The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm not sure what the point is here, especially when he's right. This farmer is spot-on in his assessment of what the subsidy entails. It's used to even out market payouts when overseas markets offer a better rate than the national rate. The subsidy is done to make sure that U.S. produced goods remain in the U.S.

Now, if you're arguing that farm subsidies shouldn't be paid, that's fine and people like lungs and I who are deeply involved in farm subsidies would agree with you. But a subsidy requires the same work as a non-subsidized crop. The only difference is that the government pays you to keep it in the U.S. This isn't even remotely close to the welfare state that exists through many other government programs.

So what you're saying is it's OK to bailout someone who supports Republicans, but not those who vote Democrat? Is it that the free market only counts in the non-Farming industry? Or did you maybe hear he owns a PS3?

The guy took a government handout and is a hypocrite. He got called on it and we can all laugh.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

So what you're saying is it's OK to bailout someone who supports Republicans, but not those who vote Democrat? Is it that the free market only counts in the non-Farming industry? Or did you maybe hear he owns a PS3?

The guy took a government handout and is a hypocrite. He got called on it and we can all laugh.

That's not even remotely close to what I said, but feel free to proceed blindly.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

His business is propped up by taxpayers giving him free money. I don't care if he works hard, so does the maid at Motel 6 that pays no income tax that he's bitching about.

I didn't even claim he works hard. Not sure where you pulled that from.

As for the free money, I've clearly come down on the side of no more subsidies. But this guy isn't even remotely close to a parasite. There's a huge difference between welfare and what this guy is getting from the government.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

LOL

So many things wrong here. You've gone from turning in your notice to being the equivalent of lungs regarding farm subsidies. Don't insult him like that. You obviously aren't aware of the examples of subsidies paid to farmers to not grow crops, and let the fields lie fallow. Please explain how that requires the same work, and is not even remotely close to other welfare programs.

So is that the case in this example or are you building a house of cards on your assumptions like you usually do? I saw no mentions whatsoever of any fallow credits in this example.

I'd also note that I mentioned nothing other than that lungs (a farmer) and I (someone who makes money off creating subsidy programs) both believe subsidies should be removed. I don't think there's anything insulting about that.

[Flasch186]

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by lungs

I don't believe so. Pasteurization occurs at about 160 degrees Fahrenheit and any cheese I've ever made the milk wasn't heated to much more than 100.



You are right. My problem isn't necessarily the sale of raw milk. It's the regulations attached to it that make me cringe, ie: not enough. Pennsylvania does allow the sale of raw milk but they also have very strict regulations and quality standards. The law that Wisconsin recently tried to pass had very lax regulations attached to it.

One of the farmers locally that is making a big stink about not being able to sell raw milk struggled to get a Grade B permit to produce milk before finally kicking government inspectors off his farm. Anybody that can't get a Grade B permit should not be producing anything for human consumption. I'd be utterly embarrassed myself to be producing at anything but Grade A.

I wouldn't have a problem with farmers being permitted to sell raw milk but they also need to be held to a much higher standard. Drinking raw milk from a Grade B dairy is playing Russian roulette and if this law would've passed in Wisconsin you would see sick people in due time.

Some of these facilities people want to sell raw milk out of aren't fit for a rat to live in.

I'm curious, what exactly is Grade A and Grade B milk (and eggs for that matter)?

[Galaxy]

Are you taxed on your income regardless of profit/loss?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'd also note that I mentioned nothing other than that lungs (a farmer) and I (someone who makes money off creating subsidy programs) both believe subsidies should be removed. I don't think there's anything insulting about that.

So, you don't think subsidies should exist and you protest that by... taking advantage of them?

SI

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I didn't even claim he works hard. Not sure where you pulled that from.

As for the free money, I've clearly come down on the side of no more subsidies. But this guy isn't even remotely close to a parasite. There's a huge difference between welfare and what this guy is getting from the government.

This isn't about the farm subsidy and whether it should be done or not. That's not the point of any of this. It's about a guy who called people who take handouts parasites. He has taken over $1 million dollars in handouts from the government.

He can make all the excuses he wants and say it was from his own taxes. But all I know is I pay a lot of taxes and so do a lot of others, and we don't get those kind of handouts.

It's about a guy being a massive hypocrite, not what subsidies are good or bad.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I didn't even claim he works hard. Not sure where you pulled that from.

As for the free money, I've clearly come down on the side of no more subsidies. But this guy isn't even remotely close to a parasite. There's a huge difference between welfare and what this guy is getting from the government.

His ire isn't limited to welfare recipients.

Jungerman said he put up the sign to protest people who pay no taxes, but, “Always have their hand out for whatever the government will give them” in social programs.

He seems pissed at anybody that doesn't pay federal income taxes, conveniently leaving out the fact that anybody who works is paying some form of taxes.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

So is that the case in this example or are you building a house of cards on your assumptions like you usually do?

Talk about self-projection.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

His ire isn't limited to welfare recipients.

He seems pissed at anybody that doesn't pay federal income taxes, conveniently leaving out the fact that anybody who works is paying some form of taxes.

I think you know what he's talking about when he refers to people that don't pay income taxes. But I'd also agree with you that he frames his argument very poorly.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Are you taxed on your income regardless of profit/loss?

Farmers operate as a small business most of the time. Taxes can be quite complicated with all the rules around small businesses and special rules just for farmers. My Dad's law office did taxes for local farmers for years.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I think you know what he's talking about when he refers to people that don't pay income taxes.

Non-whites?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Non-whites?

You need to come to Missouri sometime. Whites (often meth heads) are just as big of a drain on welfare as blacks. Sometimes (in places outside of New York) it's about being lazy and not always about racism.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by panerd

You need to come to Missouri sometime. Whites (often meth heads) are just as big of a drain on welfare as blacks. Sometimes (in places outside of New York) it's about being lazy and not always about racism.

Agreed. I'd argue they're a bigger drain actually.

[JPhillips]

It was an admittedly flippant response on my way out the door.

Part of this guy's problem is the ease at which he divides the world into good(producers) and evil(parasites). Once he's set on that explanation for the country's ills he can't accept any blurring of the line between good and evil. It's a classic us versus them mentality that can't incorporate the reality that to some degree he's one of them. He made over 200k one year in subsidies and though I don't know his business, he'd have to be one hell of a successful farmer to have made enough to pay more than that in income taxes.

But we see the same mentality all the time. Even here we had people arguing that they pay income taxes even though they admitted they didn't because they can't accept the fact that they have become "them".

Most of us overlook the log in our own eye.

[molson]

So it looks like we're taking another step away from financial accountability soon, where a new bank "regulation" (that thing that people keep telling me will save America) will prohibit banks from automatically charging overdraft fees on checking accounts.

The banks will recoup this money in fees elsewhere in our banking transactions. So basically, we'll all now chip in to cover people who can't keep track of how much money they have.

[molson]

And that truck guy is just plain stupid to draw attention to himself given his situation.

But his position isn't inconsistent. Just like it isn't inconsistent when people have the opinion that the government should step out of some areas, and be far more efficient and less corrupt in others, but also believe in a strong military (and things like roads, fire departments and police).

[sterlingice]

But don't worry- because some Senators have big banks in their state, a lot of the useful provisions like not allowing bank holding companies to have credit default swaps or derivatives (thanks, Blanche Lincoln and Scott Brown) or giving teeth to the financial regulation body (Federal Reserve) or regulating car loans (GOP caucus) or not touching a lot of stuff that actually caused the crisis like illegal naked short selling (hedge fund lobby) and not enough liquidity (big bank lobby).

SI

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

And that truck guy is just plain stupid to draw attention to himself given his situation.

But his position isn't inconsistent. Just like it isn't inconsistent when people have the opinion that the government should step out of some areas, and be far more efficient and less corrupt in others, but also believe in a strong military (and things like roads, fire departments and police).

IMO he's fine if he says, "I don't like government handouts, but as long as they are available I'm getting mine." He's an asshole, though, when he says, "Other people who get handouts are parasites, but my handouts are fine."

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

IMO he's fine if he says, "I don't like government handouts, but as long as they are available I'm getting mine." He's an asshole, though, when he says, "Other people who get handouts are parasites, but my handouts are fine."

Everybody gets government handouts/services to some degree. Can't we still have an opinion about the proper role of government and its level of corruption? (even without drawing such attention to ourselves) Or do we lose our right to criticize the government the second we drive on a public road, as has occasionally been implied here?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

So it looks like we're taking another step away from financial accountability soon, where a new bank "regulation" (that thing that people keep telling me will save America) will prohibit banks from automatically charging overdraft fees on checking accounts.

The banks will recoup this money in fees elsewhere in our banking transactions. So basically, we'll all now chip in to cover people who can't keep track of how much money they have.

I'm a little unclear on what's happening on a limited amount of reading. It sounds like the "overdraft protection" accounts are what is being targeted. I don't have a problem with banks being required to get approval from customers before being enrolled in a program that will cover an overdraft, but charge a fee.

I agree the banks will just design other fees, but if this only targets the overdraft protection rules I'm fine with it.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

Everybody gets government handouts/services to some degree. Can't we still have an opinion about the proper role of government and its level of corruption? (even without drawing such attention to ourselves) Or do we lose our right to criticize the government the second we drive on a public road, as has occasionally been implied here?

Sure, but a debate about the proper size of government doesn't need to include calling people parasites. That's the part that makes him an asshole.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Sure, but a debate about the proper size of government doesn't need to include calling people parasites. That's the part that makes him an asshole.

It's the name-calling that's the problem? There's definitely a lot of assholes here then - did you see what people were saying about conservatives in that discussion about the Texas Republican Party platform the other day?

[JPhillips]

Specifically, it's calling people names for an activity that you are also engaged in.

He's not looking for a rational discussion on the scope of government, he just wants to vent his anger. That's fine in the abstract, but when you start applying relativism to handouts, yes, it makes you an asshole.

[miked]

You really think he's debating the proper size of government?

[molson]

Originally Posted by miked

You really think he's debating the proper size of government?

No, but opposition to those kind of ideas is what makes an old, dim-witted farmer and what he writes on his truck national news.

[molson]

Dola - it's a very popular idea right now, and that's why every example of it anywhere in rural American seems to be picked up by the news.

"People say they're against big government and then they call for the feds to enforce immigration reform".

"People say they're against big government and then they benefit from public roads and police departments."

"People say they're against big government and then they want to legislate morality".

Highlighting the "Keep your socialist hands off my medicare!" ignorance.

It's a trendy idea now, and it's a (at least subconcious) attempt to make more efficient/less corrupt/less invasive/smaller government position an evil one that we should view with suspicion.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

It's a trendy idea now, and it's a (at least subconcious) attempt to make more efficient/less corrupt/less invasive/smaller government position an evil one that we should view with suspicion.

Or it show that some folks just suffer from cognitive dissonance.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

No, but opposition to those kind of ideas is what makes an old, dim-witted farmer and what he writes on his truck national news.

There really isn't anything that isn't eventually the fault of a liberal somewhere.

Shouldn't you be upset that this guy made a generalization about a whole party?

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

There really isn't anything that isn't eventually the fault of a liberal somewhere.

Shouldn't you be upset that this guy made a generalization about a whole party?

I don't think it's anyone's fault, I'm just trying to analyze why one dopey rural farmer can become a national news story that gets people riled up on message boards. I don't think his positions are inconsistent, but I agree that he's stupid and simple-minded.

There's a growing debate is this country on this stuff. It makes sense to pick the easiest fights to make your point.

[DaddyTorgo]

FYI

Greg Sargent at The Plum Line flags an overlooked tidbit from a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll:

The poll asked people how they'd respond if a Congressional candidate had various hypothetical attributes. Asked how they'd feel if a candidate were "endorsed by Sarah Palin," the response was....

nuff said

[lungs]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I'm curious, what exactly is Grade A and Grade B milk (and eggs for that matter)?

Not sure what the standards are for eggs.

For milk, it's random yearly inspections and there is a whole list of things they look at.

Basically, if you get enough points taken off they will schedule you for reinspection at which time you better have everything cleaned up. It's not all that hard.

If you can't even get a Grade B permit, the place has to be an absolute dump.

[lungs]

Dola

I wonder if the farmer in question even pays income taxes. Us farmers can do quite a few end of the year things to almost wipe out our tax liability through capital purchases, or prepaid purchases, etc...

We collect some subsidies but aren't really in favor of them. What we receive in subsidies is really just a drop in the bucket though. Crop farmers suckle on the government teat much more than dairy farmers do.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by lungs

Dola

I wonder if the farmer in question even pays income taxes. Us farmers can do quite a few end of the year things to almost wipe out our tax liability through capital purchases, or prepaid purchases, etc...

We collect some subsidies but aren't really in favor of them. What we receive in subsidies is really just a drop in the bucket though. Crop farmers suckle on the government teat much more than dairy farmers do.

I don't know the specifics like you, but I'm sure a farm has to make a shit ton of money to pay enough income taxes to offset over 200k in subsidies.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I think you know what he's talking about when he refers to people that don't pay income taxes. But I'd also agree with you that he frames his argument very poorly.

Yes, he's referring to people who vote Democrat who get handouts. Not people who vote Republican, like himself, who get handouts.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

It's a trendy idea now, and it's a (at least subconcious) attempt to make more efficient/less corrupt/less invasive/smaller government position an evil one that we should view with suspicion.

No it's not. It's pointing out hypocrisy and ignorance. You can't have a smaller government without cutting the defense, Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, or Veterans benefits. This notion that we have a huge deficit because of welfare recepients is absurd. Now I'm not a fan of welfare, but I understand that getting rid of it altoghether does very little to fixing our budget problems.

And the people complaining are not asking for less corruption or more effciency. They are asking for less invasiveness, but want more when it comes to where you can spend your money and what you can do in your own bedroom. They want smaller government but not to cut any of the areas that would do that.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

Everybody gets government handouts/services to some degree. Can't we still have an opinion about the proper role of government and its level of corruption? (even without drawing such attention to ourselves) Or do we lose our right to criticize the government the second we drive on a public road, as has occasionally been implied here?

He isn't giving an opinion on corruption or proper role of government. He's saying that people who get government handouts are parasites. He gets government handouts.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

And the people complaining are not asking for less corruption or more effciency.

Right, nobody's complaining about that.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

No it's not. It's pointing out hypocrisy and ignorance. You can't have a smaller government without cutting the defense, Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, or Veterans benefits. This notion that we have a huge deficit because of welfare recepients is absurd. Now I'm not a fan of welfare, but I understand that getting rid of it altoghether does very little to fixing our budget problems.

And the people complaining are not asking for less corruption or more effciency. They are asking for less invasiveness, but want more when it comes to where you can spend your money and what you can do in your own bedroom. They want smaller government but not to cut any of the areas that would do that.

I don't think the farmer understands budget problems, let alone is trying to make some kind of statement about the budget's relationship to welfare. He appears to be a guy with a truck who's a fan of FoxNews and had some extra paint. Maybe I'll go to Eugene, OR this weekend and try to make some national headlines with some of the opinions I can stir up there to make a point about evil the left is.

You say you're not a fan of welfare. That's all this guy is (inartfully) trying to say.

So how can you not be a fan of welfare, and yet be happy to take government handouts like the use of public roads, etc? This is the sentiment I hear.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

So how can you not be a fan of welfare, and yet be happy to take government handouts like the use of public roads, etc? This is the sentiment I hear.

You can be pretty obtuse at times. Unless I'm missing something like farm subsidies are used to build roads.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

You say you're not a fan of welfare. That's all this guy is (inartfully) trying to say.

And it would make me a hypocrite if I took a million dollars in government handouts.

Originally Posted by molson

So how can you not be a fan of welfare, and yet be happy to take government handouts like the use of public roads, etc? This is the sentiment I hear.

Welfare is not the same as building roads.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

No it's not. It's pointing out hypocrisy and ignorance. You can't have a smaller government without cutting the defense, Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, or Veterans benefits. This notion that we have a huge deficit because of welfare recepients is absurd. Now I'm not a fan of welfare, but I understand that getting rid of it altoghether does very little to fixing our budget problems.

And the people complaining are not asking for less corruption or more effciency. They are asking for less invasiveness, but want more when it comes to where you can spend your money and what you can do in your own bedroom. They want smaller government but not to cut any of the areas that would do that.

You decide not the be the party of welfare and you will lose voters and thus your power to do all the other shit. I will agree that Republicans pander to all sorts of groups as well so this isn't an arugument against what the Democrats do... let's just not act like welfare is all about helping people and not also about buying votes/power. (You could rewirte the entire paragraph with corporate handouts and Republicans and it would lose nothing)

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Welfare is not the same as building roads.

Or farming subsidies, for that matter.

Farm subsidies are necessary to some degree, as a national security measure, though I wish they could be more narrowly targeted and reward environmental innovations, humane treatment of animals, etc (and given to lungs, just because he's awesome).

[panerd]

Originally Posted by cartman

You can be pretty obtuse at times. Unless I'm missing something like farm subsidies are used to build roads.

I think he is referring to when people like me or him argue against big government and people spin that to say we dont like highways or the police and we just want to live in the 1800's again. (Like there is no middle area between zero government and a 13 trillion dollar debt)

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

You can be pretty obtuse at times. Unless I'm missing something like farm subsidies are used to build roads.

It's all different - welfare, farm subsidies, roads. I just think you can be against some, think others should be smaller, think others should be bigger, think others should be smarter.

[Warhammer]

Part of the reason for subsidies is farming is one of the only professions that punishes you for doing what you do well in a free market. The more crops you grow, the greater the supply, the fewer dollars you will make per unit.

[cartman]

And I'm really not seeing folks argue against that point here.

IN THIS SPECIFIC INSTANCE, people are calling him out on the readily apparent contradiction. You are free bring all of those other points into the discussion, but they don't really fit IN THIS SPECIFIC INSTANCE. He states "Democrats are parasites". He has received nearly $1 million in subsidies in recent years.

There isn't much nuance in his position, despite your attempts to introduce it. No talk of roads or other public services. Simply his labeling of a wide swath of people as parasites, juxtaposed against his receipt of nearly $1 million in federal funds.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

And I'm really not seeing folks argue against that point here.

IN THIS SPECIFIC INSTANCE, people are calling him out on the readily apparent contradiction. You are free bring all of those other points into the discussion, but they don't really fit IN THIS SPECIFIC INSTANCE. He states "Democrats are parasites". He has received nearly $1 million in subsidies in recent years.

There isn't much nuance in his position, despite your attempts to introduce it. No talk of roads or other public services. Simply his labeling of a wide swath of people as parasites, juxtaposed against his receipt of nearly $1 million in federal funds.

I don't think his position is nuanced at all, that's my point. I was just thinking about why this guy's opinion is a national news story. The posters who think that what this guy wrote on his truck is so noteworthy are of a similar political slant. (And they're the same posters that very regularly give us these examples of people being stupid). They're using him to make a point, in a political thread, so I'm responding to that point.