Democrats propose "transaction tax" on financial transactions. (Poll)

[Concerned American]

All these taxes start to add up

Not on ordinary Americans.

On the wealthy some yea...nut they ain't exactly hurting. You prefer debt?

What are you blabbering about now? I said reduce spending but that makes you loons wet yourselves

Now cease annoying me with your nonsense

Yea...Republicans are always talking about reducing spending...and then they do the exact opposite.

And we certainly can't afford to do that now.

STFU bitch

Don't blame me you stuck your beak into something when you were wrong, Lush
Now run along and annoy someone else

I'm blaming you for talking out your ass as usual ( the myth/lie/fantasy that you favor spending cuts)

Care to talk about the massive debt your Orange hero incurred? I doubt it loudmouth

Biden's going to shatter what Trump added.

Your first mistake is you're once again fcking clueless and I really don't have time to listen to your BS, Lush.

Run along now

Especially since Trump didn't add it--It was forced on him by a democrat controlled house.

....

Except that he wanted to spend MORE.

Trump was a fiscal disaster.

You are full of democrat promises.

 

[pknopp]

All these taxes start to add up

Not on ordinary Americans.

On the wealthy some yea...nut they ain't exactly hurting. You prefer debt?

What are you blabbering about now? I said reduce spending but that makes you loons wet yourselves

Now cease annoying me with your nonsense

Yea...Republicans are always talking about reducing spending...and then they do the exact opposite.

And we certainly can't afford to do that now.

STFU bitch

Don't blame me you stuck your beak into something when you were wrong, Lush
Now run along and annoy someone else

I'm blaming you for talking out your ass as usual ( the myth/lie/fantasy that you favor spending cuts)

Care to talk about the massive debt your Orange hero incurred? I doubt it loudmouth

Biden's going to shatter what Trump added.

Your first mistake is you're once again fcking clueless and I really don't have time to listen to your BS, Lush.

Run along now

Anything you fail to condemn with your guy will only get worse with the next.

 

[Mac-7]

22% of the budget isn't exactly small

Some of it could and should be cut but certainly not all of it

There is no need for the government to pay farmers to grow any particular crop. There is no need for government price fixing of agricultural goods either

Farmers face a lot of problems

Flooding, drought, pestilence, disease.

A small farmer particularly is in a vulnerable position

When conditions are favorable he makes a good crop.

But so does everyone else and prices fall

in lean years prices go back up but he has little or nothing to sell

 

[FA_Q2]

I support the proposed transaction tax. It will hit the high-speed traders more than me or other "buy and hold" investors.

How much money do these high-speed traders currently make every year?

They make too much. They do about half of the stock trades, and do nothing but steal our 401k investments.

Too much.

Your precise grasp of this issue is very convincing.

They do about half of the stock trades

And what do they do when they trade? Can you explain it?

and do nothing but steal our 401k investments.

I'm not buying and selling the stocks in my 401k every day, how do they steal from me?

From the OP:
"This (transaction tax) makes financial markets fairer and possibly less volatile. As described by Michael Lewis in Flash Boys, high frequency traders (HFTs) can earn profits by front-running other trades by micro-seconds, an activity that raises costs for legitimate traders and provides no value to society. HFTs account for roughly half all stock trades and much of their business model would be threatened by the proposed transactions tax.

If you're still not convinced, read the OP links. The transaction tax is a very good thing.

As described by Michael Lewis in Flash Boys, high frequency traders (HFTs) can earn profits by front-running other trades by micro-seconds, an activity that raises costs for legitimate traders and provides no value to society.

That drama queen? He's funny!

Ok, TSLA is trading at $711.15-Bid $711.19-Offer.
I try to buy 100 shares at $711.19.....how does an HFT swoop in and steal my money? Any idea?

When big investors buy any stocks that you have, the high-frequency traders steal some of the investment.
They provide no value to society. You're the drama queen whining about something you apparently know very little about.

They don't steal any of your investment.

Yes. They do. Theft of capital in thousandths of a second is how they make money.

Since when is buying and selling quickly theft?

If you aren't selling a product or service, what else would you call it?

You are selling a product. A physical thing. It is a piece of a company which has actual tangible holdings and intellectual property.

Would you advocate for a tax every time you made a deposit to a savings account? Same thing.

...

Where did I advocate for the tax?

 

[kyzr]

Little more than a gimmick. It will not stop institutionalized investors will find other financial products to invest in, move those transactions elsewhere or find a way around the tax. HFT is essentially irrelevant to those that are not part of the trading as long term health of an asset is not phased by short term fluctuations.

The government will not get a tiny fraction of what it says it will out of the tax, more regulation is not going to help the average guy's 401k in any way and the spending that the tax is supposed to go to will not only exceed the projected gains but will not change when the government reveals that they are making far less than projected.

I see your words, but need proof of what you say is true.
ALL money made by HFTs is stolen from investors.

First, its not 'stolen' as that necessitates taking from someone without their consent, consent you give when you agree to buy and sell stock. Claiming it stealing is like whining the card players at the poker table stole from you because they are better at the game.

Second, that money comes from other high frequency or institutional investors. Not a single one of my investments has been effected by HFT because I do not invest short term. That a stock may half, double and then half again in price over the course of a month is irrelevant to the vast majority of investors, all that matters is the price point you get in and out. If you are not involved in short term trades then HFT does nothing to your investments. Short term volatility is simply not relevant.

If you are a short term investor then you are getting exactly what you want. All a tax on HFT does is attempt to remove a specific market for trades.

Finally, you have provided no proof that HFT traders steal anything. Your complaints about insider trading are not even remotely relevant to HFT, you can trade on inside information or manipulate the market without participating in a lot of transactions. We do know the government will not get what it thinks it will because they never raise the amounts they promise. Same thing goes with what happens to the money raised. You can guarantee that adding this tax will only increase the debt because the tax is not even represented as a function of raising funds, it is represented as a function of WHAT THEY CAN BUY WITH THE TAX.

IOW, the money would already be spent and even if it is done through reconciliation (which requires it to be deficit neutral iirc) it would still fail as there is zero chance they would actually ties the amount spent with the amount raised.

There are 2 reasons I can see to support something like this:
HFTs are an infringement on the people's freedom - Give me a good reason that the government should be infringing on my freedom to trade as I see fit because that is what you need. Not that more advanced individuals and/or institutions are taking the majority of the gains, that happens in every single field or economic activity in existence. 100 percent of them. There is not a single example of that not being the case. Tell me exactly how those HFTs are infringing on my freedom. Then there is a case to limit them.
or
Taxing HFTs is a necessary and proper source of funding for the federal government. That I think is rather indefensible but then again I think the government should be funded in an even manner without all the special interests, outright thuggish control or specifically targeting small groups of people.

Not liking HFTs because they can be used in a manner you do not agree with is not one of them.

1. HFTs are not "fair", they use super-computers to steal in microseconds. Now if they pass the transaction tax, the HFTs can whine it isn't fair to them. I never gave my consent for HFTs to steal my investment. I'm giving my consent fro the transaction tax.
2. Where does the money that HFTs make come from? That's right, other people's investments. (aka stealing)
3. When 70% of all trades are by HFTs that makes for unnecessary volatility. The 2010 "flash crash" is what happens. We need real investment, not computer theft. The government needs to straighten out the stock markets, a transaction tax is a good start.
4. Proof that HFT is "theft"? What product or service do they sell? Hint: nothing, they just steal other people's investments.
5. I need the government to stop the HFTs computers from stealing our investments. That "theft" infringes on my investment freedom. IT'S THEFT!!
6. We all would pay the transaction tax, its minimal unless you're an HFT. The object is to make more investments "long-term" to create jobs and expand businesses.

 

[FA_Q2]

All these taxes start to add up

Not on ordinary Americans.

On the wealthy some yea...nut they ain't exactly hurting. You prefer debt?

What are you blabbering about now? I said reduce spending but that makes you loons wet yourselves

Now cease annoying me with your nonsense

Yea...Republicans are always talking about reducing spending...and then they do the exact opposite.

And we certainly can't afford to do that now.

STFU bitch

Don't blame me you stuck your beak into something when you were wrong, Lush
Now run along and annoy someone else

I'm blaming you for talking out your ass as usual ( the myth/lie/fantasy that you favor spending cuts)

Care to talk about the massive debt your Orange hero incurred? I doubt it loudmouth

Biden's going to shatter what Trump added.

Your first mistake is you're once again fcking clueless and I really don't have time to listen to your BS, Lush.

Run along now

Especially since Trump didn't add it--It was forced on him by a democrat controlled house.

....

Except that he wanted to spend MORE.

Trump was a fiscal disaster.

You are full of democrat promises.

Name one...

 

[Lesh]

Biden's going to shatter what Trump added.

Your first mistake is you're once again fcking clueless and I really don't have time to listen to your BS, Lush.

Run along now

That's your lame excuse?

Ignore what Trump DID and whine about what Biden might do?

Fuck off you foul troll

 

[SassyIrishLass]

All these taxes start to add up

Not on ordinary Americans.

On the wealthy some yea...nut they ain't exactly hurting. You prefer debt?

What are you blabbering about now? I said reduce spending but that makes you loons wet yourselves

Now cease annoying me with your nonsense

Yea...Republicans are always talking about reducing spending...and then they do the exact opposite.

And we certainly can't afford to do that now.

STFU bitch

Don't blame me you stuck your beak into something when you were wrong, Lush
Now run along and annoy someone else

I'm blaming you for talking out your ass as usual ( the myth/lie/fantasy that you favor spending cuts)

Care to talk about the massive debt your Orange hero incurred? I doubt it loudmouth

Biden's going to shatter what Trump added.

Your first mistake is you're once again fcking clueless and I really don't have time to listen to your BS, Lush.

Run along now

Anything you fail to condemn with your guy will only get worse with the next.

Trump was never and isn't "my guy", there's your first mistake.

What's so damn hard to grasp cutting spending? You leftists shit yourself at the very mention of it

 

[kyzr]

I support the proposed transaction tax. It will hit the high-speed traders more than me or other "buy and hold" investors.

How much money do these high-speed traders currently make every year?

They make too much. They do about half of the stock trades, and do nothing but steal our 401k investments.

Too much.

Your precise grasp of this issue is very convincing.

They do about half of the stock trades

And what do they do when they trade? Can you explain it?

and do nothing but steal our 401k investments.

I'm not buying and selling the stocks in my 401k every day, how do they steal from me?

From the OP:
"This (transaction tax) makes financial markets fairer and possibly less volatile. As described by Michael Lewis in Flash Boys, high frequency traders (HFTs) can earn profits by front-running other trades by micro-seconds, an activity that raises costs for legitimate traders and provides no value to society. HFTs account for roughly half all stock trades and much of their business model would be threatened by the proposed transactions tax.

If you're still not convinced, read the OP links. The transaction tax is a very good thing.

As described by Michael Lewis in Flash Boys, high frequency traders (HFTs) can earn profits by front-running other trades by micro-seconds, an activity that raises costs for legitimate traders and provides no value to society.

That drama queen? He's funny!

Ok, TSLA is trading at $711.15-Bid $711.19-Offer.
I try to buy 100 shares at $711.19.....how does an HFT swoop in and steal my money? Any idea?

When big investors buy any stocks that you have, the high-frequency traders steal some of the investment.
They provide no value to society. You're the drama queen whining about something you apparently know very little about.

They don't steal any of your investment.

Yes. They do. Theft of capital in thousandths of a second is how they make money.

Since when is buying and selling quickly theft?

If you aren't selling a product or service, what else would you call it?

You are buying something then selling something why does it have to be a product you produce or a service you supply?

Technically a stock is a piece of ownership in a corporation so you are buying and selling a piece of the corporation.

The purpose of buying a stock is to raise capital for a corporation to expand and hire people. That's why the IRS has a lower tax rate for long-term investments. When HFTs buy/sell stocks in micro-seconds, that does nothing but steal someone's investment, its money that should be used for growing the corporation.

 

[Lesh]

Trump was never and isn't "my guy", there's your first mistake.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

What's so damn hard to grasp cutting spending?

Saying it and doing it are two different things and Republicans never do it...nor should they in most cases since there isn't a lot that can be cut without doing great harm...especially now as we try to recover the economy

DOPE

 

[Blues Man]

I support the proposed transaction tax. It will hit the high-speed traders more than me or other "buy and hold" investors.

How much money do these high-speed traders currently make every year?

They make too much. They do about half of the stock trades, and do nothing but steal our 401k investments.

Too much.

Your precise grasp of this issue is very convincing.

They do about half of the stock trades

And what do they do when they trade? Can you explain it?

and do nothing but steal our 401k investments.

I'm not buying and selling the stocks in my 401k every day, how do they steal from me?

From the OP:
"This (transaction tax) makes financial markets fairer and possibly less volatile. As described by Michael Lewis in Flash Boys, high frequency traders (HFTs) can earn profits by front-running other trades by micro-seconds, an activity that raises costs for legitimate traders and provides no value to society. HFTs account for roughly half all stock trades and much of their business model would be threatened by the proposed transactions tax.

If you're still not convinced, read the OP links. The transaction tax is a very good thing.

As described by Michael Lewis in Flash Boys, high frequency traders (HFTs) can earn profits by front-running other trades by micro-seconds, an activity that raises costs for legitimate traders and provides no value to society.

That drama queen? He's funny!

Ok, TSLA is trading at $711.15-Bid $711.19-Offer.
I try to buy 100 shares at $711.19.....how does an HFT swoop in and steal my money? Any idea?

When big investors buy any stocks that you have, the high-frequency traders steal some of the investment.
They provide no value to society. You're the drama queen whining about something you apparently know very little about.

They don't steal any of your investment.

Yes. They do. Theft of capital in thousandths of a second is how they make money.

Since when is buying and selling quickly theft?

If you aren't selling a product or service, what else would you call it?

You are buying something then selling something why does it have to be a product you produce or a service you supply?

Technically a stock is a piece of ownership in a corporation so you are buying and selling a piece of the corporation.

The purpose of buying a stock is to raise capital for a corporation to expand and hire people. That's why the IRS has a lower tax rate for long-term investments. When HFTs buy/sell stocks in micro-seconds, that does nothing but steal someone's investment, its money that should be used for growing the corporation.

It makes no difference.

And like you just said people who turn over stocks quickly already pay a higher tax rate so why the need for the extra tax?

 

[FA_Q2]

22% of the budget isn't exactly small

Some of it could and should be cut but certainly not all of it

There is no need for the government to pay farmers to grow any particular crop. There is no need for government price fixing of agricultural goods either

Farmers face a lot of problems

Flooding, drought, pestilence, disease.

A small farmer particularly is in a vulnerable position

When conditions are favorable he makes a good crop.

But so does everyone else and prices fall

in lean years prices go back up but he has little or nothing to sell

That can be said about ALL commodities.

The government has no business interfering with the actual price of food. If it is to expensive, the LAST option is to pay off special interests to cover the problem up...

One of the things those payoffs do though is ensure the small farmer simply does not exist so it certainly is not helping the small guy in a venerable position.

 

[Lesh]

The debate over the merits of high frequency trading is similar to the debate about the role of investors and speculators. Capital markets exist because of the needs of investors, but they also attract speculators. Speculators can be a good thing, they can add liquidity to the market making it easier and cheaper to trade, and they can move prices to their correct value more rapidly. However speculators can also destabilise markets. High frequency traders (HFTs) are analogous to speculators on steroids. Computerised systems are set up to trade with astonishing speed for quick profits. Such activity generates a lot of orders that don’t all turn into trades. HFTs are sometimes suggested to be preying on other market participants. However, they may also add to market liquidity, reduce the spread between the prices of orders to buy and sell (the bid ask spread), and may assist the movement of prices to their correct values. These are generally considered to be desirable outcomes for market quality.

One distinctive feature of HFTs is that the information advantage they seek is no longer fundamental information about the value of the company. HFTs use information in the pattern of orders and trades of other market participants to predict where prices are moving in the near future. Trading is a zero sum game and if HFTs are profiting, then someone else must be losing out. That someone is likely to be retail and institutional investors.

 

[bendog]

I like food prices being stable. Boca burgers are my friend. The price of soy went all to crap. Crop insurance is not really controversial. Smaller farmers get squeezed simply on efficiency. The farm country in places like Kan and Neb has no relation to what it was like when I was a kid.

But cutting the amount of corn going to make tasty cows rather than gasoline would be appreciated. (-:

 

[FA_Q2]

Little more than a gimmick. It will not stop institutionalized investors will find other financial products to invest in, move those transactions elsewhere or find a way around the tax. HFT is essentially irrelevant to those that are not part of the trading as long term health of an asset is not phased by short term fluctuations.

The government will not get a tiny fraction of what it says it will out of the tax, more regulation is not going to help the average guy's 401k in any way and the spending that the tax is supposed to go to will not only exceed the projected gains but will not change when the government reveals that they are making far less than projected.

I see your words, but need proof of what you say is true.
ALL money made by HFTs is stolen from investors.

First, its not 'stolen' as that necessitates taking from someone without their consent, consent you give when you agree to buy and sell stock. Claiming it stealing is like whining the card players at the poker table stole from you because they are better at the game.

Second, that money comes from other high frequency or institutional investors. Not a single one of my investments has been effected by HFT because I do not invest short term. That a stock may half, double and then half again in price over the course of a month is irrelevant to the vast majority of investors, all that matters is the price point you get in and out. If you are not involved in short term trades then HFT does nothing to your investments. Short term volatility is simply not relevant.

If you are a short term investor then you are getting exactly what you want. All a tax on HFT does is attempt to remove a specific market for trades.

Finally, you have provided no proof that HFT traders steal anything. Your complaints about insider trading are not even remotely relevant to HFT, you can trade on inside information or manipulate the market without participating in a lot of transactions. We do know the government will not get what it thinks it will because they never raise the amounts they promise. Same thing goes with what happens to the money raised. You can guarantee that adding this tax will only increase the debt because the tax is not even represented as a function of raising funds, it is represented as a function of WHAT THEY CAN BUY WITH THE TAX.

IOW, the money would already be spent and even if it is done through reconciliation (which requires it to be deficit neutral iirc) it would still fail as there is zero chance they would actually ties the amount spent with the amount raised.

There are 2 reasons I can see to support something like this:
HFTs are an infringement on the people's freedom - Give me a good reason that the government should be infringing on my freedom to trade as I see fit because that is what you need. Not that more advanced individuals and/or institutions are taking the majority of the gains, that happens in every single field or economic activity in existence. 100 percent of them. There is not a single example of that not being the case. Tell me exactly how those HFTs are infringing on my freedom. Then there is a case to limit them.
or
Taxing HFTs is a necessary and proper source of funding for the federal government. That I think is rather indefensible but then again I think the government should be funded in an even manner without all the special interests, outright thuggish control or specifically targeting small groups of people.

Not liking HFTs because they can be used in a manner you do not agree with is not one of them.

1. HFTs are not "fair", they use super-computers to steal in microseconds. Now if they pass the transaction tax, the HFTs can whine it isn't fair to them. I never gave my consent for HFTs to steal my investment. I'm giving my consent fro the transaction tax.

"fair?" Fair is not relevant. Again, as several have pointed out, HFT do not steal anything from you whatsoever. The transactions and consequences are long resolved unless you are a day trader. If you are a day trader then damn right you are consenting as you are actively participating.

If they pass a transaction tax the economic activity will move or change, not cease so no, it does not even address the 'problem' even if it did exist.

2. Where does the money that HFTs make come from? That's right, other people's investments. (aka stealing)

Losses from other institutionalized investors or day traders. Which is not theft because you CHOSE to buy or sell the stock when you want. NO ONE forces you to participate, to buy or to sell. WHERE IS THE COERSION.

Theft requires coercion.

3. When 70% of all trades are by HFTs that makes for unnecessary volatility. The 2010 "flash crash" is what happens. We need real investment, not computer theft. The government needs to straighten out the stock markets, a transaction tax is a good start.

And the 2010 'flash crash' needs to be controlled by the government because?

You and I should have lost exactly 0 on the flash crash. If you sold during the crash that was a decision that you made. A very poor one, you needed to wait 1 day.

How much did you lose in the flash crash?

4. Proof that HFT is "theft"? What product or service do they sell? Hint: nothing, they just steal other people's investments.

I already pointed out what they sell, a piece of a company. 'Proof' refuted.

Or are you going to seriously contend a stock does not have value because of what it represents?

5. I need the government to stop the HFTs computers from stealing our investments. That "theft" infringes on my investment freedom. IT'S THEFT!!

Repeating the trope does not make it true.

6. We all would pay the transaction tax, its minimal unless you're an HFT. The object is to make more investments "long-term" to create jobs and expand businesses.

...

You just made a claim that limiting or removing financial transactions creates jobs....

Try that one more time.

 

[Mac-7]

22% of the budget isn't exactly small

Some of it could and should be cut but certainly not all of it

There is no need for the government to pay farmers to grow any particular crop. There is no need for government price fixing of agricultural goods either

Farmers face a lot of problems

Flooding, drought, pestilence, disease.

A small farmer particularly is in a vulnerable position

When conditions are favorable he makes a good crop.

But so does everyone else and prices fall

in lean years prices go back up but he has little or nothing to sell

That can be said about ALL commodities.

The government has no business interfering with the actual price of food. If it is to expensive, the LAST option is to pay off special interests to cover the problem up...

One of the things those payoffs do though is ensure the small farmer simply does not exist so it certainly is not helping the small guy in a venerable position.

its much different for small farmers than mega ag corps or other companies

Cambells Soup knows almost exactly much how soup they will sell in the following year

the small farmer does not know how much he will grow or what crop prices will be a year from now

Which puts him at great risk

 

[FA_Q2]

I support the proposed transaction tax. It will hit the high-speed traders more than me or other "buy and hold" investors.

How much money do these high-speed traders currently make every year?

They make too much. They do about half of the stock trades, and do nothing but steal our 401k investments.

Too much.

Your precise grasp of this issue is very convincing.

They do about half of the stock trades

And what do they do when they trade? Can you explain it?

and do nothing but steal our 401k investments.

I'm not buying and selling the stocks in my 401k every day, how do they steal from me?

From the OP:
"This (transaction tax) makes financial markets fairer and possibly less volatile. As described by Michael Lewis in Flash Boys, high frequency traders (HFTs) can earn profits by front-running other trades by micro-seconds, an activity that raises costs for legitimate traders and provides no value to society. HFTs account for roughly half all stock trades and much of their business model would be threatened by the proposed transactions tax.

If you're still not convinced, read the OP links. The transaction tax is a very good thing.

As described by Michael Lewis in Flash Boys, high frequency traders (HFTs) can earn profits by front-running other trades by micro-seconds, an activity that raises costs for legitimate traders and provides no value to society.

That drama queen? He's funny!

Ok, TSLA is trading at $711.15-Bid $711.19-Offer.
I try to buy 100 shares at $711.19.....how does an HFT swoop in and steal my money? Any idea?

When big investors buy any stocks that you have, the high-frequency traders steal some of the investment.
They provide no value to society. You're the drama queen whining about something you apparently know very little about.

They don't steal any of your investment.

Yes. They do. Theft of capital in thousandths of a second is how they make money.

Since when is buying and selling quickly theft?

If you aren't selling a product or service, what else would you call it?

You are buying something then selling something why does it have to be a product you produce or a service you supply?

Technically a stock is a piece of ownership in a corporation so you are buying and selling a piece of the corporation.

The purpose of buying a stock is to raise capital for a corporation to expand and hire people. That's why the IRS has a lower tax rate for long-term investments. When HFTs buy/sell stocks in micro-seconds, that does nothing but steal someone's investment, its money that should be used for growing the corporation.

No, its not.

That may be part of the problem, you misunderstand what stocks even are. A company sells pieces of itself in order to convert that value to useable capital, yes. That is a small portion of the market though as that only happens when the company itself sells its assets. After that, the piece of company that is owned is bought or sold for the same reason that you have a savings account. We just happen to know that the government will ensure an 'investment' into cash will always lose value so it is better to keep those resources in an asset that can actually grow like a company rather than one that is guaranteed to shrink.

 

[bripat9643]

Biden's going to shatter what Trump added.

Your first mistake is you're once again fcking clueless and I really don't have time to listen to your BS, Lush.

Run along now

That's your lame excuse?

Ignore what Trump DID and whine about what Biden might do?

Fuck off you foul troll

What did Trump do?

 

[struth]

we once again have Trumpsters pretending to be fiscally responsible and attacking others.

What trumpsters wanted was an end to the lockouts

but if you did that democrats would not have an excuse to continue your massive borrow and spend pork barrel policies

8 trillion in spending that wasn't paid for under Trump.

Why didn't Nancy do something......

It's not her thing. She has no desire to address the debt. Why do you think she does?

Cause that's her job......

Her job is to raise campaign donations. That's the only reason she has her position.

But again, how do you expect Nancy and the Dems to do what Trump and the Republicans refused to do? They don't run on the debt.

Sorry,,.,,,the GOP and Trump attempted numerous times to cut spending...blocked by the dems, and called every name under the book by their propagandist for doing so..."grandma killers," claiming htey wanted people to die of hunger etc.

The largest driver of debt, is the entitlement programs, such as medicare and medicaid...and the left blocks any attempt by the GOP to address it.

Please, stop. No one could have blocked his first two years and he could have vetoed anything. He supported things like billions in bail outs that led to the debt.

But thanks for proving my beliefs for me.

Of course they could....and did...it's called a Filibuster. For example...the Farm Bill....the GOP simply added work requirements for SNAP....the Dems blocked it, and literally threatened to shut down the entire Ag Department over it. The GOP was faced with shutting down the Dept of Ag, or caving to the extortion by the Dems.

What would be the downside of shutting down the Department of Agriculture?

A lot....the Department of Ag, runs for example the food inspection...which helps ensure that food produced and sold on the market meats some basic standards for consumption. In addition, the run, clean, and maintain the national forest, which are a great resource not just for leisure, but natural resources, such as timber....as well as enforce federal laws on those lands.

Yeah, because so many people were dropping dead before the Dept of AG was created. The idea that businesses are going to poison their customers is one of the dumbest ideas socialists have ever conceived.

They do a shitty job of maintaining the national forests. That's why we have all these huge fires constantly.

If the Dept of AG disappeared tomorrow, no one would even notice.

well actually yeah...people were dropping dead of pretty easily avoidable things.

People certainly would notice...it's been around independently, since Lincoln, and in some form since our founding.

ROFL! Before the Roosevelt administration it was mostly a boondoggle program for passing out swag to farmers.

well that could be said for a lot of Federal agencies. I am not quite sure how that proves your point

True, it could be said for almost all of them. What's your point?

My point is that we don't need the Dept of Ag, so why should anyone care if its budget doesn't get approved?

I disagree with your point, because we need someone to enforce laws regarding food safety, and someone to manage national forest land.

 

[Blues Man]

22% of the budget isn't exactly small

Some of it could and should be cut but certainly not all of it

There is no need for the government to pay farmers to grow any particular crop. There is no need for government price fixing of agricultural goods either

Farmers face a lot of problems

Flooding, drought, pestilence, disease.

A small farmer particularly is in a vulnerable position

When conditions are favorable he makes a good crop.

But so does everyone else and prices fall

in lean years prices go back up but he has little or nothing to sell

That can be said about ALL commodities.

The government has no business interfering with the actual price of food. If it is to expensive, the LAST option is to pay off special interests to cover the problem up...

One of the things those payoffs do though is ensure the small farmer simply does not exist so it certainly is not helping the small guy in a venerable position.

its much different for small farmers than mega ag corps or other companies

Cambells Soup knows almost exactly much how soup they will sell in the following year

the small farmer does not know how much he will grow or what crop prices will be a year from now

Which puts him at great risk

He knows exactly what he will get for his crops if he plants what the government tells him to.