Conspiracy theorys, where do you stand?

[Bill]

Sorry. I like DT. But he shit the bed. His voters medical insurance went through the roof. Fuel is up. Groceries are still up.

Love his policies but I’ve been around long enough to know he’s going to get his ass handled to him in November.

What you all need to figure out is how far we swing left after the dumb ass socialist win.

 

[bwoods11]

Look into how the recounts happen. I linked above how they take place and specifically what happened in this county in Georgia.

The FBI seized the votes in Georgia & Arizona. An investigation is underway, I’ll see what is determined.

I stayed up & watched the election, went to bed, Trump had basically won, woke up & saw Biden suddenly get almost all the votes after that ?

The betting odds for Trump to win was at 92% . It was over. They used fake Covid mail in votes in the swing states to steal the election.

Az, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, & Pennsylvania. Rigged . Minnesota (Minneapolis) has always had voting integrity issues, California.

We need Voter ID in all states along with other major changes to make sure the elections are not ever stolen again!

There’s a reason Democrats are highly opposed to this !

 

[Telemark]

10000% disagree. Farmers need to figure how to be more efficient or go out of business. So sick of bailouts and government supported businesses. Any tariff money should go to the debt.

First, I cannot express enough the importance of having plentiful cheap food for the security of our society and stability of our economy. Problems in the food supply can kill a society. The US is one of the top agricultural producers, and a net exporter. This is a fantastic position to be in, as we don't have any security threats related to calorie deficit. American farmers are also the most sophisticated and productive agricultural producers in the world. It's worth it to our society to maintain this position for all kinds of social, political, and national security reasons.

Pulling ag subsidies will immediately drive up the prices of almost all American food products. Marginal producers will be forced out of business, lowering supply, and further driving up food prices, hitting every American, and having an outsized effect on the poorest Americans. This will end up shifting politics in the US to the left, and the Dems will ramp up food stamps, welfare, and other benefits, which they will either take from the middle class in taxes, or just print the money, driving inflation and further pushing up prices of everything in the US. You can probably see how this would be bad for our country.

China has been welching on trade deals for decades. They're sneaky, underhanded shitheads who have been biting the hand that feeds them. They violate international agreements to boycott US ag products for political reasons. They flood markets with subsidized low-quality products of all kinds, not just in the US, but anywhere they can. The Chinese boycott of American soybeans is unfair to the US farmers and the US taxpayers, so China should foot the bill for their transgressions. It makes perfect sense to put a punitive tariff on Chinese products entering the US and using the money to pay farmers for the losses they sustain from China's underhanded dealings. Yes, technically people consuming Chinese goods are paying the tariff, but that's fine with me. The more you support Chinese products, the more you pay to correct their shady trade practices. This also helps to push Chinese products out of the US market and increasing demand for US products, bolstering our domestic economy.

I tend to be socially libertarian, but economically conservative. Economic stability is one of the most important factors to a society's wellbeing. If that means subsidizing US food production, then it's worth it. You get part of that money back anyway every time you go to the supermarket and buy cheap food.

The idea that we can shut our borders and do everything for ourselves is erroneous. Likewise, the idea we can open our borders to unregulated trade and let our economy be negatively affected by bad actors like the CCP is also erroneous. The only reasonable policy for the US is to regulate our international trade to make our market fair for American consumers and to protect our people's basic needs.

Edited for typos

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

First, I cannot express enough the importance of having plentiful cheap food for the security of our society and stability of our economy. Problems in the food supply can kill a society. The US is one of the top agricultural producers, and a net exporter. This is a fantastic position to be in, as we don't have any security threats related to calorie deficit. American farmers are also the most sophisticated and productive agricultural producers in the world. It's worth it to our society to maintain this position for all kinds of social, political, and national security reasons.

Pulling ag subsidies will immediately drive up the prices of almost all American food products. Marginal producers will be forced out of business, lowering supply, and further driving up food prices, hitting every American, and having an putsized effect on the poorest Americans. This will end up shifting politics in the US to the left, and the Dems will ramp up food stamps, welfare, and other benefits, which they will either rake from the middle class, or just print the money, driving inflation and further pushing up prices of everything in the US. You can probably see how this would be bad for.our country.

China has been welching on trade deals for decades. They're sneaky, underhanded shitheads who have been biting the hand that feeds them. They violate national agreements to boycott US ag products for political reasons. They flood markets with subsidized low-quality products of all kinds, nut just in the US, but anywhere they can. The Chonese boycott of American soybeans is unfair to the US farmers and the US taxpayers, so China should foot the bill for their transgressions. It makes perfect sense to put a punitive tariff on Chinese products entering the US and using the money to pay farmers for the losses they sustain from China's underhanded dealings. Yes, technically people consuming Chonese goods are paying the tariff, but that's fine with me. The more you support Chinese products, the more you pay to correct their shady trade practices. This also helps to push Chinese products out of the US market and increasing demand for US products, bolstering our domestic economy.

I tend to be socially libertarian, but economically conservative. Economic stability is one of the most important factors to a society's wellbeing. If that means subsidizing US food production, then it's worth it. You get part of that money back anyway every time you go to the supermarket and buy cheap food.

The idea that we can shut our borders and do everything for ourselves is erroneous. Likewise, the idea we can open our borders to unregulated trade and let our economy be negatively affected by bad actors like the CCP is also erroneous. The only reasonable policy for the US is to regulate our international trade to make our market fair for American consumers and to protect our people's basic needs.

That is a good way to look at it and I do agree with some of your points. But I can also counter some of those as well. I think I’ve seen where less than 15% of soy and well under 15% of all corn actually goes to food production. Now you could say indirectly more does because it goes into cattle feed, but it’s still the overwhelming minority that we actually turn into food. So that right there is a reason to stop subsidizing farming. The corn/bean rotation that has dominated the Landscape is largely antiquated when it comes to satisfying our food needs. I’m fine if farmers want to continue to run that cycle, but it should not come at the taxpayers expense. And on a sidenote, remember farmers probably voted for Trump by 90% at least so when China boycotts due to tariffs (which I 1000% agree we should tariff the piss out of China) and then cry because they can’t sell beans to China, it’s laughable.

I also think farmers are some of the worst violators of environmental issues we have going on with our Landscape. Their practices contribute to erosion and soil quality degradation, water quality degradation, and water usage issues which are well documented. Herbicides and pesticides are poisoning our soil, water and air. So to say they are on the leading edge of agricultural practices seems like a low bar if it’s indeed true. I think to subsidize all of that sends the wrong message. If we want to subsidize things maybe we lean toward more soil and water quality guardrails and crop production that actually goes to consumption.

I think the reason why people are OK with subsidizing agriculture while other industries have to operate in a free market comes down to the court of public opinion. Farmers have done an unbelievable job messaging. The poor old dirt farmer. Hard living. I mean, they have damn concerts to help support their cause with misguided socialist like Neil Young and Bruce Springsteen promoting them all the while they drive off in their Denali 2500 back to the spread! I was listening to a barn talk podcast the other day and they were talking about guys being four week farmers. Two weeks in the spring and two weeks in the fall. Obviously I’m painting with a broad brush. I know some farmers are really struggling, I know farmers that worked their butts off. But hell does that not go for every industry? I’m sure there are tech CEOs who are struggling and car salesman who are working 12 hour days. Should we subsidize all of them too cause they have it tough? I know I sound anti-Farmer, that’s not the case at all, hell in another life I’d love to be one. I just don’t think we have any obligation to subsidize that industry in its current form.

We all speak from personal bias, so here’s mine, there are three basic needs that we can all agree upon, food, water, and shelter. We’ve covered the food part with the ag industry and their subsidies. So what about the shelter portion? Why is it that builders and developers don’t receive the same level of cushion that the ag industry does? Are they not just as important in the hierarchy of needs? How about the environmental and regulatory roadblocks that they face as opposed to the free pass the Farmer gets? I’ve talked about my own experiences with having to fight a $10,000 fine because some small, almost undetectable amount of runoff went into a neighbors artificially made three-quarter of an acre pond during a historic flood event that killed 20 something people (it was a 1 acre lot with a 60’x60’ pad cleared and the only exposed dirt and the pond was 200 yards away through some woods). Yet at the same time, a farmer‘s entire topsoil can wash off to a creek and a river, raising the water temp and altering the balance of native live in that waterway, and we will subsidize his lack of success when his crops don’t come up the next year. How about the permitting and impact fees that we have to pay? I’ve got one job where the permit alone after all the fees was $50,000. And this is a county where you cannot build on anything under 5 acres so the cost of the lot was almost $400,000. Why should the county tell someone they can only put one house on 5 acres driving up land prices? How about septic…I can have a perfect 1.5 acre lot (once again a minimum in this county) and ridiculous septic regulations eat up 3/4 of the lot leaving a postage stamp to put a house and it could be the worst part of the lot. That causes an expensive foundation and expensive dirt work. It can increase the cost of the house several times over. It can make certain good lots useless driving up the price of buildable lots. Do you know how much extra food somebody could buy if they could get a $450,000 house for $410,000 all because of some arbitrary location for a massive septic area? Also, what if a builder has a house sit for a year because interest rate rates are way too high because of government policy? Do they get any insurance to help offset their carrying costs and ultimate loss when they sell the house? I know the answer to all of that, no. So forgive me for my cynicism when it comes to paying certain industries to be inefficient.

 

[Westwind]

Two really good posts above. Can’t add anything other than some of the subsidies were partially started due to Cold War defense concerns. Department of Ag actually built a lot of roads during that period to get U.S. grain to market due to Cold War. Also the subsidized grain was also bought by the gov to use as part of projecting U.S. power to parts of the world that needed to feed starving people. Called it projecting soft power if you are looking for google search terms.

And no, I’m not looking for an argument about USAID. But if I was starving my ass off and got a bag of wheat with an American flag and “Product of USA” written on it I’m counting the US as a friend.

 

[Telemark]

That is a good way to look at it and I do agree with some of your points. But I can also counter some of those as well. I think I’ve seen where less than 15% of soy and well under 15% of all corn actually goes to food production. Now you could say indirectly more does because it goes into cattle feed, but it’s still the overwhelming minority that we actually turn into food. So that right there is a reason to stop subsidizing farming. The corn/bean rotation that has dominated the Landscape is largely antiquated when it comes to satisfying our food needs. I’m fine if farmers want to continue to run that cycle, but it should not come at the taxpayers expense. And on a sidenote, remember farmers probably voted for Trump by 90% at least so when China boycotts due to tariffs (which I 1000% agree we should tariff the piss out of China) and then cry because they can’t sell beans to China, it’s laughable.

The problem right now is that China signed an agreement to buy the soybeans, so Trump told the farmers to go plant soybeans. The Chinese then renegged on the deal and went to Brazil to slash and burn You can't just rug-pull the farmers without serious consequences. If I were Trump, I would tell the farmers to plant fewer acres of soybeans because the subsidies for the least efficient producers will be slowly cut off over the next 5 years. Then I would cut off the Middle Eastern oil supply to China until they buy the beans they promised.

As you mentioned, most of the soy is not consumed by people. I think the largest portion China buys is to feed their pigs. Over half of all meat consumed in China is pork. We definitely to not need to give farmers heavy subsidies just to export beans to China. But we can't just yank the subsidies immediately, or it will cause a shock to the system. There is also supply issues with fertilizer, which China is partially responsible for.

I'm not advocating for unlimited subsidies for anyone to grow anything they want. I'm advocating in general for government subsidies to go to farmers in order to keep food in the US plentiful and cheap. And in this particular growing season, I'm advocating for using Chinese tariff money to pay for it. And I wouldn't mind some money going to beef producers to bring down the cost of beef in the US.

I would also advocate for putting tariffs on certain Canadian products to get the Canadians to scale back the tariffs on American dairy. It's unfair, and it should be dealt with.

I also think farmers are some of the worst violators of environmental issues we have going on with our Landscape. Their practices contribute to erosion and soil quality degradation, water quality degradation, and water usage issues which are well documented. Herbicides and pesticides are poisoning our soil, water and air. So to say they are on the leading edge of agricultural practices seems like a low bar if it’s indeed true. I think to subsidize all of that sends the wrong message. If we want to subsidize things maybe we lean toward more soil and water quality guardrails and crop production that actually goes to consumption.

I agree. In fact, I don't eat American wheat because I don't want to risk consuming glyphosate. I think the practice of using herbicides for anything other than killing weeds should be banned. I can't believe we allow poison to be sprayed onto our food.

There is definitely a case for using subsidies to force improvements in the faming industry. I would like to see the government require anyone receiving subsidies to plant cover crops, for example. I would also like to limit the size of crop fields, and require a minimum amount of wilderness space between crop fields.

 

[Telemark]

That is a good way to look at it and I do agree with some of your points. But I can also counter some of those as well. I think I’ve seen where less than 15% of soy and well under 15% of all corn actually goes to food production. Now you could say indirectly more does because it goes into cattle feed, but it’s still the overwhelming minority that we actually turn into food. So that right there is a reason to stop subsidizing farming. The corn/bean rotation that has dominated the Landscape is largely antiquated when it comes to satisfying our food needs. I’m fine if farmers want to continue to run that cycle, but it should not come at the taxpayers expense. And on a sidenote, remember farmers probably voted for Trump by 90% at least so when China boycotts due to tariffs (which I 1000% agree we should tariff the piss out of China) and then cry because they can’t sell beans to China, it’s laughable.

The problem right now is that China signed an agreement to buy the soybeans, so Trump told the farmers to go plant soybeans. The Chinese then renegged on the deal and went to Brazil to slash and burn You can't just rug-pull the farmers without serious consequences. If I were Trump, I would tell the farmers to plant fewer acres of soybeans because the subsidies for the least efficient producers will be slowly cut off over the next 5 years. Then I would cut off the Middle Eastern oil supply to China until they buy the beans they promised.

As you mentioned, most of the soy is not consumed by people. I think the largest portion China buys is to feed their pigs. Over half of all meat consumed in China is pork. We definitely to not need to give farmers heavy subsidies just to export beans to China. But we can't just yank the subsidies immediately, or it will cause a shock to the system. There is also supply issues with fertilizer, which China is partially responsible for.

I'm not advocating for unlimited subsidies for anyone to grow anything they want. I'm advocating in general for government subsidies to go to farmers in order to keep food in the US plentiful and cheap. And in this particular growing season, I'm advocating for using Chinese tariff money to pay for it. And I wouldn't mind some money going to beef producers to bring down the cost of beef in the US.

I would also advocate for putting tariffs on certain Canadian products to get the Canadians to scale back the tariffs on American dairy. It's unfair, and it should be dealt with.

I also think farmers are some of the worst violators of environmental issues we have going on with our Landscape. Their practices contribute to erosion and soil quality degradation, water quality degradation, and water usage issues which are well documented. Herbicides and pesticides are poisoning our soil, water and air. So to say they are on the leading edge of agricultural practices seems like a low bar if it’s indeed true. I think to subsidize all of that sends the wrong message. If we want to subsidize things maybe we lean toward more soil and water quality guardrails and crop production that actually goes to consumption.

I agree. In fact, I don't eat American wheat because I don't want to risk consuming glyphosate. I think the practice of using herbicides for anything other than killing weeds should be banned. I can't believe we allow poison to be sprayed onto our food.

There is definitely a case for using subsidies to force improvements in the faming industry. I would like to see the government require anyone receiving subsidies to plant cover crops, for example. I would like to see subsidies going more toward regenerative practices and more diverse crops. I would like to see Americans move away from grain and processed foods and more toward whole vegetables and clean meats.

 

[Maddog66]

Yes, good discussion. How do you square with other countries putting steep tariffs on our farmers and using bull-squeeze lefty justifications for freezing them out entirely?

Canada has a 300% tariff on US dairy products. Our wheat and corn and beans and rice and meat get banned for non-scientific reasons or outright lies …..GMO comes to mind.

Does farming need to contract in the US to supply only the US and let the rest of the world figure it out themselves?

Farming ain’t charity.

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

Yes, good discussion. How do you square with other countries putting steep tariffs on our farmers and using bull-squeeze lefty justifications for freezing them out entirely?

Canada has a 300% tariff on US dairy products. Our wheat and corn and beans and rice and meat get banned for non-scientific reasons or outright lies …..GMO comes to mind.

Does farming need to contract in the US to supply only the US and let the rest of the world figure it out themselves?

Farming ain’t charity.

All valid points. I definitely don’t have all of the answers by any stretch. I like to describe my stance on things as “from where I sit today“. I try not to be close minded when there is another side that I haven’t heard.

 

[KY wild]

I agree with most of the premises above but would offer a different take. I do not think it is necessary to subsidize farmers because we are not even near running out of food in America, in fact most of what we are talking about is farmers making less income due to other country food needs. I also think it is false narrative that if we lose farmers we would be in bind, farming is not rocket science. If farmers start leaving farming and working other places then at some point the need for farmers will make it so lucrative that people will leave other jobs to go into farming. I know three different people who have left their jobs to become loggers in the last 5 years because their is big money to be made in the local logging market.

With that said, even though I do not like big government I think government needs to protect farm ground. If the market gets so low that farmers leave it then others can take their place when needed. The problem is if we let more and more farm land turn into cities or really any infrastructure which is unchangeable. In my opinion we better protect the resource called good soil and good farm land at any cost. The reason we are able to feed the world is because of our great productive land. Most of the world simply don't have the land to do it, if they did have the land they could feed themselves.

 

[Telemark]

We all speak from personal bias, so here’s mine, there are three basic needs that we can all agree upon, food, water, and shelter. We’ve covered the food part with the ag industry and their subsidies. So what about the shelter portion? Why is it that builders and developers don’t receive the same level of cushion that the ag industry does?

Short answer: they don't need it. The builders I talk to have a backlog of about 2 years, and they have to turn away a lot of business that they don't have capacity for.

There was a price spike of building materials after Covid, and there is still a shortage of labor. We're still dealing with the hangover from this period. Maybe Trump could offer free education/training for anyone who wants to learn construction at trade school.

The cause of the housing shortage will likely self correct as demographics shift. It would probably be a bad idea to drop housing costs too much too fast, as that would have the opposite effect and leave a lot of young people with negative equity, like we saw in 2008.

Housing is a different industry that has to be regulated in a different way than agriculture. The best thing I can come up with now is a tax benefit on building materials for certain kinds of houses(single family owner/occupant), plus subsidized education for anyone who wants to learn construction.

The other option is temporary work visas for foreign labor to fill the immediate gaps and accelerate building. That's where I would start if I were Trump.

As far as building regulations, I dont think there is a blanket solution, so it's not really something I care to comment on much. I'm a big believer that suburbs are a driver for sustaining demographics, and the main reason we're the only advanced economy who isn't in a demographic crisis. I can see how it would be worth it for the president to use economic incentives to drive the growth of suburbs around the country, especially where major industries are centered or expanding.

 

[Brian662]

Awful lot of people asking Uncle Sam to fix their problems, such a slippery slope.

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

Awful lot of people asking Uncle Sam to fix their problems, such a slippery slope.

To the contrary personally, I want the government gone from all industries, I’m just highlighting the hypocrisy as I see it

 

[Telemark]

I agree with most of the premises above but would offer a different take. I do not think it is necessary to subsidize farmers because we are not even near running out of food in America, in fact most of what we are talking about is farmers making less income due to other country food needs. I also think it is false narrative that if we lose farmers we would be in bind, farming is not rocket science. If farmers start leaving farming and working other places then at some point the need for farmers will make it so lucrative that people will leave other jobs to go into farming. I know three different people who have left their jobs to become loggers in the last 5 years because their is big money to be made in the local logging market.

With that said, even though I do not like big government I think government needs to protect farm ground. If the market gets so low that farmers leave it then others can take their place when needed. The problem is if we let more and more farm land turn into cities or really any infrastructure which is unchangeable. In my opinion we better protect the resource called good soil and good farm land at any cost. The reason we are able to feed the world is because of our great productive land. Most of the world simply don't have the land to do it, if they did have the land they could feed themselves.

We don't have a labor problem in agriculture. Whatever Americans dont want to do, we hire immigrants to do. We wouldn't have domestic berries without migrant laborers.

Technology mostly fills in the gaps. It won't be long before AI causes increased productivity while requiring less labor. Hopefully this helps keep prices low and stable.

 

[Telemark]

Awful lot of people asking Uncle Sam to fix their problems, such a slippery slope.

I only want Uncle Sam to fix society's problems, not individuals' problems. That's what the government is for.

 

[Brian662]

I only want Uncle Sam to fix society's problems, not individuals' problems. That's what the government is for.

You're constantly advocating for more government, when time and time again they have proven to be incapable and inefficient. No thank you

 

[Telemark]

To the contrary personally, I want the government gone from all industries, I’m just highlighting the hypocrisy as I see it

Economic libertarianism would eat you alive, along with 99% of Americans. Unregulated capitalism puts all the power into the hands of the people with capital. If you want markets to be fair, they have to be regulated. Elected officials, i.e. the government, are the ones who should be doing the regulating.

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

Economic libertarianism would eat you alive, along with 99% of Americans. Unregulated capitalism puts all the power into the hands of the people with capital. If you want markets to be fair, they have to be regulated. Elected officials, i.e. the government, are the ones who should be doing the regulating.

Im not pushing for anarchy. I personally just think in this one issue, the government subsidizing a particular inefficient industry is the wrong play

 

[KY wild]

We don't have a labor problem in agriculture. Whatever Americans dont want to do, we hire immigrants to do. We wouldn't have domestic berries without migrant laborers.

Technology mostly fills in the gaps. It won't be long before AI causes increased productivity while requiring less labor. Hopefully this helps keep prices low and stable.

I agree we don't have a labor problem in agriculture, that was part of my point along with farming will work itself out in a free market like everything else. My real point was the next paragraph we don't need to protect the farmer or the workers but we better protect the farmland because we may need it in the future even if we don't need it today.

 

[Telemark]

You're constantly advocating for more government, when time and time again they have proven to be incapable and inefficient. No thank you

No, I'm not. I want the government to collect and distribute tax money in the way that best serves society. That's it's job and raison d'etre. Advocating for the government to do its job is not even remotely the same as advocating for more government. The government has enough money and more than enough people to do everything I'm advocating for.

How much money was wasted on fraudulent Somali schools in Minnesota? Now how many young people could we have put through trade school with that money? The money got spent. It was just spent poorly.

I am staunchly opposed to expanding the government. However, I'm not foolish enough to believe that society would be able to function without it.