A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words...
By mbecker908 Posted in Congress — Comments (59) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Or a few billion dollars. HT to NRO
The following graphic represents people who live in Manhattan (that's New York City, a very METRO place) who also collect farm subsidies. The big red dots are folks who collect more than $250,000 per year.
I was going to say something, but I can't really think of anything that adds to the story the picture tells.
Most likely these are people who purchased farm property either as recreational property or as investment property for future development.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
Because (1) Iowa has the first major contest for those seeking their party's presidential nomination, and (2) Archer Daniels Midland and other major agribusinesses have legally bribed Congress and presidential candidates, which is one reason we need public financing of campaigns (or at least a much greater degree of it relative to private fundraising). Spend a couple of billion dollars of taxpayer money on campaigns every couple of years and the savings on farm subsidies alone would more than pay for that cost.
Oh, and (3), the media has done a piss poor job of informing the public of this mega-ripoff and embarrassing politicians into changing.
love to quote Jefferson on separation of Church and State while ignoring what he had to say about the government spending your money on things to which you have a strongly held moral objection?
I'd try to reason with him, but just from one post it's obvious he's impervious to it.
?
Who's "he" (me?). If so, care to elaborate and explain the relevance? My guess is that you're referring to things like public funding of abortion (am I right?), but I'm not at all sure, nor do I see the relevance to farm subsidies if that is the kind of thing you're referring to.
Sometimes he Can be reasonable.
The trick is figuring out what those times are.
"I Will Always Place The Mission First.
"I will never accept defeat.
"I will never quit.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade."
Warrior Ethos, US Army
Iowa has the first major contest for those seeking their party's presidential nomination
Yea, I'm sure you heard that offered as an excuse somewhere, but it doesn't make it true. There are hundreds of legislators in Congress that have no intention of ever running for President that support ag subsidies enthusiastically. The support for these subsidies is actually strongest in the legislature and weakest at the White House.
Archer Daniels Midland and other major agribusinesses have legally bribed Congress and presidential candidates
No, the real problem is that ag subsidies is a great way to bring the pork back to their home district. Why would Republicans representing rural districts be against ag subsidies? They wouldn't. That would put them in opposition to their districts best interests. Why would Democrats representing urban districts be against ag subsidies? They wouldn't. Having people dependent on government checks gives them a warm fuzzy feeling inside. What you end up with are lopsided votes in favor of ag welfare.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
There are hundreds of legislators in Congress that have no intention of ever running for President that support ag subsidies enthusiastically.
Yeah, see the second factor I described (the legal bribes). Also, if you don't think presidential candidates pander to Iowa via farm policy that rips off taxpayers and consumers across the nation, you haven't been watching presidential primary campaigns, debates, etc. over the years.
the real problem is that ag subsidies is a great way to bring the pork back to their home district.
That's part of the problem, but the campaign cash from agribusiness makes it much worse than it would otherwise be. If you don't believe me, read up on it.
Clearly you are just looking to create a boogeyman that can only be slain by your idiotic campaign finance plan. Don't let the facts get in the way. It's all about the evil ADM and that stupid primary schedule.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Thanks, zuiko. Glad to see you true to form. When you have no real argument, just throw around insults and accusations, and accuse me of exactly what YOU'RE doing -- neglecting facts and just sticking to some ideological position. I'll give you one thing: you covered all those bases very concisely.
Oh, Neil. What makes you think it was a "slip", let alone that I'm on edge? I AM for public funding of campaigns, perhaps not 100% but for the bulk of the funding via a much higher matching multiple. It would be the best investment taxpayers have ever made. We'd save tens of billions of dollars every year, and we'd be closer to de facto one-man, one-vote. I'm not suggesting such a system be mandatory -- I would oppose that on First Amendment grounds -- but we could make it attractive enough (via the matching multiple and a very high allowed spending cap, if any) so that almost no candidate would want to forego it. Any chance you'll deal with the above rationally?
Oh, and since you've officially bestowed upon me the title, The Smartest Guy in the Room, I'll start calling you -- based on your html advice -- Your Company's Computer Guy http://youtube.com/watch?v=UhNIUOkWAmo (I know you are helpful and kind when giving tech advice, unlike that guy, but I wanted to use this)
"and we'd be closer to de facto one-man, one-vote"
We'd be closer to "All votes are controlled by Congress"
He who controls the spending controls the money. And since the money is Very closely tied to the votes, well. Self-explanatory.
"I Will Always Place The Mission First.
"I will never accept defeat.
"I will never quit.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade."
Warrior Ethos, US Army
I have with publicly financed campaigns is who decides which candidates get the money? That's a slippery slope into the government deciding the candidates who will run to run government. Not a good thing IMO.
___________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson
We have a system now that offers matching funds, with particular ratios for candidates who meet particular requirements demonstrating some minimal required level of support. I'm talking about scaling that up substantially. The basic principles and mechanisms are not obscure or strange. For example, anyone who gets a particular number of petition signatures or small donations or some other evidence of at least enough support to represent a serious candidacy could qualify, and then for every $1 raised privately they could get $10 in public funds as long as they stayed within the spending cap, which would be set high enough to keep candidates in the system. That's just one example. There are ways it could be done that would make our government much more de facto democratic -- and would save us a ton of money.
That just seems like so much regulation (yes I think we have too much right now as it is). There are always loopholes I could see (such as the petition thing, ACORN could tell you about that). I wouldn't mind public financing in theory, but I just feel that in practice it's going to be a mess (more of a mess than we have now).
___________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson
Wouldn't necessarily be more regulation than we have now. And I don't see why there would necessarily be more loopholes than one could seek and perhaps find in our current system. It could be simple and straight-forward.
It could be simple and straight-forward.
Could. But is that really realistic? I doubt it. Like I said, In theory it could be a good idea. I just can't see any way that it is implemented in our current government that would make it a better system than we have. I'd think we would have to scrap the whole system and write ALL completely new laws - I can't see that happening. Oh well, not something I get really worked up about anyways.
Off to the Oregon State game - go Beavs!!
___________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson
And if you will kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth (I never said a thing about incumbents), your plan would mean that the people who control the money in the government would control the money in elections.
Not a good idea.
"I Will Always Place The Mission First.
"I will never accept defeat.
"I will never quit.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade."
Warrior Ethos, US Army
I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. I assumed you were implying that the drawback would be more advantages for incumbents. Now I guess you're saying that's not your concern, but you're just repeating yourself without stating what are the consequences about which your concerned. So spell it out for me. If it's not incumbency advantage you're concerned about, what is it?
Thr problem of making elections publicly funded the way you stated you would like to gives the Congress the power to determine where that money goes.
This would allow whoever controls the Appropriations Committee to have a potentially overwhelming vote in who gets elected, whether that be the incumbent or someone they think will be more agreeable with their own positions than a current incumbent.
And if you don't think the law would be crafted to do exactly that, then you haven't been paying attention to the kind of people are and have been running this government for the last several decades.
"I Will Always Place The Mission First.
"I will never accept defeat.
"I will never quit.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade."
Warrior Ethos, US Army
Well, I don't think those on the Appropriations Committee would be involved at all. I'm not sure of that, but why would they? Only thing the government would have to do is certify that whatever requirements had been met to qualify for funds (whatever the law says, such as number of small contributions reaching whatever dollar amount, or whatever), write checks, monitor compliance, etc., all of which seems like FEC stuff. Tell me what the role of the Appropriations Committee would be in determining who gets how much money?
But Somebody on The Hill determines where all the money that passes through the Capitol goes. Whether this money would be specially apportioned out via the Appropriations Committee or just included as part of the normal Budget proccess (and how could it? When making the budget they don't usually yet know who is running).
Whoever that is would have far too much control over elections.
"I Will Always Place The Mission First.
"I will never accept defeat.
"I will never quit.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade."
Warrior Ethos, US Army
I think your misunderstanding the nature of how it would work. We're not talking about the kind of process in which there is a lot of discretion akin to the Appropriations Committee. We're talking about implementation of campaign law, which I assume would be done by the FEC, probably by technocrats per a clear set of rules. It would be a different kind of animal vs. what you've been talking about.
Which means you know no better than do I.
Furthermore, the FEC is an arm of the government, and giving Them control of the money is no better.
"I Will Always Place The Mission First.
"I will never accept defeat.
"I will never quit.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade."
Warrior Ethos, US Army
Come on, admit it. You mixed apples and oranges. There are regulatory matters administered by technocrats per specific rules, and there's the kind of wide discretion on a case-by-case basis of the sort seen in the Appropriations Committee. If public funding would occur throught the latter type of process, I'd be dead set against it for the same reason as you. Now you're just grasping at the straw that any increased government involvement must be bad and will unavoidably lead to some kind of political favoratism. Fine, if you just want to stick to your position even though your original rationale has been refuted.
stop
the
haiku
can't
you
see
when
a
thread
becomes
unreadable
If people keep doing this maybe they'll accept the fix for it I've had ready since TMR was launched, heh.
Heeeere's Neil! http://youtube.com/watch?v=UhNIUOkWAmo
I found this piece here. Just search the text for "Manhattan" and you'll see he makes reference to investors who live in the city and own farm land.
www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
There must be at least 1.5 million people who live there (in that photo) - that is alot of NY'ers and the picture only shows a few hundred dots or so.
I suppose most of those "farmers" have 100,000+ acre farms. They also have exccellent tax accoutants.
Find Sam Donaldson's (ABC reporter) tax returns/info to see how a master tax filer abuses the Farm subsidy system regarding his Hondo, New Mexico "farm".
"Never give in! Never give in! Never, Never, Never, Never -in nothing great or small, large or petty - Never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense."
Winston Churchill, Harrow school speech.
I live in Manhattan, and let me tell you what a pain in the ass commuting through all those cornfields every morning.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
"I Will Always Place The Mission First.
"I will never accept defeat.
"I will never quit.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade."
Warrior Ethos, US Army
I know it isn't uncommon for multiple entities located at the same address to be collecting welfare checks -- err agricultural subsidies. I imagine this is done to get around some regulation. It has the side effect of making the checks look smaller, since one guy might get three $100k checks instead of one $300k check.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
you would not beleive the postage
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
"Farm living is the LIFE for me!"
Manhattan as Hooterville USA - who knew?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Kudos to whomever made this graphic.
______________________________________
Bobby Jindal Saves Louisiana
Judging by the volume of manure produced by the New York Times it's easy to believe they need all that fertilizer for *something*.
Which dot is Mr. Hsu's?
Has the 2007 bill been passed by the Senate? (I've only found where it was passed by the House.) And I thought Bush was promising to veto it. Ah.. found some info and some more. In fact, I think this picture shows the results of the 2002 Farm Bill that the 2007 bill will replace.
That being said, this sort of thing is truly terrible, and I think we should eliminate subsidies to the corporate mega-farms, which I think this picture shows. But I think they had those sorts of subsidies BEFORE this bill, and AFAIK they still have it now. (Especially since it has not been signed into law yet.) That being said, it has been a missed opportunity by both sides of the aisle. Money talks, I guess.
Yes, I think we can blame both Democrats and Republicans for dropping the ball on this. In its final form, Republicans were against it, but not because of city folk getting the money from farm subsidies. From what I've seen, the farm bill had near unanimous support from the House Agriculture Committee. The Republicans protested when the Dems decided to sneak in some provisions to tax foreign corporations more to pay for a nutrition program.
The graphic of Manhattan farm subsidy recipients is courtesy of the Environmental Working Group's Farm Policy Analysis Database which can be found at www.mulchblog.com. Our data comes directly from the USDA. Taxpayer funded subsides don't just go to Manhattan, either. Check out farm subsidy maps of these other cities like:
It was cool to find my dot on one of those other maps. (Mine is a really small dot.) I live in a city and I own a small farm. It was handed down from my dad, who lived in a much smaller city, worked a job, and still farmed. I grew up there and come by my knowledge honestly.
It concerns me that people here are quick to criticise those represented by those red dots. Why should farming be different from any other business, small or large? If I own a company that makes products (I once did), do I have to live at the factory and work in it to be considered a legitimate manufacturer? Am I wrong to take advantage of the government programs and tax incentives that the government creates for manufacturers? Where are those dots and what color are they?
If you own stock in a company that increases its profits by use of tax incentives, government grants, work programs, etc., where's your dot?
My point isn't to defend farm policy. It needs changing. My point is certainly not to defend the very large agricultural corporations. My point is that we should not be critical of the vast majority of American's that use the system but don't abuse it.
It needs eliminating. No farm subsidies period. Not to you and certainly not to ADM. None, zip nada.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
to all of my friends...
Great job Becker!
___________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson
I'm speechless.
www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.