> Why? Because the agriculture bill didn't spend enough
> money. In particular, it turns out that food is
> becoming *too cheap* in this country, so our Federal
> Government is needed to step in and make food more
> expensive.
Who says food becoming too cheap is the reason for the vote? Certainly not
the Washington Post.
It says nothing about food being too cheap. Democrats are arguing for
greater agricultural subsidies, which are aimed at supporting farmers
*without* the market having to bear the cost. John's suggestion is
illogical, since he would have us believe that higher farm subsidies would
make food more expensive. The whole philosophy behind farm subsidies is
that it keeps the farmers producing crops that would otherwise become
scarce, leading to long-term prices rises.
As the article clearly states, this debate reflects philosophical
differences between the parties, not a Democratic attempt to make food more
expensive -- a characterization that is disgustingly partisan. Democrats
argue that the market doesn't do a sufficient job of ensuring a reliable
food supply, while Republicans take the position that it does. But John
chooses to make it about a political power game -- who is winning in
Congress -- not about the fundamental issue at hand, which is making sure
that we have a reliable food supply and disagreeing about how to go about.
Nick
------------
That's EXACTLY what the subsidies do, they raise the price of foods by letting
INEFFICENT farms stay in business. It ends up artificially propping up the price. It
is sad to se that the Rebubs had a chance to eliminate subsidies (or rather they did,
but now pass 'emergency' funds every year for the same ammount).
Now before I get John Couger Watermelloncamp calling me crying because he had to sell
his family farm let me just point out that, just like the candle makers, they have a
CHOICE in their job. I don't hear of any coal miner or steel worker AID concerts, we
just get two bad songs by Bily Joel and Bruce Springstein.
Kevin Tarr
Trump high, lead low
