Posted on 01/30/2002 3:26:12 PM PST by Willie Green
Edited on 09/03/2002 4:49:55 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
So, without these supports food would be more expensive? And when was the last time we had a food shortage that the government had to protect us from?
Prior to institution of these programs. The "Dust Bowl", "Great Depression", etc. Widespread hunger and soup-kitchens were quite common, despite a large portion of our population still being rural and agrarian. BTW, sugar was quite an expensive "luxury" back then. These farm policies have benefited us quite well for the past 60+ years.
Err, you stated it in reply #52, but you didn't prove your thesis. You said that price swings could put the american farmer out of business without price controls. I frankly don't see any evidence of this. True, some marginal operations might go out of business, but the overall price would DROP, without subsidies, and the money wasted on subsidies would be spent in some other sector of the economy. Those marginal producers who went out of the sugar farming business would be better off in another line of work anyway. All of this "protect this job protect that job" presupposes that the only thing that people can do is what they're doing now. This simply isn't so.
They served their purpose, now they do more harm than good. We're in the 21st Century. We need to eliminate programs which have outlived their usefullness.
Yes it is.
The evidence lies in our own history before these price stabilization programs were implemented. Agriculture prices fluctuated widely and frequently. Farm foreclosures were common, as were "soup lines".
Exactly, the benefit to the few is far out weighed by the cost to the entire population
All of this "protect this job protect that job" presupposes that the only thing that people can do is what they're doing now. This simply isn't so.
Again, I'm sure you agree, nobody takes joy in driving marginal farmers out of business, but there are no guarantees in life and having the government protect these jobs only causes large distortions in the economy.
Willie wants to protect these farmers. Why don't we make it voluntary. We'll have foreign sugar and U.S. sugar labeled in the store. Consumers can be patriotic and buy American or they can buy the cheaper foreign sugar. Candy makers can advertise on the candy that it's made with 100% pure American sugar.
Let the consumer decide for himself
I suppose you think that Social Security is the only thing keeping the elderly from starving in the streets today?
I was referring to the fact that people move from job to job, as the buggy whip industry went away, people got jobs working for Ford. Do you seriously contend that marginal farmers who only exist as welfare recipients should contine to be a parasitic drain on the rest of society rather than give up farming and do something at which they can succeed? Subsidizing marginal farmers is like subsidizing the buggy whip industry. The only ones who benefit are the buggy whip makers. (In 1900 United Leather was the 7th largest company in the USA - It ain't around no more and none of us miss it. Guess what they made)
Why don't we make it voluntary. We'll have foreign sugar and U.S. sugar labeled in the store. Consumers can be patriotic and buy American or they can buy the cheaper foreign sugar. Candy makers can advertise on the candy that it's made with 100% pure American sugar.
Let the consumer decide for himself
And while we're at it mark what fraction of income tax is given to welfare and make payment of that voluntary as well. After all aren't the liberals allways going on about "Choice"?
In many instances, it is.
I also think that many of the elderly were foolish to rely on this safety net as their only source of income.
But then, politicians of both major parties have been lying to the American People about the exact nature of this program since its inception.
Dubya's proposal for "privatization" is merely a continuence of this lie, seeking a forced (by taxation) investment stream for Wall Street investment firms from which they can collect their commissions. We already have voluntary, private retirement investment plans, IRAs, 401Ks, etc.
Yes we do. Even with those commissions my 401K has performed about 10% better annually over the last 14 years than my Social Security. Do you have a problem with me voluntarily choosing to invest my own (forced) contributions myself?
I'll even give up all claim to Social Security contributions I've already made.
Stop it, you're confusing me with your logic. :^)
Yes. I don't think anybody should be forced by taxation to contribute to any form of investment fund, whether it be the so-called Social Security Trust Fund or some privately managed plan. Providing private investment firms a guaranteed source of investment revenues by force of taxation is especially abhorent.
It would be my desire that everybody voluntarily provide for their own private retirement security. However, given that government has instituted a socialist redistribution plan to act as a safety net for those who are less fortunate, I think we should put an end to the lies and abuses associated with the system and operate it as a true socialist redistribution system.
Social Security is a socialist redistribution system, PERIOD.
It taxes those who are working to provide a "safety net" for those who are not: retirees, surviving spouses, those with disabilities, etc.
There is no need to accumulate years and years of excessive taxes in some kind of "trust fund" to accomplish this. A "trust fund" that politicians have robbed for decades, leaving it chock-full of government IOUs while they applied the revenues to other purposes.
Social Security is NOT a savings plan.
It is a socialist redistribution plan. Period.
There is absolutely no reason why (especially in this era of computer technology) current period SS tax collection can't be immediately redistributed to eligible recipients, with NO accumulation of funds to be raided by government bureaucrats or avaricious financial institutions.
So the debate over who gets to raid the accumulated "Trust Fund" (government bureaucrats or the private sector) is largely diversionary.
The real solution to Social Security reform is elimination of the "Trust Fund". Computerization should easily be able to make adjustments so that current collections always equal current distributions. (At most, you might need a formula that equates THIS month's collections with NEXT month's distributions, providing a 1 month float to be "solvent".) Equating collections and distributions can be achieved one of two ways: varying the collection rate depending on the anticipated distributions required, or varying the distribution amount depending on what was collected. Either way, no more than one month's "float" would be necessary for the system to operate.
Any idea why you'll never hear this idea from our beloved politicians or from the so-called economic "experts" in the mainstream media?
Because it will reduce the power of the politicians over a huge bucket of money.
No they don't!!! They need to learn to live within their means based on the global market value of their product! Even if this means that some of them go bankrupt. Call it a "short-term market correction."
I call it "myopic avarice" which will lead our nation into dependency on foreign sources of food.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.