DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Bleacher Bums Forum
HTML https://bbf.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Archives
*****************************************************
#Post#: 10148--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
DIR By: CurtOne
Date: May 24, 2011, 9:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
RECALCULATING
#Post#: 10159--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
DIR By: RedBirdFan
Date: May 24, 2011, 10:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
TURN RIGHT, NOW!
Haha...I love that commerical.
#Post#: 10170--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
DIR By: Jes Beard
Date: May 24, 2011, 11:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: davep link ---
>
> I suspect that throughout Iowa, there are more corn farmers
than there are pig farmers. And that more money comes into the
state because of corn farming than because of pig farming. But
you are right, it is my firm hope that those outside of the corn
industry get so sick of increased food prices that they vote for
candidates that will try to do away with them. But that doesn't
change the original discussion, that Iowa isn't a wise place to
announce that you want to end subsidies on ethanol.
>
--- End Quote ---
Some people are actually willing to vote for the national
interest over their own narrow self interest, particularly when
their narrow self interest is benefited at the clear expense of
others. Because of the tendency of politicians to pander, it is
often hard to tell whether a principled position in Iowa would
be as harmful as you suggest. I hope we will see next year, and
that you are surprised in the process. Johnson, Paul and Cain
are almost all certain to be openly and clearly and
unequivocally opposed to ethanol subsidies.
#Post#: 10180--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
DIR By: davep
Date: May 24, 2011, 12:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Some people are indeed willing to vote for the national
interests over their own narrow interests. Unfortunately, not
enough to actually win an election over those that DO vote in
their own narrow interest.
And I am not prediction that Pawlenty will lose Iowa. Merely
that he increased his odds of losing by making that
announcement. I, personally, am against every action the
government takes with the intention of raising agricultural
prices, probably since I used to make a living dealing in those
markets, and saw first hand what effect they had on nonfarming
citizens. Sugar price supports cost consumers almost 3 billion
dollars per year in higher prices. The conservation Reserve
Program costs us more than 100 billion per year in higher
prices. And these are only two of the hundreds of programs,
large and small, that raise our prices in the supermarket.
As far as "small farms" are concerned, I suppose it depends upon
what you consider small. I don't know of any national figures,
but I do no first hand that in Emmons County, North Dakota, the
number of farmers has declined by more than 60% in the past 30
years, even though the number of farmland being cultivated has
increased by about 25%. In other words, the average size of
farms is increasing greatly there. My wife has three
grand-nephews there that own farms, and every one of them works
in Bismark and leases his land to larger landowners.
#Post#: 10186--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
DIR By: Jes Beard
Date: May 24, 2011, 12:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
But, Dave, who among the Republicans do you think will provide a
remotely viable pro-ethanol option for the Iowa caucus?
Didn't Romney oppose it in 2008? (I am not sure on that, but
believe he did.) Paul and Johnson are certain to oppose ethanol
subsidies, and I would be very surprised in Cain supported them.
Gingrich? Bachmann? Palin? I don't see any of them likely to
support ethanol (and two of them I hope do not get into the
race), though positioning for crass political advantage would
hardly be a first for a presidential race.
As to the tendency toward larger farming operations, that does
not eliminate small farms any more than mass produced
kitchenware has eliminated hand-potters. Without question there
are a lot fewer of them, and society is the better for it, but
those wanting to do it are able to try, and some do in fact make
a living at it.
#Post#: 10194--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
DIR By: JR
Date: May 24, 2011, 12:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: davep link ---
>
> And I am not prediction that Pawlenty will lose Iowa. Merely
that he increased his odds of losing by making that
announcement.
--- End Quote ---
Pawlenty actually received support from the Iowa Renewable Fuels
Association for his ethanol stance.
HTML http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55531.html
HTML http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55531.html
#Post#: 10205--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
DIR By: davep
Date: May 24, 2011, 1:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Jes - you are once again resorting to the extreme. I never said
that there were ZERO small farmers. Near extinct is not
identical to totally extinct. And I said was that WITHOUT
SUBSIDIES, small farmers would be extinct. We HAVE subsidies,
and they are not extinct.
But we were talking about political sway. The fact that,
lacking subsidies, there would still be a relative handful of
small farmers, would still make their views politically extinct.
And I never said that a politician has to be pro-ethanol subsidy
in order to win in Iowa. Merely that announcing that you are
anti-ethanol subsidy will lose more votes than it wins in Iowa.
#Post#: 10219--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
DIR By: Jes Beard
Date: May 24, 2011, 3:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: davep link ---
>
> Jes - you are once again resorting to the extreme. I never
said that there were ZERO small farmers.
>
--- End Quote ---
Dave, here is what you wrote: <i>But my point was that without
the subsidies, the small farmers would no longer exist. </i>
True enough that you did not say there would be "ZERO small
farmers." You just said "small farmers would no longer exist."
Excuse me if I took those to mean the same thing.
--- Quote from: davep link ---
>
> And I never said that a politician has to be pro-ethanol
subsidy in order to win in Iowa. Merely that announcing that
you are anti-ethanol subsidy will lose more votes than it wins
in Iowa.
>
--- End Quote ---
What you wrote was <i>Some people are indeed willing to vote for
the national interests over their own narrow interests.
Unfortunately, not enough to actually win an election over those
that DO vote in their own narrow interest.</i>
Again, excuse me if I see those posts as in conflict. You
apparently are able to reconcile them. I bow to your clearly
superior command of the language, because I can't.
#Post#: 10229--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
DIR By: davep
Date: May 24, 2011, 4:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Jes - I suppose you could maintain that as long as you plant
your upside down tomatoes, that small farmers would not be
extinct.
Of course, you would simultaneously right and ridiculous.
#Post#: 10270--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
DIR By: Jes Beard
Date: May 24, 2011, 6:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
As I said, Dave, I simply lack your skills with the language.
That is the only thing I can think of, because I can not look at
what you wrote, in either case, and reconcile them.
*****************************************************
Page 22 of 328
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page