Need some clarification
 

I know I'm showing my political ignorance here, but I must inquire:

If Obamacare passes, the republicans are threatening to shut down government. Is that right?

No, Obamacare passed a long time ago. Since then, the Republicans have been doing everything they can to try to repeal it, including calling for a vote on the repeal 40+ times even though they lose every time.

Recently they tried some tricky maneuvering where they tried to simply take away the funding for the major parts of Obamacare--as in, 'it may still be law, but there's no money for it so good luck trying to implement it.' How they arranged this was complicated, but they basically tried to force the government to choose between taking away all the money for Obamacare, or shutting down the government.

Last I'd heard, their attempt failed and the funding was as safe as it's ever been. The argument is currently in the forefront because while certain parts of the bill have been phasing in over the last two years, the biggest and most dramatic parts go into effect in a few days, October 1st.

You should look into what it might mean for you, John, there are a lot of changes (good ones) for people with permanent disabilities in there.

Obamacare has already passed. Republicans are threatening to shut down the government if Obamacare isn't defunded or delayed. Plus a grab bag of other demands like:

We don't need tax reform - oil, jobs, military equipment overhauled/replaced after all the years in Iraq and Afghanistan, medical malpractice reform.

BAH! Who needs it?

Right?

Right?

Right?

The republicans are going to take their ball and go home, so there! Hopefully they'll get a nice bowl of soup and a beddy-bye story. I suggest something by Dr Suez.

The funny thing about "tax reform" along the lines of "lower the rates and remove exemptions" it that it represents a massive transfer of money from manufacturing, farming, small business, and the middle class in general to the banks.

Because most of the exemptions are in place to promote manufacturing, farming, small business, and the middle class, and the banks have very few.

The funny thing about farm exemptions, and nearly all exemptions in general, is that they provide a winning farmer, and a losing farmer. You grow the "crop of the year", and you get $$$ from the feds. You grow any other crop and you get nothing.

Does that sound fair to you? Do you actually believe that all farmers have the soil, and the weather, to grow the "crop of the year"?

You've never lived on a farm for sure!

But the one I like best is the exemptions for growing --

wait for it --

wait a little longer --

NOTHING!

That's right!

You grow a BIG FAT NOTHING, and you can get paid by our stupid federal gov't! :eek: :eek:

We've all seen how these exemptions and write offs can be used. GE makes millions of dollars in profits every year, but pays NOTHING in income tax, because of them.

Does that seem FAIR to ANYONE?

Of course not.

Spend a minute or two reading about the dust bowl, and you might begin to understand that one. It seems counter intuitive to pay a farmer not to plow their fields, but there's a reason for it. Sometimes a central government actually does know best about some things.


Attachment 45543

Growing crops doesn't cause a dust bowl. I worked on my Uncle's farm in the midwest, so unless you're a farmer, keep your arguments about farming to a minimum, OK?

Too much laughing at one time, is not good.

You obviously didn't learn anything about farming except shoveling shit.

A major function of government is to counter the Tragedy of the Commons, where an individual's incentive is to do one thing, but if everyone does it then it's bad for everyone. The crop management program under which sometimes a farmer can be paid not to grow particular crops, or not to grow crops on particular land, is a way to do that.

It's like eminent domain; we're compensating them for not doing something with their property that may otherwise have given them more profit. If we pay someone not to do something that they wouldn't have done anyway, that's unfortunate, and room for better calibration, but there are farmers who are forgoing potential short-term personal profit in order to promote the extended profitability of the agriculture sector, not to mention the environmental benefits. The compensation is a market-based approach, which I suspect is more palatable to most people than simply banning the use of certain land or the planting of certain crops, and letting the farmers who had relied on them fail.

Adak is apparently old enough to remember, but does not,
the farm auctions of the midwest in the late 50's and 60's.

But... come the summer in 2014, the drought last year and the blizzard
that struck on Oct 1 this year may revive some of his memories.

We will likely see another sell off of farms that have suffered a double whammy,
unless the government steps in to cover some of the losses being reported.

Or they will quietly be gobbled up by major players.

... who are also the greatest beneficiaries of farm subsidies.