Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Disgusting Compromise on $956B Farm Bill; In Spite of Massive Howls, No Actual Cuts in Food Stamps
MISH'S Global Economic Trend Analysis ^ | 1/29/2014 | Mike Shedlock (Mish)

Posted on 01/29/2014 10:34:53 AM PST by SteelTrap

Proving that neither party really wants to do anything about escalating costs of anything, in typical D.C. compromise action, the House Passes $956B Farm Bill in a bipartisan vote.

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) all voted for the bill.

Democrats are howling over minuscule cuts in SNAP (food stamps). For example, an inane headline on the Daily Koz reads House passes food stamp-slashing farm bill.

Supposedly there will be $8.6 billion in devastating food stamp cuts. Even if that happens it is less than a 1% cut in an economy that is supposedly in recovery.

(Excerpt) Read more at globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy
KEYWORDS: farmbill; foodstamps; foodstampsbill; mish; uniparty
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 next last
To: DannyTN

Thank you for the accurate links...

Some will never accept the fact that Farm Bill subsidies are just welfare programs for bad legislation


21 posted on 01/29/2014 11:59:57 AM PST by SeminoleCounty (Amnesty And Not Ending ObamaCare Will Kill GOP In 2014)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

Why don’t you prove I am wrong. This time, try using relevant facts and links. Do something besides trolling


22 posted on 01/29/2014 12:01:46 PM PST by SeminoleCounty (Amnesty And Not Ending ObamaCare Will Kill GOP In 2014)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SeminoleCounty

Being called a troll by you actually is a compliment. It’s the only thing you do well. And no, I’m not going to hold your hand, wipe your butt, and do your research for you.


23 posted on 01/29/2014 12:03:21 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy; SeminoleCounty

Free traders are the biggest enablers of Big Government that there are. It’s the free trade policies that are making a hundred million Americans dependent on government.


24 posted on 01/29/2014 12:08:47 PM PST by DannyTN (A>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

One of the reasons that free traders butt heads with protectionists: assuming that what the protectionists claim is true, the protectionist solution to make government bigger is ridiculous.


25 posted on 01/29/2014 12:11:10 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

Then maybe you should be helping your fellow Free Trader traveller Barack Obama on his US-EU Free Trade deal, instead of wasting your time here. You two can hold hands and hate America together


26 posted on 01/29/2014 12:18:16 PM PST by SeminoleCounty (Amnesty And Not Ending ObamaCare Will Kill GOP In 2014)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
"One of the reasons that free traders butt heads with protectionists: assuming that what the protectionists claim is true, the protectionist solution to make government bigger is ridiculous."

You're projecting. The protectionist solution reduces government.

Raising the import tariffs doesn't make government bigger. We already have all that government infrastructure, it's just a rate change. Reducing income taxes on the other hand, weakens the IRS.

But more importantly, it gets people off of the welfare roles which reduces government substantially.

Your so called "free trade" solution has resulted in 100 million people on food stamps. Worse it has strengthened the largest communist government out there. Who is really big government?

27 posted on 01/29/2014 12:18:54 PM PST by DannyTN (A>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
"One of the reasons that free traders butt heads with protectionists: assuming that what the protectionists claim is true, the protectionist solution to make government bigger is ridiculous."

You're projecting. The protectionist solution reduces government.

Raising the import tariffs doesn't make government bigger. We already have all that government infrastructure, it's just a rate change. Reducing income taxes on the other hand, weakens the IRS.

But more importantly, it gets people off of the welfare roles which reduces government substantially.

Your so called "free trade" solution has resulted in 100 million people on food stamps. Worse it has strengthened the largest communist government out there. Who is really big government?

28 posted on 01/29/2014 12:18:54 PM PST by DannyTN (A>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SteelTrap

bump


29 posted on 01/29/2014 12:19:38 PM PST by gibsosa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeminoleCounty

I’ll stick to Ronald Reagan, thanks. I don’t feel like joining your Party.


30 posted on 01/29/2014 12:20:04 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: SteelTrap

How come nobody ever mentions the inflationary effect on food prices from food stamps?

Free money chasing food = higher prices.


31 posted on 01/29/2014 12:22:41 PM PST by nascarnation (I'm hiring Jack Palladino to investigate Baraq's golf scores.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
Your so called "free trade" solution has resulted in 100 million people on food stamps.

You forget the thread on which you post, and you expect me to believe that raising my taxes will reduce expenditures on food stamps, despite the evidence staring you in the face.

As I stated, your faith in the government has no equal.

32 posted on 01/29/2014 12:22:47 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SteelTrap
Is that $956 billion over one year? or 10? or what?

The Washington Power Nuts are always obfuscating by switching back and forth when yapping, depending on whether they want a highly emotional number or more "moderate" number.

There should be a new way of writing about budget numbers, as in "$956 billion/o-ten," which equals "$95.6 billion/o-one."

33 posted on 01/29/2014 12:28:01 PM PST by cookcounty (IRS = Internal Revenge Service.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
"You forget the thread on which you post, and you expect me to believe that raising my taxes will reduce expenditures on food stamps, despite the evidence staring you in the face."

Your talking gibberish now.

I want to lower income taxes not raise them. I want to raise tariffs by an equal amount, so there is no net increase in taxes of any kind, except the new income taxes, and sales taxes from people returning to work and having more money to spend.

This thread presents no evidence that you claim for it.

34 posted on 01/29/2014 1:04:21 PM PST by DannyTN (A>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
"You forget the thread on which you post, and you expect me to believe that raising my taxes will reduce expenditures on food stamps, despite the evidence staring you in the face."

Your talking gibberish now.

I want to lower income taxes not raise them. I want to raise tariffs by an equal amount, so there is no net increase in taxes of any kind, except the new income taxes, and sales taxes from people returning to work and having more money to spend.

This thread presents no evidence that you claim for it.

35 posted on 01/29/2014 1:04:21 PM PST by DannyTN (A>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
Gibberish? LOL

You want to talk jibberish, of the economic sort? Let's talk about how you think raising tariffs, with all the ripple-effect it causes, can even be considered at the same time as lowering the marginal tax rate (which, despite being politically impossible, one cannot calculate on a 1:1, or even 1:x basis, as you suggest).

It's food for idiots, and you are obese. You throw these numbers and ideas about and have no idea what they mean.

36 posted on 01/29/2014 1:10:52 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
I don't know what you mean by a 1:1 basis, but it's really quite simple.

You take the $ amount of imports x 10% (tariff increase). That is the amount that the tariff increase will generate.

And then that's the amount that you reduce income taxes by.

Any decrease in the tariff due to a fall in the amount of imports would be more than offset by the increased American incomes, when people change their buying habits.

Your import related business would suck, but America would be far better off, if you were in the food stamp line instead of the 100 million Americans there now.

37 posted on 01/29/2014 1:18:59 PM PST by DannyTN (A>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

Identify the assumptions that you are making in your last comment, and you too can be an economist.


38 posted on 01/29/2014 1:20:56 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
You take the $ amount of imports x 10% (tariff increase). That is the amount that the tariff increase will generate.

And then you subtract out the higher domestic prices your new tax will cause, how many jobs will that cost?

39 posted on 01/29/2014 2:02:14 PM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Science is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
There won't be significant increases in domestic prices due to a tariff increase.

The tariff itself will cause up to 1.4% increase in the general price level. But that will be offset by the lowered income taxes. Taxpayers would have on average $1500 from lowered taxes to pay the increase costs of imports, if they choose to continue buying imports.

If a domestic product includes an imported component, it may go up, but only by the proportion that it has imports as components. And that is already factored in the general price increase above.

If a domestic product exists that currently competes against an import, then conceivably that domestic product could raise it's prices. But if they were competing profitably before, the increase would result in excess profits, and more domestic competitors would enter the market driving the price back down.\

40 posted on 01/29/2014 2:18:48 PM PST by DannyTN (A>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson