• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lawmakers reach deal on farm bill

T

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
WASHINGTON — Congressional negotiators completed work on a new five-year $500 billion farm bill Monday, bringing closer to an end more than two years of struggles over the much-delayed legislation.

The farm bill would save an estimated $24 billion over 10 years, with about a third of the spending cuts coming from the popular food stamp program. The proposed legislation also would mark the end of $5 billion in annual direct payments, increase the number of crop insurance programs available to farmers and require farmers to follow conservation compliance measures to receive subsidies.
The 41 House and Senate lawmakers on the conference committee completed the legislation Monday, with the bill expected to advance to a vote in the full House Wednesday. The Senate could act as soon as next week. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Monday that the farm bill is one of his top priorities.

Craig Hill, president of the Iowa Farm Bureau, said a farm bill is "desperately needed" to provide a stable source of funding for nutrition programs and give agriculture producers a strong

safety net while allowing them to more easily make long-term plans.
Click to expand...


Read more @: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/01/27/farm-bill-deal/4947383/

Now im glad they finally passed a bill on this much needed issue i however disagree with cutting SNAP. So pretty much a two edged sword.
 
Why should the federal government be in the business of subsidizing agriculture at all?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Why should the federal government be in the business of subsidizing agriculture at all?
Click to expand...

Fundamentally needed to prop up the US farm industry and protect it from foreign competition. However i do believe they need reform, not to be axed. I think we are subsidizing the wrong things. Instead of subsizing things that mostly lead to unhealthy and junk foods we need to subsize the other foods that are more healthy.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Why should the federal government be in the business of subsidizing agriculture at all?
Click to expand...

Not to mention, of course, that they legally can't be. But when has that stopped them before?

Ugh. We were better off with this nonsense expired.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Fundamentally needed to prop up the US farm industry and protect it from foreign competition. However i do believe they need reform, not to be axed. I think we are subsidizing the wrong things. Instead of subsizing things that mostly lead to unhealthy and junk foods we need to subsize the other foods that are more healthy.
Click to expand...

We're subsidizing both inefficient agriculture through the direct farm bill, and junk food through hte food stamp program.

If we're going to subsidize at all, it should be through buying up surplus product and putting it in warehouses where the poor can come to get needed food.
 
Dittohead not! said:
We're subsidizing both inefficient agriculture through the direct farm bill, and junk food through hte food stamp program.

If we're going to subsidize at all, it should be through buying up surplus product and putting it in warehouses where the poor can come to get needed food.
Click to expand...

We would have to make a hell of a lot more food banks then which would be very expensive and also not all the poor leave within realistic distance to get to these food banks.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Fundamentally needed to prop up the US farm industry and protect it from foreign competition. However i do believe they need reform, not to be axed. I think we are subsidizing the wrong things. Instead of subsizing things that mostly lead to unhealthy and junk foods we need to subsize the other foods that are more healthy.
Click to expand...

Which has an enormously distorting effect in one of the most interconnected markets on the planet: the agricultural market. Which in turn promotes food insecurity in the developing world on any number of different levels not limited to pricing developing countries out of the market, making FTA's with these countries that would allow for increased cereals importation, and promoting terrible environmental and land use decisions by incentivizing them (corn subsidies leading to biofuels for example). The US farm industry doesn't need propping up anymore than the French or British farming industry needs propping up. The only people who need propping up are small and moderate sized farmers who are increasingly economically noncompetitive and responsible for a smaller and smaller share of production.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
We would have to make a hell of a lot more food banks then which would be very expensive and also not all the poor leave within realistic distance to get to these food banks.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be as expensive as what we have now. Moreover, food stamp recipients would have good, nutritious food, not junk food and not the ability to trade food stamps for cash.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Why should the federal government be in the business of subsidizing agriculture at all?
Click to expand...

I think its a good policy to ensure that basic grains and other items needed by and for everyone are kept a bit of control to ensure that there's never a threat to the supply or price that would mean people going hungry, everything else should be left to the market though. You know so for example a price of a gallon of milk may rocket through the roof as people are talking about but you'll always be able to buy flour or rice at low costs that don't change frequently or greatly.
 
Dittohead not! said:
It wouldn't be as expensive as what we have now. Moreover, food stamp recipients would have good, nutritious food, not junk food and not the ability to trade food stamps for cash.
Click to expand...
We would then have to subsidize different types of foods that are healthier.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
We would then have to subsidize different types of foods that are healthier.
Click to expand...

No, we would simply provide a market when farmers guess wrong and produce too much for the market.

Currently, a bumper crop can be financial ruin for growers as the laws of supply and demand bring prices too low to make a profit. The government could buy up the surplus and distribute it to the poor for a lot less than simply subsidizing whatever crops the lobbyists convince them to subsidize.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Fundamentally needed to prop up the US farm industry and protect it from foreign competition. However i do believe they need reform, not to be axed. I think we are subsidizing the wrong things. Instead of subsizing things that mostly lead to unhealthy and junk foods we need to subsize the other foods that are more healthy.
Click to expand...

'Protection from foreign competition' is not good for the consumer. This would appear to mean that not only will the consumer pay more for their goods but that the taxpayer will be paying extra as well.

Small farms are having a difficult enough time to survive without the government subsidizing these huge corporations. Also many of these 'farms' produce nothing, yet are still subsidized by the taxpayer. Allowing the politicians to decide which foods should be subsidized will certainly benefit the lobbyists, if not the consumer.
 
Interesting thing about the "cut" in the farm bill: The bill's 10 year cost is 48% higher than the one passed in 2008.
 
Samhain said:
Interesting thing about the "cut" in the farm bill: The bill's 10 year cost is 48% higher than the one passed in 2008.
Click to expand...

You have to love those savings! And we are going to "save" money over 10 years...by spending it.
 
Dittohead not! said:
or better yet, neither of the above?
Click to expand...

The two are actually related. Farm Subsides, when originally created were a good thing. Maybe not in strict adherence to what a government should do, but a good thing. The were meant to stabilize price fluctuations and keep food affordable while at the same time stopping farmers from going broke.

In the 80 or so years since their inception, God only knows what politicians have filed away under that heading. Are they needed today? Probably not, but hey, everyone likes cheap bread, milk and cheese.
 
DVSentinel said:
The two are actually related. Farm Subsides, when originally created were a good thing. Maybe not in strict adherence to what a government should do, but a good thing. The were meant to stabilize price fluctuations and keep food affordable while at the same time stopping farmers from going broke.

In the 80 or so years since their inception, God only knows what politicians have filed away under that heading. Are they needed today? Probably not, but hey, everyone likes cheap bread, milk and cheese.
Click to expand...

That's the problem with government subsidies. They start out with good intentions, some even start out solving problems. Then, the lobbyists get their industries subsidized by crossing the right palms, and the first thing you know we have a giveaway of tax dollars that serves no one but the employers of the lobbyists.
 
'The farm bill would save an estimated $24 billion over 10 years, with about a third of the spending cuts coming from the popular food stamp program. The proposed legislation also would mark the end of $5 billion in annual direct payments, increase the number of crop insurance programs available to farmers and require farmers to follow conservation compliance measures to receive subsidies.'

1) I am SO COMPLETELY sick of this childish, nonsensical 'saved over 10 years' crap. It's total nonsense. Just say it will save $x billion this/next year and stop treating the American people like they are retarded.

2) I am actually against cutting food stamps. With the economy sucking or at least stagnating for most people who are not rich, lots of talk about 'income inequality' and even Obama seeming to play the 'class card'...now is not a good time to be depriving hungry Americans of food.
I am neither dem nor rep - but it seems asinine that the rep's can't wait to save a tiny fraction of the budget by cutting food stamps to poor Americans...but they wouldn't cut a penny from the defense budget unless you put a gun to their heads. Political idiots.
This is really going to go down big at election time...not.
 
DVSentinel said:
The two are actually related. Farm Subsides, when originally created were a good thing. Maybe not in strict adherence to what a government should do, but a good thing. The were meant to stabilize price fluctuations and keep food affordable while at the same time stopping farmers from going broke.

In the 80 or so years since their inception, God only knows what politicians have filed away under that heading. Are they needed today? Probably not, but hey, everyone likes cheap bread, milk and cheese.
Click to expand...

If milk and cheese are being subsidized by taxpayers, how are they cheap?
 
DA60 said:
1) I am SO COMPLETELY sick of this childish, nonsensical 'saved over 10 years' crap. It's total nonsense. Just say it will save $x billion this/next year and stop treating the American people like they are retarded.
Click to expand...

Amen to that.
We heard all of the "savings" that were proposed during the campaign, "save $400 billion" over ten years. Big deal. Take 40 billion a year out of a trillion dollar deficit. Big whoop.

it's like the pols don't think the voters understand math. Maybe they're right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom