Related Posts
The Last Laugh…
Election Day was pretty sad for most of us. The news came through that Dubya had been elected for four more years and most of us just couldn’t believe it. We’d been duped.
However, in the heartland of America there was high-fives and cheers that they’d managed to get their guy in office for another term. These folks, mostly made up of church going, middle income people, felt that Bush stood up for the values that believed in and that he’d do right by them. Another group made up of the farming community trusted that he’d continue to spread the love, in the form of farming subsidies to them… as he’d done during his last term. Afterall, there was no mention of any cutbacks made to them when he was asking for their vote.
So… here we are, just weeks after his inauguration into office for his second term, the budget is out and guess who’s getting a swift kick in the pants? Those farmers that voted for him are… that’s who.
President Bush (news – web sites), in his budget plan released Monday, is proposing to cut farm subsidies by 5 percent this year, cap them at $250,000 per farm and reduce overall spending by about one-third over across the next decade.
In many farm states that helped re-elect Bush in November after never hearing any campaign talk about cutting their payments, there is a sense of betrayal.
“I’m not happy. I voted for George Bush (news – web sites),” said cotton grower John Rife of Ferriday, La.
Just think. If they’d only known a few months ago that this was going to happen, we might have a different president right now. But, this kind of thing is right in line with the Bush doctorine. Get what you need and then step on the people that got it for you, so you can get the next thing you need.
Personally, I don’t really think farmers should get the amount of money that they currently get. It’s a business and if you can’t figure out a way to make money doing it, then you need to find something else to do.
Not only do we as taxpayers have to subsidize their business, but then we get hit again when we have to go to the grocery store and buy their products. So fine, cut the amount of money that goes to them.
All that whooping and hollering on Election Day that “you’d won” really didn’t matter after all… since in the end you really lost.
Print This Post
Link to this Entry
9 Responses to 'The Last Laugh…'
[…] Screws the Criminal Justice System :: 2/16/2005
Greg recently brought up the fact that farmers who voted for Bush are now getting kicked in the ass, because Bush is plann […]
Are those grapes quite sour enough yet?
Somehow, I knew I’d be getting a visit from you Bill. Can’t say much about the grapes, but I’d be willing to bet that the humble pie those farmers are eating right now isn’t tasting so good.
The next four years can’t go by fast enough. Funny how, aside from you, I can’t find anyone that voted for him. Well, you and all those mysterious votes that somehow appeared in the ballot boxes that don’t really belong to anyone. Funny how a precinct with only a couple hundred people living in it can end up with a couple thousand extra Bush votes in it.
Not only do we as taxpayers have to subsidize their business, but then we get hit again when we have to go to the grocery store and buy their products.
Being from the Midwest and all, I feel the need to comment. 🙂
Agriculture is the backbone of any society. Think about it, if farmers weren’t out there growing the food, we’d have to do it all ourselves. Somehow I don’t see Greggiebug out in the woods with a bow and arrow running after a buffalo herd, trying to snag one for dinner.
The fact that farmers are out there growing food for our entire society means that other people can have time to sit around and invent things, so technology becomes much more advanced. If Thomas Edison had to spend all his time out hunting his own food just to survive, he probably wouldn’t have had time to invent the lightbulb, and we’d all be sitting in the dark right now (and not in front of a computer).
My point is that you really shouldn’t take farmers (and what they do) for granted.
Not to mention, think about how much you’d be paying at the supermarket if we had to import chicken, beef, eggs, milk, etc. from other areas of the world. Good lord, once they tack on all the importation taxes, we’d be paying $10 for a gallon of milk.
Being from California, where a good portion of the country’s fruits and vegetables are grown, I don’t take them for granted.
However, I stand by my statement that government funds shouldn’t be used to keep farms afloat. I’m also not saying that farmers are using the money inproperly, like they’re rolling in it, because I know they aren’t.
I just think that you need to be able to run your business without relying on the government to make up the difference. Instead of having ten farms all growing corn and not making money, maybe we only need five farms that DO make money.
Somehow I don‚Äö?Ñ?¥t see Greggiebug out in the woods with a bow and arrow running after a buffalo herd, trying to snag one for dinner.
Ugh. Where the hell am I going to find a bow and arrrow, the woods or a buffalo?
Like I said… I’m happy to live in an agricultural state where I can get fresh fruits and vegetables. I just don’t think the taxpayers need to be pouring in the billions of dollars to keep these farms afloat… only to be hit again at the grocery store.
1. FYI, the “receive replies via e-mail” box is checked and I’m not receiving anything.
2. I just think that you need to be able to run your business without relying on the government to make up the difference.
So, I guess you’re totally against the Small Business Administration, then.
3. Ugh. Where the hell am I going to find a bow and arrrow, the woods or a buffalo?
My point was that without farmers, we’d still be in that situation. You wouldn’t be living in a huge metropolis with a cell phone in one hand and a double latte in the other.
4. What the hell was the point of this entry in the first place. You hate Bush. Your entry is basically about how you don’t think farmers should get as much money as they do. Well, he’s cutting their money, so why are you complaining about Bush now… he’s doing what you want, for a change.
Here’s the point. These farmers voted for Bush thinking he’d do “more of the same” and instead, after he gets their votes he yanks the rug out from under them and tells them he’s cutting their subsidies.
As for the Small Business Administration, THEY are LOANING people money to get their business off the ground. That’s different from providing them money every single year to keep their business afloat (ie: subsidy). I have no problem with the government loaning out money, as long as there’s the stipulation that it eventually gets paid back.
I’ll say it again, I appreciate the efforts of the farming community, but I STILL say that if you choose to do that for a living, you need to find a way to make money at it rather than depend on government hand-outs. Sort of like people on welfare that keep popping out kids to stay on the government roll. Eventually EVERYONE needs to find a way to do it on their own.
And as I’ve said before… although most of my feelings tend to side with Democrats, there are also quite a few things Republicans stand for that I’m for. I’ve said it before, I don’t pigeonhole myself for one party or another. I vote for the person that best stands for what I believe in. For the most part, Bush doesn’t stand for anything I believe in. Doesn’t mean there aren’t a few things in there that I do agree with.
“we as taxpayers have to subsidize their business”
One of the current programs, which I think you’re refrencing here, involves paying farmers for crop yields that they are not able to sell. A bunch of farmers in my home town of Tappahannock took advantage of this program a few years ago when they planted cotton, which was known to grow poorly in that part of Virginia. Of course they knew that the federal government would compensate them for their losses, which were severe because (a) crop yields were low and (b) the farmers couldn’t compete with imported cotton sales. The controversy involved the suspicion that the farmers were scuttling their crops just to get the federal grants, which was more money than they could have gotten for the cotton even if it had grown well. So the way I see it, it’s a good thing Bush is yanking rugas and cutting those subsidies, because Kerry would still be paying those farmers for silos of rotten grain and passing the price hikes along to the consumers.
Exactly Cam. It’s human nature to try and get something for nothing… to try and work the system for a few extra bucks. I’m sure there are a lot of farmers out there that don’t abuse the system, but then there are those like in Tappahannock, where they know they’ll get paid by someone whether they produce or don’t produce a product.
Even though I don’t agree with everything Bush does or has done, I agree that it’s better to cut the subsidies than to have people taking advantage of the system. I think there’s quite a few more areas where the government could cut down on subsidies to various groups.