And since you like welfare for growing corn and soy then you don't have a leg to stand on talking about other people getting handouts either if that's your disposition.

And eliminating subsidies can work, its been done in New Zealand. LINK

And do you honestly think subsidies don't have problems? Read this shite man. I mean, I don't grow corn or anything but numbers don't lie. That's if you actually like to read and discover other viewpoints outside your own: LINK

ANY taxation is theft