My conversation with a hardline conservative on issues including Obama

[Bison66]

Bison, farm subsidies and monies available to farmers and those in agricultural keep the cost of food down.  That I know from experience.  The USDA website can give you more information if you need it.  Examples of Ag programs that keep the cost of food down are, cost-share, BMPs, monies to close out fields, and to shut down animal waste processors.  The monies used to close out fields keep us from having dust bowls.  I.e. a farmer has several hundred acres that he is not going to farm anymore.  There is money he can use to plant grass or trees on the acreage to keep the top soil from eroding.  If not for these programs the farm land would become useless to agriculture.

As a city guy (who now happily lives in the country near ranches and subsistence farmers!), I appreciate that info.

However, I did a quick search and found out that your original claim seems to be WAAAAAAY off track!!!

soflo, cutting farm subsidies will skyrocket the price of groceries.  Do you really want to pay 2- 10 times more for your groceries.

Here's what I found.

A reasonable formula for approximating how the price of a food item would change because of a change in the price of a raw ingredient is to multiply the percent change in the price of the raw ingredient by the share of the price of the food item that is represented by the cost of the raw ingredient. For example, corn represents perhaps 38 percent of the cost of producing a market-ready hog. The cost of a market-ready hog represents 28 percent of the final retail price of pork. This means that corn represents approximately 10.64 percent of the retail price of pork.

Suppose that the removal of farm programs caused the price of corn to increase by 5 percent. The price of pork would then increase by about 0.53 percent. That is, pork chops that cost $3.00 per pound with farm subsidies would increase in price by less than two cents per pound. If corn prices were to rise by 10 percent with the removal of subsidies, then pork chops would cost only three cents per pound more than they currently do. Because corn represents a smaller share of the final value of beef and dairy products, retail prices for these products would go up by a smaller amount (in percentage terms) than the price of pork.

It is difficult to come up with examples in which subsidized U.S. commodities have a greater than 10 percent share of final retail value. And at this maximum share, it would take a doubling of commodity prices to increase consumer prices by 10 percent.  But no credible analyst has ever estimated that farm payments result in such a large supply expansion that their withdrawal would cause commodity prices to double.

The idea that U.S. commodity policy is really a cheap food policy is a myth.

http://www.card.iastate.edu/iowa_ag_review/spring_06/article1.aspx

You claimed that prices would increase 2 to 10 times.
Do you have support for that claim?

Keep in mind that since not all farmers receive USDA subsidies, that would further reduce (I suspect only slightly - see below) the impact on prices IF there were no subsidies.  For example, in your state of NC, here is some data:

• $3.03 billion in subsidies 1995-2006.

• 77 percent of all farmers and ranchers do not collect government subsidy payments in North Carolina, according to USDA.

• Among subsidy recipients, ten percent collected 91 percent of all subsidies amounting to $2.75 billion over 12 years.

• Recipients in the top 10% averaged $16,821 in annual payments between 1995 and 2006. The bottom 80 percent of the recipients saw only $88 on average per year.

EDIT:  SORRY, here's the link:  http://farm.ewg.org/region.php?fips=37000

What this data does not address is the relative size of the production of those farms.  I would suspect, given the usual "80-20 rule", that the 28% of the farmers receiving subsidies probably account for around 80% of the production.
 

[y04185]

Congress, first I would do what is best for my district.  Which might not sit well with your district.  Fiscal responsibility would go two ways.  One would be the committees I am assigned to.  Second, doing my best to insure the bills I vote for are fiscally responsible.  It might be to cut layer(s) of government bureaucracy.  I would not vote for any earmarks.   

In other words, there are no cuts you would advocate that directly affect your constituents.

 

I never said that.  If you go through any federal department budget there are places where cuts can be made without effecting services.

Post a budget then we can discuss cuts.

[Golden Kitten]

We can start by cutting the salaries and bennies of those serving in the Congress by 1/2...and cut off their exorbitant pensions as well...

GK baybee, don't hate the playa; HATE DA GAME! 

Campaign Finance Reform....

I do hate the game Cholly - and it's because everyone doesn't have to play by the same set of rules. In this case, the playas change the rules for themselves while everyone else has to play (AND pay) by the old rules or the rules the playas set. There will NEVER be CFR because too many scalps are being greased...

[y04185]

Bison, your little research did not take into account getting subsidies for not planting certain crops, planting crops and letting them rot in the field, and getting subsidies to use certain practices to plant, cultivate, and harvest crops.  It is a lot more than just price subsidies.

[Golden Kitten]

All I want is for someone to explain to me why apples are grown here in Michigan (as well as WA state) but are being imported from South America and farmers here are being paid not to grow  them...

[y04185]

All I want is for someone to explain to me why apples are grown here in Michigan (as well as WA state) but are being imported from South America and farmers here are being paid not to grow  them...

GK, we want apples and other fruits and vegetables year round.  Not just when they are in season.  That is why you will see apples from South America.  It is summer time in South America and soon to be fall. 

I suggest you find an apple producer or two in MI and buy your apples from them.  You can freeze them or can them.

[Cholly]

that is another issue...everyone wants to cut taxes.....well people in order to pay for stuff you gotta have taxes...you just cant cut everything and then have no revenue...

 

People think they can get something for nothing?

Would they walk into Burger Thing and expect to get a Whoppin Value Meal just on their good looks!?!? 

You want a powerful country with an educatated, secure populace, ya gotta PAY for it. 

MOST conservatives are so selfish and self-centered, they can't see the big picture past their own wallets. 

[Bison66]

Bison, your little research did not take into account getting subsidies for not planting certain crops, planting crops and letting them rot in the field, and getting subsidies to use certain practices to plant, cultivate, and harvest crops.  It is a lot more than just price subsidies.

Could be I am wrong, because I found that data in about 10 seconds. 

But you'll excuse me for not just taking your word that food prices would increase by 200% to 1,000% ("2- 10 times more") without subsidies.  Even you've got to admit, that "sounds" ridiculous.  Doesn't mean it ain't true.

If you have a source to justify your claim, I'd love to see it.

I know you don't have it in you to admit you made a mistake., so I won't even go there.

 

[soflorattler]

Bison, farm subsidies and monies available to farmers and those in agricultural keep the cost of food down.  That I know from experience.  The USDA website can give you more information if you need it.  Examples of Ag programs that keep the cost of food down are, cost-share, BMPs, monies to close out fields, and to shut down animal waste processors.  The monies used to close out fields keep us from having dust bowls.  I.e. a farmer has several hundred acres that he is not going to farm anymore.  There is money he can use to plant grass or trees on the acreage to keep the top soil from eroding.  If not for these programs the farm land would become useless to agriculture.
   

Well y, down here where I am, the likes of U.S. Sugar, Florida Crystals, and Atlantic Sugar have sugar piled ceiling high in huge warehouses  keeping it off the markets just to support prices. Too:

When the Republicans controlled Congress, they shied away from sugar reform, yielding to the power of the sugar growers' lobby. The Democrats can show that they are different. By reforming sugar policies, they could cut food costs for families and end unfair benefits for a small group of wealthy sugar barons.

Why Congress Should Repeal Sugar Subsidy

[Cholly]

I do hate the game Cholly - and it's because everyone doesn't have to play by the same set of rules. In this case, the playas change the rules for themselves while everyone else has to play (AND pay) by the old rules or the rules the playas set. There will NEVER be CFR because too many scalps are being greased...

Yeah....

But I think there is a slight opening dear lady. The popular contributions to the Obama Campaign showed us that a charismatic figure with a good message CAN raise significant cash from everyday janes and joes. And there ARE a number of consumer oriented/ pro-populace organizations like Move-On that can take up the mantle CFR and have a reasonable shot at being successful IF there is appropriate, concurrent PR and public education.

[Bison66]

Congress, first I would do what is best for my district.  Which might not sit well with your district.  Fiscal responsibility would go two ways.  One would be the committees I am assigned to.  Second, doing my best to insure the bills I vote for are fiscally responsible.  It might be to cut layer(s) of government bureaucracy.  I would not vote for any earmarks.  

In other words, there are no cuts you would advocate that directly affect your constituents.
 

I never said that.  If you go through any federal department budget there are places where cuts can be made without effecting services.
Post a budget then we can discuss cuts.

My Friend, that's what folks always say.  Cut waste and abuse, etc.  Obama told his departments to find billions to cut and they have done so.  But we both know that's peanuts.  

However, if you want to show that you, as a candidate, would advocate cuts that directly affect your constituents, then I shouldn't have to be the one that "post(s) a budget."  That's another of your famous dodges.  A complete red herring.  All you have to do, assuming that you are familiar with govt spending, is tell us where you would cut.

The truth is that few, if any, elected officials can go before the voters and tell them that they will have to give up something they already have or pay more taxes to balance the budget.  Usually, candidates lose when they have advocated reducing projected increases in popular programs.  On the state level where budgets must be balanced, officials have that to stand behind.

Look at the Conservatives right now, who have frequently opposed Medicare or its expansion, NOW opposing Obama's proposal to eliminate Medicare Advantage (which does NOT affect health care benefits), which he describes as a subsidy to insurance companies.  I admit this case is a little different because the motivation is to obstruct Obama, but the bottom line is the same:  Medicare is a popular program and Conservatives are positioning themselves to be on the side of the people without regard to their supposed "principles" or the impact on the deficit and debt.

Also, once Obama embraced the "Repub" idea for a debt commission (similar to base closing commissions, to do that which is politically impossible to do), Repub leaders abandoned the idea.  Their excuse for their flip flop is so feeble that it does not pass the laugh test.  But, again, that is slightly different, because that is pure obstructionism.
 

[y04185]

Bison, you are doing the dodge.  There is fat in every federal budget.  In every department.  You should know that.

Let's start with something that can be cut and not adversely affect the constituents.  Print everything in English.  Make English the official language.  Just think how much money would be saved. 

[Bison66]

Bison, you are doing the dodge.  There is fat in every federal budget.  In every department.  You should know that.

 
Reading, y04, is essential.  I already addressed that point (waste).  If you can't respond to my challenge, just forget it.

Let's start with something that can be cut and not adversely affect the constituents.  Print everything in English.  Make English the official language.  Just think how much money would be saved.

 

You get points for that - in the abstract hypothetical sense.
 
Are you saying that you would advocate that as a candidate in NC?
I think there are many constituents who would be affected.  Am I wrong about the demographics I have observed while visiting North Carolina?  Or, are they all illegal aliens and therefore not constituents.

 

[uchighlander]

Bison, you are doing the dodge.  There is fat in every federal budget.  In every department.  You should know that.

 
Reading, y04, is essential.  I already addressed that point (waste).  If you can't respond to my challenge, just forget it.

Let's start with something that can be cut and not adversely affect the constituents.  Print everything in English.  Make English the official language.  Just think how much money would be saved.

 

You get points for that - in the abstract hypothetical sense.
 
Are you saying that you would advocate that as a candidate in NC?
I think there are many constituents who would be affected.  Am I wrong about the demographics I have observed while visiting North Carolina?  Or, are they all illegal aliens and therefore not constituents.

 

When I become King here's how I balance the budget.....if we are 10% over budget I envoke a 10% across the board reduction of every department. That way everyone is going to feel the pain....even the special interest groups. GO VIKINGS!!!

[sportswriterheel]

Use that oversimplified, non-nuanced and kindergarten-like answer to explain that to DoD, the department that eats up much of the budget.

See how that goes over with those folks and the conservative base who love balanced budgets for everything but defense. When it comes to the DoD, spending like a drunken sailor is okay.