| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75
Comments:
<0> occ: No, you're sending your tax revenues to Iowa.
<1> yeah, but iowa always ****s everyone
<1> primaries, etc
<0> occ: It's your fault for being ****ers.
<1> how so?
<1> i dont doubt it is, but i wanna know ;)
<2> lol
<0> occ: Buying into all this "green" bull****, that is resulting in huge new farm subsidies, or the continuation of existing ones in spite of free trade agreements, being justified.
<3> since when do farm subsidies have anything to do with "green
<3> we've had farm subsidies for years
<1> hey, i dont buy into "green bull****"
<0> Lithium: What do you think that government-subsidized ethanol plants represent?
<3> Pickle: tiny fraction?
<1> you're one to talk, pickle -- isnt like, 75% of canada federally protected? ;)
<0> Lithium: To farmers it means a lot more demand for wheat and corn, effectively a subsidy.
<3> Pickle wishes he were a US citizen :p
<0> Lithium: What it means is you're subsidizing the lifestyle of an Iowa Republican. And they thank you.
<3> Pickle: its our duty to prevent sheep ****ers from starving
<1> its true, and yes, plenty of subsidies are stupid
<1> the problem is, predictably, that its a voting bloc that people dont want to "alienate"
<2> Lithium: only if they cannot help themselves
<1> tons of silly handouts are given because ignorant voters think they're owed it
<3> Publius: the farmers would have a hard time though if the artifically high prices went drastically down
<0> Lithium: Keep buying into the greenie bull****, chump. You're doing a lot more than keeping us from starving.
<3> Sure market forces would go into effect
<3> but then that would leave thousands ****ed over
<4> I just killed someone, does that make me a bad person?
<1> realistically, the family farmers would have a hard time because *family farming is no longer economically viable*
<3> Pickle: again, what does 'green' have to do with it
<1> why prop it up?
<3> the "green" subsidies are a tiny fraction of the farm subsidies
<2> Nohman: yes
<1> we have large, efficient entities that grow food now
<3> Nohman: was it in a video game?
<5> nohman well if you killed lithium and left him on the side of the road it would not be murder just a fine for littering
<1> anyone who wants to be a farmer needs to go into boutique farming, or accept that they can't compete and move on
<0> Lithium: Again, it has to do with the fact that "green" initiatives typically involve indirect subsidies of various agricultural industries, notably corn and wheat.
<1> lets talk about those french student riots
<3> Pickle: again, those were subsidised without any green reasons
<1> im still pissed about that
<4> I ran a black dude over, he was wearing micheal jacksons thriller outfit
<0> Lithium: Grain was not. And corn gains even more subsidies.
<3> Pickle: ok and how much total money is that?
<3> Pickle: compared to the rest of the farm subsidies?
<1> what you really mean is, "i own a copy of michael jackson's, "thriller"'
<0> Lithium: The population of Saskatchewan is one million, and contains 40% of the nation's arable land. You do the math of how much money each person will make with a modest (billion dollar range) subsidy.
<5> nohman how many points did ya get
<1> isn't some of that "tundra", though?
<6> hrmm
<3> Pickle: i was talking about the US, not canada
<0> Lithium: Basically, green initiatives have secured the farm subsidies the American corn industry receives, into perpetuity--when otherwise their existence could not be justified in light of existing free trade accords.
<0> Lithium: That's the US.
<3> Saskatchewan?
<1> but come on, your implication is that because corn subsidies are bogus, any "green" initiatives are
<1> AND THAT DOES NOT FOLLOW, SIR!
<3> Pickle: taking away corn subsidies would be a very bad move politically, so you cant claim that they would just go away without the green initiatives
<0> occ2: Believe what you want about the vital nature of ethanol initiatives. Just keep transfering those subisides out west.
<1> touche
<1> im pretty sure i just said they weren't at all vital
<3> http://www.ewg.org/farm/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=wheat
<3> er
<3> http://www.ewg.org/farm/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=corn
<3> seems that we've been subsidizing corn in larger amounts than todat before any green initiatives
<0> Lithium: E85 is just kicking into high gear.
<0> Lithium: As is mandated ethanol content in "regular" gas.
<3> ok and?
<3> seems like the government created more demand for corn products
<0> Lithium: Yes, that's the idea. Via ethanol industry subsidies.
<3> can you show me how that affected subsidies?
<3> in money terms
<0> Lithium: Here's how: America can now justify perpetuating subsidies that otherwise might have led to significant WTO and NAFTA challenge under environmental grounds.
<3> Pickle: oh so the subsidies didnt really go up? you're claming the 'green initiatives' affected subsidies by allowing them continue?
<3> Pickle: did you hear any politicians planning to cut farm subsidies?
<0> Lithium: In the case of corn subsidies, yes. In Canada, where wheat is not subsidized, it creates new effective subsidies.
<3> would sound like a political suicide to me
<3> Pickle: i dont care about canada, i asked you about the US
<2> ha!
<2> = Nathanus
<2> ;p
<2> wait
<0> Lithium:
<7> ty
<7> :)
<1> man, i can tell you about the US
<7> wow, this is huge.
<0> Lithium: Political suicide or not, it would either have needed to be done or America would lose significant credibility in the WTO.
<2> ****
<7> no thanks.
<7> :)
<7> but hey, nice of you to ask.
<7> heh
<2> snorky: heh
<2> stop
<2> please
<1> in the US, interstate highways that are even-numbered run east and west -- those that are odd? north and south.
<2> don't troll
<1> dont expect to get that from YOUR CONGRESSMAN
<7> ? that isn't a troll.
<2> oh?
<2> tahts ok
<2> lol
<7> :)
<3> north south are odd
<3> east west are even
<1> thats what i said
<3> Pickle: so you're just ***uming thats what would happen, which you cant really prove, and blaming the green initiaves for something they have so far had no effect on
<1> furthermore, do you know why weigh-stations are always closed?
<3> i've seen them open sometimes
<3> im not sure if recently
<3> but ok, why?
<1> its because its not cost-effective to keep them all open, and it would impede traffic
<1> the point is that if you're a trucker, you never know *which* ones are open
<3> what IS the point og them?
<0> Lithium: They have had that effect. The ethanol plants are being subsidized.
<3> i was never told
<1> to make sure trucks aren't carrying too much weight
<1> overloaded trucks result in the vast majority of damage to highways
<3> Pickle: and i asked you time and time again how much those subsidies are
<3> oh i see
<3> makes sense
<1> yep
<0> Lithium: The demand for corn is being raised, regardless of what the direct subsidy numbers say. This is an indirect subsidy, via the subsidization of ethanol plants.
<3> whats a permissable pound/axle ratio?
<3> Pickle: again, how much?
<1> i think it depends on the state
<8> we already hav a surplus of corn
<8> and you dont have to grow more corn, you can use what would otherwise be waste
<0> Lithium: You obviously don't understand the difference between direct and indirect subsidies, though. Here's a hint: subsidizing and bankrolling the construction of ethanol plants means you're raising the price of ethanol crops such as corn.
<3> Pickle: can you provide a number on what its costing us or no?
<3> bmc: so the ethanol plants have no net effect on corn production?
<2> brb
<8> thats for cellulosic ethanol
<8> "biom***"
<8> only plant in NA that has that is in canada
<0> Lithium: Whatever you fools are pledging to throw into ethanol initiatives these days, for starters. It varies but Bush seems to have indicated is only going to rise.
<8> but we already produce a surplus of corn, it wouldnt be growing more corn, it would just be using it for something rather than selling it
<1> like what?
<3> Pickle: i think bmc just proved you wrong. but thanks for dishing out the insults, way to keep it civil
<1> making corncob pipes?
<8> making ethanol
<8> :P
<1> what do we need ethanol for?
<1> besides subsidizing farmers?
<0> Lithium: bmc only proved that the subsidies are leading to supply surplusses. Duh.
<8> alternative fuels
<1> its more expensive to produce ethanol than it is gasoline
<1> at the moment
<0> Lithium: That's what heavy state subsidization does. That proves my point.
<8> and?
Return to
#politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
#beginner
#cph
#stocks
#politics
BRAZILEYA
xxxisrealpass
#politics
#python
#politics
#red
|
|