brad is fundamentally incapable of interpreting worldviews that do not coincide with his own

Brad im pretty sure people who join air force and navy rarely ever see much other than cushy benefits. Unless its the USS Cole were not exactly getting attacled by U boats regularly

Theres probably still some japanese subs out there laying low that think the wars still on. Ya never know

There seems to be some confusion as to why farmers get subsidies so I'll do my best to clear that up. The reason farmers first started getting subsidies and still do today is to prevent food shortages and a resulting famine. Subsidies keep the level of food production in check so that farmers don't overproduce and send prices into the ground, causing widespread bankruptcy among farmers. If that were to happen, production would tank and food shortage would arise until the farmers who were pushed out of the market could come back as prices rose. The subsidies keep production, and therefore prices, relatively stable.

And as far as the OP goes, it wouldn't work for a multitude of reasons, many already touched upon. Taxes are the only reliable and significant source of government revenue. The government can't make a significant amount of money off of student loans (because there are only so many students and they only collect interest) or printing money (because of inflation). If you could find another way for the government to make money besides taxes, you'd win a nobel prize in economics.

They also maintain an army of powerful lobbyists. They keep giving Congress the Green, so they keep getting it.

Manwe yes in some cases its true we subsidize farmers not to produce. However we also subsidize their kids getting to drive camaros and helicopters.

True, but I think they are right in asking for it. This is one of the very few areas of the private market I think the government has a reason to be involved in. I'm not about that Great Depression famine life.

In hyannis nebraska for example the ranchers get subsidies and make so much money they literally have helicopters and take their kids to school in a chopper because its faster. Thry installed a helicopter pad at the school to accomodate.

My god I wish I was joking

Those go hand in hand, brainbomb. You can't expect them to sit on the money they are given to not produce and do nothing with it. Farming is a lucrative business for the big players, just a necessary evil so we don't all starve by driving everyone out of business with no production controls.

You could just nationalize the agricultural business I suppose and that would have the same effect, but I don't think the majoirty of the country would be for it.

Alot of great depression/dust bowl famines was poor irrigation and drought. Farm subsidies for farms that get hit by floods or severe dry spells sure okay but thats not any different than common sense disaster relief.

What you are suggesting is no different than cutting a check to each citizen of the city of miami because a hurricane may hit someday

I don't think your giving modern farmers their due, Manwe. This ain't the 1930s.

If you bought land in a shitty spot that floods and want taxpayers to keep saving yer farm uhhh sorry maybe you shouldnt try to grow corn in the sonoran desert.

I don't see how that example is comparable at all, brainbomb. And this isn't the 1930s because we learned our lesson then and instituted subsidies so the same thing happened. Low prices from overproduction in the late 20's pushing farmers out of the market contributed just as much to the shortages in the 30's as poor weather did.

That's not the primary goal of the subsidies, it's to keep prices stable, not forgive others for their mistakes.

Part of being a lucrative and efficient farm is being qbke to stay afloat in any market with little need for taxpayer help. There are-farms that are doing this. Ironically they grow marijuana amidst massive oversight and regularions. With zero undocumented workers (because the feds would destroy them)

Same thing didn't happen*

"the ranchers get subsidies"

Ranchers receive no subsidies from the US Department of Agriculture. Unless I am gravely mistaken, the vast majority of subsidies go to corn, wheat, rice, soybeans and cotton.

brainbomb, its like you don't understand commodity markets at all.

Referring to your comparison of a staple food with a modern day cash crop.

no my beautiful thread. how hijacked you have become. :'(

Rest in peace my foolish young ideologue dreams of utopia. all hope and beauty i once saw in the world is now gone.



anyone got weed?

What did you think I meant when I said "Green?"

Coming at this from another nation. Where some but not all agricultural production is controlled by quotas. I can say that direct cash subsidies are not necessary to keep production levels stable. With that said both systems, subsidies and quotas are abhorrent. Subsidies because they tend to skew towards large commercial production of cash crop and massive consolidation of farms.. Which gives up food deserts in productive areas of the country. And quotas because they create an old boys club. Where certain individuals has disproportionate control over our agricultural production. Admittedly subsidies do the later as well as it frees up capital for lobbying. Anyway. We're way off topic. An impossible but interesting way to fund the government would be to do away with the idea of owning land. Have all land owned the government and everyone pays rent. I realize this is basically property taxes with different optics, but most revenue streams are simply going to be taxes but a little bit different.

Also socialism is about people controlling the means of production. So your example, while a social welfare program is not socialism. :P

my sister is studying food waste... i'm no fan of US agriculture

@JamesYanik: your thread got hijacked because the answer to your question is an obvious and total "no, you can't fund social programs without taxes." There's really nothing to talk about there.