Replies

I am not defending anything; in fact if you will look at a previous post of mine you will see that I have stated that I recognise its a preliminary/breaking news report on a web page and that If there is anything in the major dailies tomorrow I would post that too.

I realise that subsides arent the entire part of the bill, but according to the EWG Farm Subsidies database, direct farm subsidies accounted for more than 2/3rds of the monies budgeted for agricultural programmes from 1996-2000, thats a hefty chunk of cash whichever way you cut it. You will also note from farmfriends information that the bill is being sponsored by a Texas Republican and "...Directs the Secretary of Agriculture through crop year 2011".

So what we have is the US govt spending the equivalent of NZ350 billion over 10 years (current exchange rate is US$0.42 to NZ$1 roughly), of which (by historical precedent) probably more than 2/3rds will be used to subsidies farms, some of which are in ag. industries and areas that have required subsiding since the depression. Now, you can blame that on FDR I guess, buts its still going on.

I am amused that you would talk about the agenda of the articles author (although obviously she is writing for domestic NZ consumption so USA=big bad hypocrite and NZ/US=underdog), and then send me to www.heritage.org, presumably for a more reasoned and unbiased analysis.

I really dont understand your obsession with socialism and Cuba by the way; surely the fact that I have been criticising US govt farm subsidies so vehemently is evidence for the fact that I dont think governments should be continually propping-up industries to the detriment of their international competitors, let alone managing said industries in the socialist collective mold. What part of my position dont you understand?

Having checked my previous posts, nowhere do I say ALL American farmers get subsidies (I did ask a rhetorical question concerning whether all the rural areas tend to vote GOP though, and I do refer to "American Farmers" ina collective sense.). I have also noted that it does seem like these subsidies tend to go to the big boys with political clout (as opposed to the Mom n Pop small farmers).

In which case, whats your beef

Not right to compare the Heritage Foundation to the "Scoop." Heritage is a 30 year old conservative think-tank, not a tool of the media. They are a research and historical org. Doubt any are in favor of subsidies, including myself, since I'm a member.

Author clearly states "...US farmers will be paid to produce goods no matter the world price or demand." An unbiased reporter would have said "SOME US farmers..."

Total farm subsidy payments 1996-2000 were $71 Billion, or approx.$18 billion per annum.

USDA annual outlays (budget) was $63 billion in 1993. $54 billion in 1999. Discretionary program outlays were $15 billion or 30% of total USDA expenditures.

But these programs include WIC, management of forests/grasslands, research, tech programs,etc. Even so, no where near "2/3" claimed by EWG. An environmental org. funded by the JOYCE Foundation! Need I say more?

I do thank you for clearly (finally) stating that you are referring to "many" US farmers as opposed to ALL US farmers. Again, 60% of US farmers get ZERO dollars from farm subsidies. The 40% that do are the corporate elite, and individual wealthy types.