Jeebus, I'm getting into the farming business. Cha Ching!

Um, guys, it's buy low, sell high. Buy low. Sell high.

I... hate... politicians.

/Anyone know where I can check to see who voted for this so I can get 'em out of office?

remember: these are the people obama's going to put in charge of universal health care

...and everybody has a share.

/Milo

Subsidies are the only way to pretend that ethanol production is economically feasible.
That and the price of sugar needs to be driven up to keep up with the rising cost of HFCS.

albo: remember: these are the people obama's going to put in charge of universal health care

And they'll automagically lower costs, increase access and NOT play politics with people's healthcare options.

Never trust congress. Never. You'd figure people would know that by now.

albo: remember: these are the people obama's going to put in charge of universal health care

Yea, imagine you're congressman at the front counter of the local FSA branch.

I can't wait, there will be a government window for everything I could possibly want or need. How cool is that?

*your

slobarnuts: FSA

?
Fermented
Soy
Association?

albo: slobarnuts: FSA

?
Fermented
Soy
Association?

http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=landing&topic=landing

JColtrane: I... hate... politicians.

/Anyone know where I can check to see who voted for this so I can get 'em out of office?

House (^)and Senate (^) votes.

Meet the new Congress, same as the old Congress.

/We can has term limits?

It's a damn good thing that congress and the senate stood up to Bush by making this farm bill veto proof!

Pathetic, populist, special interest driven assholes, every single member of the legislative and executive branch needs to be lined up against the wall.

MasterThief: Meet the new Congress, same as the old Congress.

But they promised "change"!

/dirty liars

onecrazylay:

House (^)and Senate (^) votes.


Thanks!

Rep. Brown and Sen. Graham... your days are numbered.

One of the very few things I agree with bush on. This bill is pork central. Granted that didn't stop him from signing a very similer bill several years ago.

My local paper said that the bill was bad but its the best we will get. No farking way. Veto it send it back and get a good bill!

All my guys voted for it. 2 Republicans, one Dem. Shameful.

GaryPDX: I can't wait, there will be a government window for everything I could possibly want or need. How cool is that?

The weed will be of mediocre quality, and you'll have to submit your request three months in advance so you'll be able to get your corrected re-submission in by the two month mark in order to reserve your nicklebag.

RodneyToady: ...and everybody has a share.

/Milo

Just be careful... cornering the market on Egyptian cotton isn't as good an idea as it might seem.

I will have to come up with new expletives to show how I feel about this idea.

/fardling shimpsmuckers.

It's okay - they'll make up the difference on volume.

I straight up lol'ed. At a Politics headline.

There's got to be a Congressional subcommittee that focuses on finding the dumbest possible thing to do, and then making it happen.

passed a $300 billion farm bill that will shower even more taxpayer subsidies on corporations and some of the nation's wealthiest farmers.

Why would W veto this? It goes against the very core of his being.

I dunno. If i was OK with anyone in this country getting rich, I suppose it would be farmers. I mean..they make FOOD.

onecrazylay: JColtrane: I... hate... politicians.

/Anyone know where I can check to see who voted for this so I can get 'em out of office?

House (^)and Senate (^) votes.

Here are the votes represented in map form so you can see how the "farm states" voted.

GovTrack House (new window)

GovTrack Senate (new window)

one family controls the sugar trade in this country.

Its a cartel, like cocaine but legal and subsidized by the taxpayer.

/booger sugar

The bill even managed to bestow more largess on the highly subsidized and highly protected U.S. sugar industry. Under the legislation, the government promises to purchase excess sugar from producers at 23 cents a pound. The sugar then will be resold to ethanol producers at 2 cents a pound. Who makes up the difference? You, dear taxpayer.

We have a sugar industry? Then why does every sweetened product have HFCS in it instead? Or is that what they're talking about, but still calling it sugar... If this is just more corn bullshiat they can go f*ck themselves.

onecrazylay: House (^)and Senate (^) votes.

Thanks.

/Fark you, Ken Salazar and Wayne Allard.

HeadLever: onecrazylay: JColtrane: I... hate... politicians.

/Anyone know where I can check to see who voted for this so I can get 'em out of office?

House (^)and Senate (^) votes.

Here are the votes represented in map form so you can see how the "farm states" voted.

GovTrack House (new window)

GovTrack Senate (new window)

Thanks for the link. The only two NY Reps that voted against it were my douchebag Congressman King (who made the right decision for once) and everyone's favorite drunk driver, Vinny Due Famiglie.

There is actually a reason for policies such as this. The idea is that a given farm commodity (e.g., sugar) should be kept in production at a certain level to assure that the growing capacity is there when needed. Otherwise, the theory goes, the market is unable to respond quickly enough to shifts in supply and demand because of the time that passes between planting and bringing crops to market. Before production was "rationalized" through a system of subsidies, there were constant problems of the sort that occurred during the Depression - farmers would plant a particular crop assuming a certain price, then when the actual price at the time of harvest turned out to be substantially lower than anticipated, the farmers would suffer foreclosure. The result was that later, when prices rose again, there was inadequate supply to meet demand. Then, seeing high prices again, farmers would over-plant that particular crop, leading to subsequent price collapse. Lather, rinse, repeat.

I'm not saying that the present farm bill is a good one - frankly, I have no idea whether it is or is not - but it is based on sound theory and experience at least in part.

SchlingFo: GaryPDX: I can't wait, there will be a government window for everything I could possibly want or need. How cool is that?

The weed will be of mediocre quality, and you'll have to submit your request three months in advance so you'll be able to get your corrected re-submission in by the two month mark in order to reserve your nicklebag.

No comrade you only have to submit form MJ-278456-TB-2 which you can get by filling out application U-R-2346998-F-3485-K from the office of applications. I hear they will have a fresh shipment of those form sometime next month, have a nice day.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this basically amount to subsidizing gas so that fuel prices (and presumably corn prices) go down?

So you may see a savings on the other end. This sounds like bullsh*t on the face of things, but seeing the broad bipartisan backing for it I'd want to know more about the economics before dismissing it.

That, and the fact that Bush opposed it means that it's GOT to be good.

BMulligan: Otherwise, the theory goes, the market is unable to respond quickly enough to shifts in supply and demand because of the time that passes between planting and bringing crops to market.

Lot of volatility in the sugar market huh?

TheNewJesus: Why would W veto this? It goes against the very core of his being.

Here is his (administration's) response to your question.

"Mr. Bush has said he wants to sharply limit government subsidies to farmers at a time of near-record commodity prices and soaring global demand for grain. Most legislators were not swayed by Mr. Bush's description of the bill as bloated, expensive and packed with "a variety of gimmicks."

Source found here: (linky thing not working for me right now) http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/15/washington/15cnd-farm.html

Why is everyone so against farm subsidies? Do you know why they are necessary? Do you know what would happen if we allowed our farming industry to deteriorate because of cheap imports? We would be vulnerable to economic blackmail. Foreign nations could threaten to suspend export to the U.S. and we would starve, or have to give them whatever they wanted. Most years farmers are not doing very well and they barely get by. This particular year, food shortages are hiking prices. It's O.K. if they get one good year every now and then. We should be paying attention to what's going on with oil companies and military contractors.

Paedophile_Deluxe: We have a sugar industry? Then why does every sweetened product have HFCS in it instead? Or is that what they're talking about, but still calling it sugar... If this is just more corn bullshiat they can go f*ck themselves.

Sugar beets are becoming just as big a crop in Idaho as spuds are.

/the more you know

When people ask what part of government should be cut, this is where they should look.

/Here and similar bills that artificially prop up other sectors of the economy - I'm looking at you, steel and coal.
//And Boeing

lunchinlewis: Lot of volatility in the sugar market huh?

there's no reason for the US to use its land to grow sugar cane. we don't have the ideal environment for it and it's too cheap a commodity so it need subsidies. let brazil and cuba grow it and we use our land for higher-value purposes

Paedophile_Deluxe: The bill even managed to bestow more largess on the highly subsidized and highly protected U.S. sugar industry. Under the legislation, the government promises to purchase excess sugar from producers at 23 cents a pound. The sugar then will be resold to ethanol producers at 2 cents a pound. Who makes up the difference? You, dear taxpayer.

We have a sugar industry? Then why does every sweetened product have HFCS in it instead? Or is that what they're talking about, but still calling it sugar... If this is just more corn bullshiat they can go f*ck themselves.

1) Corn Lobby
2) Sugar Lobby
2) Cuban Blockade/Cubans in Miami

Anything else you want to know?
Anything else you want to know

BobtheFascist: Um, guys, it's buy low, sell high. Buy low. Sell high.

The ethanol producers will give the money back to the politicians thru contributions, favours and kickbacks.

Good to know politicians are still thinking of themselves and their really rich friends first, and not thinking of the people they "represent".

Edsel: Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this basically amount to subsidizing gas so that fuel prices (and presumably corn prices) go down?

That is the politican's theory, but the fact is, all of the ethanol made via fuel crops is just a drop in the bucket. Generally, it does nothing for the fuel prices, costs the taxpayers billions of dollars, and takes acres used for food out of production, which increases food costs

Smart? No

luidprand: When people ask what part of government should be cut, this is where they should look.

/Here and similar bills that artificially prop up other sectors of the economy - I'm looking at you, steel and coal.
//And Boeing

Yes, because there could never be an event, EVER, that might require us to have healthy, steel, coal, and farming industries.

/cough, cough, WW3

lunchinlewis:

Lot of volatility in the sugar market huh?

Actually, there is, historically at least. I'm old enough to remember times when sugar prices spiked horribly.

And by the way, as much as everyone likes to rail on about farm price support policies - and I'm the first to admit that often they amount to nothing more than welfare for Cargill and ADM - before the current, post-New Deal policies were instituted during the Nixon administration, wildly fluctuating food prices were a huge problem for many people. It was a big political issue, too, which is why Nixon's AgSec Earl Butz made it his business to stabilize food prices.

albo:

there's no reason for the US to use its land to grow sugar cane. we don't have the ideal environment for it and it's too cheap a commodity so it need subsidies. let brazil and cuba grow it and we use our land for higher-value purposes

Wait - did I just hear you favor open trade with Cuba? Cool!

spiderpaz: Yes, because there could never be an event, EVER, that might require us to have healthy, steel, coal, and farming industries.

Healthy farming industry does not mean that we need to give them billions of dollars to try to bail us out of the energy mess that we are in. Farmers are good at making food. Let them concentrate on that.

Nestea Plunge: Ethanol is a non-starter. That dog won't hunt.

Corn based ethanol is not great. Alternatives are out there but ideally, you want to develop a renewable energy source for the distillation (e.g, concentrated solar or combustion of dried surplus biomass, plasma gasification).

Ethanol is not the best thing out there but it could still be part of an overall solution. Think of a small hobby farm in which the corn is harvested with very little use of fossil fuel. Beer could be made from the corn and poured into a solar still which would produce pure ethanol which could be used on the farm itself. Also, the husks and cobs can be dried in the sun and burned to run the distillation process. The biproduct of ethanol is an excellent feed additive for farm animals (pigs & cows) which in turn, provide excellent fertilizer.

BMulligan: Wait - did I just hear you favor open trade with Cuba? Cool!

at this point, sure. as long as our companies can go into cuba's market with the same lack of competitive restrictions that cuba's companies will get doing business in the US

Holy shiat.