US Government Checks Constituted 40% Of Farmers Income In 2020; USDA

[Dana7360]

Capitalism.

What is happening with farmers isn't capitalism.

Farming has been socialism ever since the depression.

When the government pays farmers to not farm their land for the only reason to manipulated or control the means of production to keep the price of a commodity at a certain level, that's socialism.

That is the government controlling the means of production.

According the arguments we are a Capitalist country, not a Socialist one so what you say can't be true based upon that argument.

Anyone can argue that we are a capitalist nation.

Doesn't make it true.

We are a hybrid of both capitalism and socialism.

Farming is just one example.

The military, police, EMT, fire department, libraries and so much more are socialism.

I was pointing out that those who hate socialism are some of the biggest abusers and benefit the most of socialism.

 

[Aldo Raine]

Your article missed the point of helping US farmers since China retaliated against them for Trump's tariffs:

No one missed that taxes were taken from some to give to others.

OMG, it was TARIFF money given to farmers, NOT TAXES

Trump tariffs: How much is US collecting in revenue?

Federal spending continues to outpace revenue collection.

www.foxbusiness.com

The US collected $60b in tariffs from China and paid farmers $30b because China cut agri imports.
Stop with the whining already.

"Tariff money" is taxes but you know this. The US collected nothing from China.

The tard herd doesn't understand that.

 

[pknopp]

nm

Where were all the demands for drug tests In exchange for getting federal handouts?

How about drug testing the 535, there were demands for that too and well founded. Many have been on the fed dole all their lives. Still are. Test them, let the farmer alone and let him grow your food.

Anyone can take drugs. Why should only some welfare be subject to drug tests? Because it isn’t the right picture?

1. The number of opioid deaths keeps setting records, 81,000/yr recently

Opioid Deaths Reached Record Number, Says CDC Data -- Occupational Health & Safety

The NSC hopes that the new presidential administration will use their plan to address opioid misuse.

ohsonline.com

View attachment 436752

2. IMHO opioid deaths are simply chlorine in the gene pool, stupid is as stupid does.

3. The point of my post is that many companies require drug tests as required by their insurer, so druggies are less employable. Hence to get off welfare, get clean and get a job.

And that should apply to anyone getting federal subsidies, wouldn't you agree?

Agreed. We need to do something to address the opiod epidemic. CA is nothing but homeless, needles, and people fleeing. Food stamps, welfare, farm subsidies, unemployment checks, all should require periodic drug tests. Which population has the highest rate of addiction?? Any guess?

Unconstitutional.

Welfare, food stamps, farm subsidies, and unemployment checks are NOT in the Constitution, they are "charity". IMHO we can put strings on those subsidies, especially health related strings.

Unconstitutional. There is a reason it isn't being done and this is it.

 

[Dana7360]

Farm welfare is one of the biggest government programs out there.

That's why agriculture is associated with national defense. No food = no people, no people = no country.

So you're saying that capitalism can't feed our nation, the only way to feed our nation is with socialism.

Wow for people who profess to hate socialism and use that word to defame and lie about political opponents to win elections, you sure do love socialism and make very flimsy excuses for it.

 

[EL Rich]

Your article missed the point of helping US farmers since China retaliated against them for Trump's tariffs:

Well, that just shows Trump's trade wars were kind of stupid, since they hurt America more than they hurt China.

How did Trump's tariffs hurt the US??

U.S. farm bankruptcies hit an eight-year high: court data

Very true. Its hard to make a decent living on the family farm, especially the smaller farms. They get hit with bad weather, low prices, and other costs. I'm not surprised that we're losing 500 family farm a year. However, their farm isn't scrapped, its sold and bought by a more successful farmer.
Bottom line: Trump's tariffs have zero to do with the continual loss of small family farms.

Most importantly, thank you for staying civil and on topic in the face of repeated personal insults.
From what I’m seeing you are trying to have it both ways. First, you want government intervention through trying to discourage Americans from buying imports from specific countries (tariffs) and then you want a laissez-faire approach when huge industrial corporate owned farms take over smaller family owned farms. The irony here, from my perspective, is that if President Trump never started a trade war with China, the farmers (small and big alike) wouldn’t have needed the subsidies. This has also had the affect of artificially creating a business environment for farms that gives larger farms an advantage over smaller farms simply because their profit margins are so much bigger than smaller family run farms. So, it appears that while not creating this trend (not just in farming) of larger businesses taking over smaller ones, this policy has certainly expedited the move to the edge of financial insolvency for smaller businesses that rely on China as a major share of their market.

Totally agree with your post. However the "China Problem" still remains.
I support Trump's efforts to protect US workers from unfair/illegal practices.
If you don't support those, what do you suggest?

As I get older, I really think democratic-style governments power to create change is somewhat limited. So while I would love universal health care, pretty sure handing that over to the Federal govt. is a recipe for disaster.
Agreed, China is/has behaved in ways that are totally unacceptable. And we can’t just pretend they do not exist or think that the US has the power by ourselves to affect the changes in their policies we wish to see. I think the answer is slow, plodding, boring diplomacy based on relying on a system of alliances. From what I can see, that is the only way we would have the leverage to move the needle at all. Unfortunately, President Trump has moved away from that and tried to strong arm the Xi. But because of our system of government all Xi had to do was wait him (Trump) out, knowing that he would be the leader of China long after Trump was out of office.
My point is, playing a game you are destined to loose is pointless and unproductive. In fact, based on the trade deal China just agreed on with the EU, we are in a far weaker position in regards to China than we were before this policy was enacted. While do something feels good, sometimes it’s best to just not make things worse.
At this point, our best path forward might be Biden trying to reestablish the partnerships created and fosters by the last 5 administrations. The same ones Trump has burnt down to fire up folks who truly desire American Greatness....something almost everyone can agree is more desirable than the alternative.

You'd make a great politician, very soothing rhetoric saying that everything is fine now and will be even better in the future.
1. Gridlock is good, one party rule is a disaster.
2. Universal healthcare would be a disaster, imagine Lois Lerner in-charge of your access to healthcare.
3. Agree China's behavior is unacceptable. Trump has teamed up with Japan, India, and Australia. Also agree US politics plays ping-pong with many issues. Joe Biden said he would not change Trump's China policy, we'll see.
4. We can't throw in the towel against China, its better to lead than sit on the bench. Doing something is always better than doing nothing, especially when you're losing.
5. You speak in generalities?! Which partnerships did Trump burn down? The ones unfair to US workers? Trump's path is for the US workers, not the globalists.

I’ll take your points one by one.
#1, Agreed one party rule is far worse than gridlock, but both are signs of a democratic process that is not working as it should. There is nothing wrong with debate and disagreement, but in the end compromise is what makes democracies work. No one gets everything they want and no one is left out in the cold. The Dems have left anyone not living in a coastal urban/suburban are out and the Reps have ignored anyone who is not Christian. Go check out what Reagan had to say on the subject of working with people who you disagree with.
#2,I only expressed that universal health care would be great, I also agree the Fed in charge would be a disaster. Check out Vermont’s Doctor Dinosaur program that covers all kids under 18. Maybe more localized control...labs of democracy and all.
#3, Trump has walked away from the G7 as a tool to combat China‘s blatant disregard for international trade rules and has isolated us from the EU. While trying to team up with Pacific nations is great, we actually already had a trade agreement with a broader coalition of Pacific nations with the TPP that Trump tore up and never replaced, so those nations put together the same agreement but with China as a partner instead of us. Giving China both a major diplomatic and financial advantage that we just gave to them.
#4, Not ever suggesting acquiescence to China, but sometimes you have to make sure your actions don’t have greater negative affects long term than any short term gains you may get. Our support for the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan in the ’80’s turning into our financial and material jump start for Al Qaeda comes to mind.
#5, Partnerships, like democracies, are a messy business based on mutual trust and compromise. Let us be honest, NAFTA killed the last vestiges of mass production in the US and has put us at a major disadvantage in negotiating trade deals ever since. Globalization as an economic model is great for the elite/owners but kind of crappy deal for everyone else. So I applauded Trumps attempt at resetting that agreement, in the end there were no substantive changes made to it because we had no leverage to force those changes...and the horse has long left the barn anyway. Also see #3.

 

[kyzr]

nm

Where were all the demands for drug tests In exchange for getting federal handouts?

How about drug testing the 535, there were demands for that too and well founded. Many have been on the fed dole all their lives. Still are. Test them, let the farmer alone and let him grow your food.

Anyone can take drugs. Why should only some welfare be subject to drug tests? Because it isn’t the right picture?

1. The number of opioid deaths keeps setting records, 81,000/yr recently

Opioid Deaths Reached Record Number, Says CDC Data -- Occupational Health & Safety

The NSC hopes that the new presidential administration will use their plan to address opioid misuse.

ohsonline.com

View attachment 436752

2. IMHO opioid deaths are simply chlorine in the gene pool, stupid is as stupid does.

3. The point of my post is that many companies require drug tests as required by their insurer, so druggies are less employable. Hence to get off welfare, get clean and get a job.

And that should apply to anyone getting federal subsidies, wouldn't you agree?

Agreed. We need to do something to address the opiod epidemic. CA is nothing but homeless, needles, and people fleeing. Food stamps, welfare, farm subsidies, unemployment checks, all should require periodic drug tests. Which population has the highest rate of addiction?? Any guess?

I don't know about CA, but in WV and Ohio and Kentucky, opioid addition is a HUGE problem. In WV, it's by far the white population.

So what if WV, OH, and KY have druggies? Stupid is still stupid no matter what population or state has the addiction.
There is no reason to subsidize their addiction.
If drug testing for "charity" helps reduce addiction, do it.

 

[Crepitus]

In a late October campaign appearance in Omaha, Neb., President Donald Trump said he believed farmers were better off getting government payments than relying solely on their farming receipts.

“In fact, some people say our farmers do better now than when they actually had a farm,” he said.

Many top farm states voted again for Trump in November, including Iowa, Nebraska, Texas and Kansas. Several, however, left Trump to vote for Democrat Joe Biden, including Wisconsin, Michigan and Georgia.

U.S. government checks constituted 40% of farmers' income in 2020: USDA

Iowa farmer says that without federal money it would have been difficult to make ends meet but that it began to feel as if the government checks were...

www.marketwatch.com

Well, now we know how red state farmers, and Trump really think about socialism.

Capitalism.

Your article missed the point of helping US farmers since China retaliated against them for Trump's tariffs:

No one missed that taxes were taken from some to give to others.

Damn welfare slugs..

Farm welfare is one of the biggest government programs out there.

In a late October campaign appearance in Omaha, Neb., President Donald Trump said he believed farmers were better off getting government payments than relying solely on their farming receipts.

“In fact, some people say our farmers do better now than when they actually had a farm,” he said.

Many top farm states voted again for Trump in November, including Iowa, Nebraska, Texas and Kansas. Several, however, left Trump to vote for Democrat Joe Biden, including Wisconsin, Michigan and Georgia.

U.S. government checks constituted 40% of farmers' income in 2020: USDA

Iowa farmer says that without federal money it would have been difficult to make ends meet but that it began to feel as if the government checks were...

www.marketwatch.com

Well, now we know how red state farmers, and Trump really think about socialism.

Where were all the demands for drug tests In exchange for getting federal handouts?

Your article missed the point of helping US farmers since China retaliated against them for Trump's tariffs:

Well, that just shows Trump's trade wars were kind of stupid, since they hurt America more than they hurt China.

Capitalism.

Try again.

Your article missed the point of helping US farmers since China retaliated against them for Trump's tariffs:

Well, that just shows Trump's trade wars were kind of stupid, since they hurt America more than they hurt China.

How did Trump's tariffs hurt the US??

U.S. farm bankruptcies hit an eight-year high: court data

Very true. Its hard to make a decent living on the family farm, especially the smaller farms. They get hit with bad weather, low prices, and other costs. I'm not surprised that we're losing 500 family farm a year. However, their farm isn't scrapped, its sold and bought by a more successful farmer.
Bottom line: Trump's tariffs have zero to do with the continual loss of small family farms.

Most importantly, thank you for staying civil and on topic in the face of repeated personal insults.
From what I’m seeing you are trying to have it both ways. First, you want government intervention through trying to discourage Americans from buying imports from specific countries (tariffs) and then you want a laissez-faire approach when huge industrial corporate owned farms take over smaller family owned farms. The irony here, from my perspective, is that if President Trump never started a trade war with China, the farmers (small and big alike) wouldn’t have needed the subsidies. This has also had the affect of artificially creating a business environment for farms that gives larger farms an advantage over smaller farms simply because their profit margins are so much bigger than smaller family run farms. So, it appears that while not creating this trend (not just in farming) of larger businesses taking over smaller ones, this policy has certainly expedited the move to the edge of financial insolvency for smaller businesses that rely on China as a major share of their market.

Capitalism.

What is happening with farmers isn't capitalism.

Farming has been socialism ever since the depression.

When the government pays farmers to not farm their land for the only reason to manipulated or control the means of production to keep the price of a commodity at a certain level, that's socialism.

That is the government controlling the means of production.

In a late October campaign appearance in Omaha, Neb., President Donald Trump said he believed farmers were better off getting government payments than relying solely on their farming receipts.

“In fact, some people say our farmers do better now than when they actually had a farm,” he said.

Many top farm states voted again for Trump in November, including Iowa, Nebraska, Texas and Kansas. Several, however, left Trump to vote for Democrat Joe Biden, including Wisconsin, Michigan and Georgia.

U.S. government checks constituted 40% of farmers' income in 2020: USDA

Iowa farmer says that without federal money it would have been difficult to make ends meet but that it began to feel as if the government checks were...

www.marketwatch.com

Well, now we know how red state farmers, and Trump really think about socialism.

Those trump tariffs lead to a giant farmer bailout. What a success!

Your article missed the point of helping US farmers since China retaliated against them for Trump's tariffs:

No one missed that taxes were taken from some to give to others.

OMG, it was TARIFF money given to farmers, NOT TAXES

Trump tariffs: How much is US collecting in revenue?

Federal spending continues to outpace revenue collection.

www.foxbusiness.com

The US collected $60b in tariffs from China and paid farmers $30b because China cut agri imports.
Stop with the whining already.

They didn't collect that from china, you twit. They collected it from us.

Good, real, productive, positive contributing Americans take great pride in investing in the "GENERAL WELFARE" of our nation, our food sources...We like ROi...We HATE investing in ShaQuita, her baby factory and marijuana inventory...we hate investing in Guadalupe and her litters of silver tooth filth...I can't figure out how you struggle with making simple distinctions.
Listen, lets do this one more time..Follow along.
Forcing good real productive Americans to invest in Guadalupe and her litters of filth = SOCIALISM
Forcing good real Americans to invest in the GENERAL WELFARE of the Republic = NOT SOCIALISM
Still confused?

You're pretty badly confused.

And more than a bit racist.

 

[kyzr]

Your article missed the point of helping US farmers since China retaliated against them for Trump's tariffs:

Well, that just shows Trump's trade wars were kind of stupid, since they hurt America more than they hurt China.

How did Trump's tariffs hurt the US??

U.S. farm bankruptcies hit an eight-year high: court data

Very true. Its hard to make a decent living on the family farm, especially the smaller farms. They get hit with bad weather, low prices, and other costs. I'm not surprised that we're losing 500 family farm a year. However, their farm isn't scrapped, its sold and bought by a more successful farmer.
Bottom line: Trump's tariffs have zero to do with the continual loss of small family farms.

Most importantly, thank you for staying civil and on topic in the face of repeated personal insults.
From what I’m seeing you are trying to have it both ways. First, you want government intervention through trying to discourage Americans from buying imports from specific countries (tariffs) and then you want a laissez-faire approach when huge industrial corporate owned farms take over smaller family owned farms. The irony here, from my perspective, is that if President Trump never started a trade war with China, the farmers (small and big alike) wouldn’t have needed the subsidies. This has also had the affect of artificially creating a business environment for farms that gives larger farms an advantage over smaller farms simply because their profit margins are so much bigger than smaller family run farms. So, it appears that while not creating this trend (not just in farming) of larger businesses taking over smaller ones, this policy has certainly expedited the move to the edge of financial insolvency for smaller businesses that rely on China as a major share of their market.

Totally agree with your post. However the "China Problem" still remains.
I support Trump's efforts to protect US workers from unfair/illegal practices.
If you don't support those, what do you suggest?

As I get older, I really think democratic-style governments power to create change is somewhat limited. So while I would love universal health care, pretty sure handing that over to the Federal govt. is a recipe for disaster.
Agreed, China is/has behaved in ways that are totally unacceptable. And we can’t just pretend they do not exist or think that the US has the power by ourselves to affect the changes in their policies we wish to see. I think the answer is slow, plodding, boring diplomacy based on relying on a system of alliances. From what I can see, that is the only way we would have the leverage to move the needle at all. Unfortunately, President Trump has moved away from that and tried to strong arm the Xi. But because of our system of government all Xi had to do was wait him (Trump) out, knowing that he would be the leader of China long after Trump was out of office.
My point is, playing a game you are destined to loose is pointless and unproductive. In fact, based on the trade deal China just agreed on with the EU, we are in a far weaker position in regards to China than we were before this policy was enacted. While do something feels good, sometimes it’s best to just not make things worse.
At this point, our best path forward might be Biden trying to reestablish the partnerships created and fosters by the last 5 administrations. The same ones Trump has burnt down to fire up folks who truly desire American Greatness....something almost everyone can agree is more desirable than the alternative.

You'd make a great politician, very soothing rhetoric saying that everything is fine now and will be even better in the future.
1. Gridlock is good, one party rule is a disaster.
2. Universal healthcare would be a disaster, imagine Lois Lerner in-charge of your access to healthcare.
3. Agree China's behavior is unacceptable. Trump has teamed up with Japan, India, and Australia. Also agree US politics plays ping-pong with many issues. Joe Biden said he would not change Trump's China policy, we'll see.
4. We can't throw in the towel against China, its better to lead than sit on the bench. Doing something is always better than doing nothing, especially when you're losing.
5. You speak in generalities?! Which partnerships did Trump burn down? The ones unfair to US workers? Trump's path is for the US workers, not the globalists.

I’ll take your points one by one.
#1, Agreed one party rule is far worse than gridlock, but both are signs of a democratic process that is not working as it should. There is nothing wrong with debate and disagreement, but in the end compromise is what makes democracies work. No one gets everything they want and no one is left out in the cold. The Dems have left anyone not living in a coastal urban/suburban are out and the Reps have ignored anyone who is not Christian. Go check out what Reagan had to say on the subject of working with people who you disagree with.
#2,I only expressed that universal health care would be great, I also agree the Fed in charge would be a disaster. Check out Vermont’s Doctor Dinosaur program that covers all kids under 18. Maybe more localized control...labs of democracy and all.
#3, Trump has walked away from the G7 as a tool to combat China‘s blatant disregard for international trade rules and has isolated us from the EU. While trying to team up with Pacific nations is great, we actually already had a trade agreement with a broader coalition of Pacific nations with the TPP that Trump tore up and never replaced, so those nations put together the same agreement but with China as a partner instead of us. Giving China both a major diplomatic and financial advantage that we just gave to them.
#4, Not ever suggesting acquiescence to China, but sometimes you have to make sure your actions don’t have greater negative affects long term than any short term gains you may get. Our support for the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan in the ’80’s turning into our financial and material jump start for Al Qaeda comes to mind.
#5, Partnerships, like democracies, are a messy business based on mutual trust and compromise. Let us be honest, NAFTA killed the last vestiges of mass production in the US and has put us at a major disadvantage in negotiating trade deals ever since. Globalization as an economic model is great for the elite/owners but kind of crappy deal for everyone else. So I applauded Trumps attempt at resetting that agreement, in the end there were no substantive changes made to it because we had no leverage to force those changes...and the horse has long left the barn anyway. Also see #3.

1. We disagree on who is "out" and who is "in". IMHO the urban plantations, including the MSM are Leftists. I'm not seeing how the Republicans punish non-Christians. The ideological battle-lines are the democrat's "cancel culture" such as the "Critical Race Theory", bashing the Founding Fathers, destroying statues, and going overboard with political correctness and who has "privilege". I thought being colorblind was the objective, not using color as a crutch. The "defund the police" and BLM movements are not helpig the democrats. Trump's "law and order" message won in 2020, just look at Portland today.

2. As long as its not Medicare for All, they can try anything.

3. Trade deals need to be fair and protect US workers. If anyone puts tariffs on car imports, that's when the crap hits the impellers. 2019 was a good year for the US economy, once we get past covid we should be on a good economic track again.

4. True, but no one has a crystal ball to see how the various actions play out over time. Its an economic 3D chess match, and I'd bet on Navarro and Lighthizer over the Biden team.

5. Agreed. We need to play the long game with China, and Wall Street needs quarterly results, not a good match.

 

[kyzr]

nm

Where were all the demands for drug tests In exchange for getting federal handouts?

How about drug testing the 535, there were demands for that too and well founded. Many have been on the fed dole all their lives. Still are. Test them, let the farmer alone and let him grow your food.

Anyone can take drugs. Why should only some welfare be subject to drug tests? Because it isn’t the right picture?

1. The number of opioid deaths keeps setting records, 81,000/yr recently

Opioid Deaths Reached Record Number, Says CDC Data -- Occupational Health & Safety

The NSC hopes that the new presidential administration will use their plan to address opioid misuse.

ohsonline.com

View attachment 436752

2. IMHO opioid deaths are simply chlorine in the gene pool, stupid is as stupid does.

3. The point of my post is that many companies require drug tests as required by their insurer, so druggies are less employable. Hence to get off welfare, get clean and get a job.

And that should apply to anyone getting federal subsidies, wouldn't you agree?

Agreed. We need to do something to address the opiod epidemic. CA is nothing but homeless, needles, and people fleeing. Food stamps, welfare, farm subsidies, unemployment checks, all should require periodic drug tests. Which population has the highest rate of addiction?? Any guess?

Unconstitutional.

Welfare, food stamps, farm subsidies, and unemployment checks are NOT in the Constitution, they are "charity". IMHO we can put strings on those subsidies, especially health related strings.

Unconstitutional. There is a reason it isn't being done and this is it.

OK, then we keep losing morons to drugs. An Amendment would fix the constitutionality, and there might be support for it as long as we keep losing 80,000 - 100,000 a year with needles and feces on the streets.

 

[pknopp]

nm

Where were all the demands for drug tests In exchange for getting federal handouts?

How about drug testing the 535, there were demands for that too and well founded. Many have been on the fed dole all their lives. Still are. Test them, let the farmer alone and let him grow your food.

Anyone can take drugs. Why should only some welfare be subject to drug tests? Because it isn’t the right picture?

1. The number of opioid deaths keeps setting records, 81,000/yr recently

Opioid Deaths Reached Record Number, Says CDC Data -- Occupational Health & Safety

The NSC hopes that the new presidential administration will use their plan to address opioid misuse.

ohsonline.com

View attachment 436752

2. IMHO opioid deaths are simply chlorine in the gene pool, stupid is as stupid does.

3. The point of my post is that many companies require drug tests as required by their insurer, so druggies are less employable. Hence to get off welfare, get clean and get a job.

And that should apply to anyone getting federal subsidies, wouldn't you agree?

Agreed. We need to do something to address the opiod epidemic. CA is nothing but homeless, needles, and people fleeing. Food stamps, welfare, farm subsidies, unemployment checks, all should require periodic drug tests. Which population has the highest rate of addiction?? Any guess?

Unconstitutional.

Welfare, food stamps, farm subsidies, and unemployment checks are NOT in the Constitution, they are "charity". IMHO we can put strings on those subsidies, especially health related strings.

Unconstitutional. There is a reason it isn't being done and this is it.

OK, then we keep losing morons to drugs. An Amendment would fix the constitutionality, and there might be support for it as long as we keep losing 80,000 - 100,000 a year with needles and feces on the streets.

Much of it was created by the greed of the pharmaceutical companies.

 

[EL Rich]

In a late October campaign appearance in Omaha, Neb., President Donald Trump said he believed farmers were better off getting government payments than relying solely on their farming receipts.

“In fact, some people say our farmers do better now than when they actually had a farm,” he said.

Many top farm states voted again for Trump in November, including Iowa, Nebraska, Texas and Kansas. Several, however, left Trump to vote for Democrat Joe Biden, including Wisconsin, Michigan and Georgia.

U.S. government checks constituted 40% of farmers' income in 2020: USDA

Iowa farmer says that without federal money it would have been difficult to make ends meet but that it began to feel as if the government checks were...

www.marketwatch.com

Well, now we know how red state farmers, and Trump really think about socialism.

Capitalism.

Your article missed the point of helping US farmers since China retaliated against them for Trump's tariffs:

No one missed that taxes were taken from some to give to others.

Damn welfare slugs..

Farm welfare is one of the biggest government programs out there.

In a late October campaign appearance in Omaha, Neb., President Donald Trump said he believed farmers were better off getting government payments than relying solely on their farming receipts.

“In fact, some people say our farmers do better now than when they actually had a farm,” he said.

Many top farm states voted again for Trump in November, including Iowa, Nebraska, Texas and Kansas. Several, however, left Trump to vote for Democrat Joe Biden, including Wisconsin, Michigan and Georgia.

U.S. government checks constituted 40% of farmers' income in 2020: USDA

Iowa farmer says that without federal money it would have been difficult to make ends meet but that it began to feel as if the government checks were...

www.marketwatch.com

Well, now we know how red state farmers, and Trump really think about socialism.

Where were all the demands for drug tests In exchange for getting federal handouts?

Your article missed the point of helping US farmers since China retaliated against them for Trump's tariffs:

Well, that just shows Trump's trade wars were kind of stupid, since they hurt America more than they hurt China.

Capitalism.

Try again.

Your article missed the point of helping US farmers since China retaliated against them for Trump's tariffs:

Well, that just shows Trump's trade wars were kind of stupid, since they hurt America more than they hurt China.

How did Trump's tariffs hurt the US??

U.S. farm bankruptcies hit an eight-year high: court data

Very true. Its hard to make a decent living on the family farm, especially the smaller farms. They get hit with bad weather, low prices, and other costs. I'm not surprised that we're losing 500 family farm a year. However, their farm isn't scrapped, its sold and bought by a more successful farmer.
Bottom line: Trump's tariffs have zero to do with the continual loss of small family farms.

Most importantly, thank you for staying civil and on topic in the face of repeated personal insults.
From what I’m seeing you are trying to have it both ways. First, you want government intervention through trying to discourage Americans from buying imports from specific countries (tariffs) and then you want a laissez-faire approach when huge industrial corporate owned farms take over smaller family owned farms. The irony here, from my perspective, is that if President Trump never started a trade war with China, the farmers (small and big alike) wouldn’t have needed the subsidies. This has also had the affect of artificially creating a business environment for farms that gives larger farms an advantage over smaller farms simply because their profit margins are so much bigger than smaller family run farms. So, it appears that while not creating this trend (not just in farming) of larger businesses taking over smaller ones, this policy has certainly expedited the move to the edge of financial insolvency for smaller businesses that rely on China as a major share of their market.

Capitalism.

What is happening with farmers isn't capitalism.

Farming has been socialism ever since the depression.

When the government pays farmers to not farm their land for the only reason to manipulated or control the means of production to keep the price of a commodity at a certain level, that's socialism.

That is the government controlling the means of production.

In a late October campaign appearance in Omaha, Neb., President Donald Trump said he believed farmers were better off getting government payments than relying solely on their farming receipts.

“In fact, some people say our farmers do better now than when they actually had a farm,” he said.

Many top farm states voted again for Trump in November, including Iowa, Nebraska, Texas and Kansas. Several, however, left Trump to vote for Democrat Joe Biden, including Wisconsin, Michigan and Georgia.

U.S. government checks constituted 40% of farmers' income in 2020: USDA

Iowa farmer says that without federal money it would have been difficult to make ends meet but that it began to feel as if the government checks were...

www.marketwatch.com

Well, now we know how red state farmers, and Trump really think about socialism.

Those trump tariffs lead to a giant farmer bailout. What a success!

Your article missed the point of helping US farmers since China retaliated against them for Trump's tariffs:

No one missed that taxes were taken from some to give to others.

OMG, it was TARIFF money given to farmers, NOT TAXES

Trump tariffs: How much is US collecting in revenue?

Federal spending continues to outpace revenue collection.

www.foxbusiness.com

The US collected $60b in tariffs from China and paid farmers $30b because China cut agri imports.
Stop with the whining already.

They didn't collect that from china, you twit. They collected it from us.

Good, real, productive, positive contributing Americans take great pride in investing in the "GENERAL WELFARE" of our nation, our food sources...We like ROi...We HATE investing in ShaQuita, her baby factory and marijuana inventory...we hate investing in Guadalupe and her litters of silver tooth filth...I can't figure out how you struggle with making simple distinctions.
Listen, lets do this one more time..Follow along.
Forcing good real productive Americans to invest in Guadalupe and her litters of filth = SOCIALISM
Forcing good real Americans to invest in the GENERAL WELFARE of the Republic = NOT SOCIALISM
Still confused?

So you are saying that white Christians are the only ones who have a right to enjoy the blessings of liberty and the su

Your article missed the point of helping US farmers since China retaliated against them for Trump's tariffs:

Well, that just shows Trump's trade wars were kind of stupid, since they hurt America more than they hurt China.

How did Trump's tariffs hurt the US??

U.S. farm bankruptcies hit an eight-year high: court data

Very true. Its hard to make a decent living on the family farm, especially the smaller farms. They get hit with bad weather, low prices, and other costs. I'm not surprised that we're losing 500 family farm a year. However, their farm isn't scrapped, its sold and bought by a more successful farmer.
Bottom line: Trump's tariffs have zero to do with the continual loss of small family farms.

Most importantly, thank you for staying civil and on topic in the face of repeated personal insults.
From what I’m seeing you are trying to have it both ways. First, you want government intervention through trying to discourage Americans from buying imports from specific countries (tariffs) and then you want a laissez-faire approach when huge industrial corporate owned farms take over smaller family owned farms. The irony here, from my perspective, is that if President Trump never started a trade war with China, the farmers (small and big alike) wouldn’t have needed the subsidies. This has also had the affect of artificially creating a business environment for farms that gives larger farms an advantage over smaller farms simply because their profit margins are so much bigger than smaller family run farms. So, it appears that while not creating this trend (not just in farming) of larger businesses taking over smaller ones, this policy has certainly expedited the move to the edge of financial insolvency for smaller businesses that rely on China as a major share of their market.

Totally agree with your post. However the "China Problem" still remains.
I support Trump's efforts to protect US workers from unfair/illegal practices.
If you don't support those, what do you suggest?

As I get older, I really think democratic-style governments power to create change is somewhat limited. So while I would love universal health care, pretty sure handing that over to the Federal govt. is a recipe for disaster.
Agreed, China is/has behaved in ways that are totally unacceptable. And we can’t just pretend they do not exist or think that the US has the power by ourselves to affect the changes in their policies we wish to see. I think the answer is slow, plodding, boring diplomacy based on relying on a system of alliances. From what I can see, that is the only way we would have the leverage to move the needle at all. Unfortunately, President Trump has moved away from that and tried to strong arm the Xi. But because of our system of government all Xi had to do was wait him (Trump) out, knowing that he would be the leader of China long after Trump was out of office.
My point is, playing a game you are destined to loose is pointless and unproductive. In fact, based on the trade deal China just agreed on with the EU, we are in a far weaker position in regards to China than we were before this policy was enacted. While do something feels good, sometimes it’s best to just not make things worse.
At this point, our best path forward might be Biden trying to reestablish the partnerships created and fosters by the last 5 administrations. The same ones Trump has burnt down to fire up folks who truly desire American Greatness....something almost everyone can agree is more desirable than the alternative.

You'd make a great politician, very soothing rhetoric saying that everything is fine now and will be even better in the future.
1. Gridlock is good, one party rule is a disaster.
2. Universal healthcare would be a disaster, imagine Lois Lerner in-charge of your access to healthcare.
3. Agree China's behavior is unacceptable. Trump has teamed up with Japan, India, and Australia. Also agree US politics plays ping-pong with many issues. Joe Biden said he would not change Trump's China policy, we'll see.
4. We can't throw in the towel against China, its better to lead than sit on the bench. Doing something is always better than doing nothing, especially when you're losing.
5. You speak in generalities?! Which partnerships did Trump burn down? The ones unfair to US workers? Trump's path is for the US workers, not the globalists.

I’ll take your points one by one.
#1, Agreed one party rule is far worse than gridlock, but both are signs of a democratic process that is not working as it should. There is nothing wrong with debate and disagreement, but in the end compromise is what makes democracies work. No one gets everything they want and no one is left out in the cold. The Dems have left anyone not living in a coastal urban/suburban are out and the Reps have ignored anyone who is not Christian. Go check out what Reagan had to say on the subject of working with people who you disagree with.
#2,I only expressed that universal health care would be great, I also agree the Fed in charge would be a disaster. Check out Vermont’s Doctor Dinosaur program that covers all kids under 18. Maybe more localized control...labs of democracy and all.
#3, Trump has walked away from the G7 as a tool to combat China‘s blatant disregard for international trade rules and has isolated us from the EU. While trying to team up with Pacific nations is great, we actually already had a trade agreement with a broader coalition of Pacific nations with the TPP that Trump tore up and never replaced, so those nations put together the same agreement but with China as a partner instead of us. Giving China both a major diplomatic and financial advantage that we just gave to them.
#4, Not ever suggesting acquiescence to China, but sometimes you have to make sure your actions don’t have greater negative affects long term than any short term gains you may get. Our support for the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan in the ’80’s turning into our financial and material jump start for Al Qaeda comes to mind.
#5, Partnerships, like democracies, are a messy business based on mutual trust and compromise. Let us be honest, NAFTA killed the last vestiges of mass production in the US and has put us at a major disadvantage in negotiating trade deals ever since. Globalization as an economic model is great for the elite/owners but kind of crappy deal for everyone else. So I applauded Trumps attempt at resetting that agreement, in the end there were no substantive changes made to it because we had no leverage to force those changes...and the horse has long left the barn anyway. Also see #3.

1. We disagree on who is "out" and who is "in". IMHO the urban plantations, including the MSM are Leftists. I'm not seeing how the Republicans punish non-Christians. The ideological battle-lines are the democrat's "cancel culture" such as the "Critical Race Theory", bashing the Founding Fathers, destroying statues, and going overboard with political correctness and who has "privilege". I thought being colorblind was the objective, not using color as a crutch. The "defund the police" and BLM movements are not helpig the democrats. Trump's "law and order" message won in 2020, just look at Portland today.

2. As long as its not Medicare for All, they can try anything.

3. Trade deals need to be fair and protect US workers. If anyone puts tariffs on car imports, that's when the crap hits the impellers. 2019 was a good year for the US economy, once we get past covid we should be on a good economic track again.

4. True, but no one has a crystal ball to see how the various actions play out over time. Its an economic 3D chess match, and I'd bet on Navarro and Lighthizer over the Biden team.

5. Agreed. We need to play the long game with China, and Wall Street needs quarterly results, not a good match.

Seems like we are in agreement on most of the problems, maybe have slightly different approaches to solutions but nothing that makes our perspectives mutually exclusive.
The one point of contention seems to be my take that both Dems and Reps are playing identity politics, you see that as mostly domain of Dems.
I see the push to put the Ten Commandment in front of court houses, becoming offended when someone wishes you “Happy Holidays”instead of “Merry Christmas”, the willingness to let faith dictate who governments give the rights and privileges of who is and is not a family, and the desire to paint anyone who is non-white with a non-Anglican name as not a “natural” member of our nation deeply problematic.
So yes, I despise the dishonesty of cancel culture and think SJWs should clean their own houses and stop worrying about everyone else’s, but also find the willingness to accept and broadcast the idea that Obama was somehow less American than any president who preceded him no less troubling.

 

[BrokeLoser]

In a late October campaign appearance in Omaha, Neb., President Donald Trump said he believed farmers were better off getting government payments than relying solely on their farming receipts.

“In fact, some people say our farmers do better now than when they actually had a farm,” he said.

Many top farm states voted again for Trump in November, including Iowa, Nebraska, Texas and Kansas. Several, however, left Trump to vote for Democrat Joe Biden, including Wisconsin, Michigan and Georgia.

U.S. government checks constituted 40% of farmers' income in 2020: USDA

Iowa farmer says that without federal money it would have been difficult to make ends meet but that it began to feel as if the government checks were...

www.marketwatch.com

Well, now we know how red state farmers, and Trump really think about socialism.

Capitalism.

Your article missed the point of helping US farmers since China retaliated against them for Trump's tariffs:

No one missed that taxes were taken from some to give to others.

Damn welfare slugs..

Farm welfare is one of the biggest government programs out there.

In a late October campaign appearance in Omaha, Neb., President Donald Trump said he believed farmers were better off getting government payments than relying solely on their farming receipts.

“In fact, some people say our farmers do better now than when they actually had a farm,” he said.

Many top farm states voted again for Trump in November, including Iowa, Nebraska, Texas and Kansas. Several, however, left Trump to vote for Democrat Joe Biden, including Wisconsin, Michigan and Georgia.

U.S. government checks constituted 40% of farmers' income in 2020: USDA

Iowa farmer says that without federal money it would have been difficult to make ends meet but that it began to feel as if the government checks were...

www.marketwatch.com

Well, now we know how red state farmers, and Trump really think about socialism.

Where were all the demands for drug tests In exchange for getting federal handouts?

Your article missed the point of helping US farmers since China retaliated against them for Trump's tariffs:

Well, that just shows Trump's trade wars were kind of stupid, since they hurt America more than they hurt China.

Capitalism.

Try again.

Your article missed the point of helping US farmers since China retaliated against them for Trump's tariffs:

Well, that just shows Trump's trade wars were kind of stupid, since they hurt America more than they hurt China.

How did Trump's tariffs hurt the US??

U.S. farm bankruptcies hit an eight-year high: court data

Very true. Its hard to make a decent living on the family farm, especially the smaller farms. They get hit with bad weather, low prices, and other costs. I'm not surprised that we're losing 500 family farm a year. However, their farm isn't scrapped, its sold and bought by a more successful farmer.
Bottom line: Trump's tariffs have zero to do with the continual loss of small family farms.

Most importantly, thank you for staying civil and on topic in the face of repeated personal insults.
From what I’m seeing you are trying to have it both ways. First, you want government intervention through trying to discourage Americans from buying imports from specific countries (tariffs) and then you want a laissez-faire approach when huge industrial corporate owned farms take over smaller family owned farms. The irony here, from my perspective, is that if President Trump never started a trade war with China, the farmers (small and big alike) wouldn’t have needed the subsidies. This has also had the affect of artificially creating a business environment for farms that gives larger farms an advantage over smaller farms simply because their profit margins are so much bigger than smaller family run farms. So, it appears that while not creating this trend (not just in farming) of larger businesses taking over smaller ones, this policy has certainly expedited the move to the edge of financial insolvency for smaller businesses that rely on China as a major share of their market.

Capitalism.

What is happening with farmers isn't capitalism.

Farming has been socialism ever since the depression.

When the government pays farmers to not farm their land for the only reason to manipulated or control the means of production to keep the price of a commodity at a certain level, that's socialism.

That is the government controlling the means of production.

In a late October campaign appearance in Omaha, Neb., President Donald Trump said he believed farmers were better off getting government payments than relying solely on their farming receipts.

“In fact, some people say our farmers do better now than when they actually had a farm,” he said.

Many top farm states voted again for Trump in November, including Iowa, Nebraska, Texas and Kansas. Several, however, left Trump to vote for Democrat Joe Biden, including Wisconsin, Michigan and Georgia.

U.S. government checks constituted 40% of farmers' income in 2020: USDA

Iowa farmer says that without federal money it would have been difficult to make ends meet but that it began to feel as if the government checks were...

www.marketwatch.com

Well, now we know how red state farmers, and Trump really think about socialism.

Those trump tariffs lead to a giant farmer bailout. What a success!

Your article missed the point of helping US farmers since China retaliated against them for Trump's tariffs:

No one missed that taxes were taken from some to give to others.

OMG, it was TARIFF money given to farmers, NOT TAXES

Trump tariffs: How much is US collecting in revenue?

Federal spending continues to outpace revenue collection.

www.foxbusiness.com

The US collected $60b in tariffs from China and paid farmers $30b because China cut agri imports.
Stop with the whining already.

They didn't collect that from china, you twit. They collected it from us.

Good, real, productive, positive contributing Americans take great pride in investing in the "GENERAL WELFARE" of our nation, our food sources...We like ROi...We HATE investing in ShaQuita, her baby factory and marijuana inventory...we hate investing in Guadalupe and her litters of silver tooth filth...I can't figure out how you struggle with making simple distinctions.
Listen, lets do this one more time..Follow along.
Forcing good real productive Americans to invest in Guadalupe and her litters of filth = SOCIALISM
Forcing good real Americans to invest in the GENERAL WELFARE of the Republic = NOT SOCIALISM
Still confused?

So you are saying that white Christians are the only ones who have a right to enjoy the blessings of liberty and the su

How did you arrive at that?

 

[kyzr]

nm

Where were all the demands for drug tests In exchange for getting federal handouts?

How about drug testing the 535, there were demands for that too and well founded. Many have been on the fed dole all their lives. Still are. Test them, let the farmer alone and let him grow your food.

Anyone can take drugs. Why should only some welfare be subject to drug tests? Because it isn’t the right picture?

1. The number of opioid deaths keeps setting records, 81,000/yr recently

Opioid Deaths Reached Record Number, Says CDC Data -- Occupational Health & Safety

The NSC hopes that the new presidential administration will use their plan to address opioid misuse.

ohsonline.com

View attachment 436752

2. IMHO opioid deaths are simply chlorine in the gene pool, stupid is as stupid does.

3. The point of my post is that many companies require drug tests as required by their insurer, so druggies are less employable. Hence to get off welfare, get clean and get a job.

And that should apply to anyone getting federal subsidies, wouldn't you agree?

Agreed. We need to do something to address the opiod epidemic. CA is nothing but homeless, needles, and people fleeing. Food stamps, welfare, farm subsidies, unemployment checks, all should require periodic drug tests. Which population has the highest rate of addiction?? Any guess?

Unconstitutional.

Welfare, food stamps, farm subsidies, and unemployment checks are NOT in the Constitution, they are "charity". IMHO we can put strings on those subsidies, especially health related strings.

Unconstitutional. There is a reason it isn't being done and this is it.

OK, then we keep losing morons to drugs. An Amendment would fix the constitutionality, and there might be support for it as long as we keep losing 80,000 - 100,000 a year with needles and feces on the streets.

Much of it was created by the greed of the pharmaceutical companies.

The OxyContin issue was exacerbated by Big Pharma, but the Heroin and Fentanyl problems are China and the Drug Cartels. Putting Pharm companies out of business only does so much. Then they make "bathtub meth" and other "generics".

OxyContin Maker Purdue Pharma Reaches $8 Billion Settlement In Opioid Crisis Probe

The drugmaker has also pleaded guilty to three federal charges regarding its role in the crisis.

www.forbes.com

 

[pknopp]

nm

Where were all the demands for drug tests In exchange for getting federal handouts?

How about drug testing the 535, there were demands for that too and well founded. Many have been on the fed dole all their lives. Still are. Test them, let the farmer alone and let him grow your food.

Anyone can take drugs. Why should only some welfare be subject to drug tests? Because it isn’t the right picture?

1. The number of opioid deaths keeps setting records, 81,000/yr recently

Opioid Deaths Reached Record Number, Says CDC Data -- Occupational Health & Safety

The NSC hopes that the new presidential administration will use their plan to address opioid misuse.

ohsonline.com

View attachment 436752

2. IMHO opioid deaths are simply chlorine in the gene pool, stupid is as stupid does.

3. The point of my post is that many companies require drug tests as required by their insurer, so druggies are less employable. Hence to get off welfare, get clean and get a job.

And that should apply to anyone getting federal subsidies, wouldn't you agree?

Agreed. We need to do something to address the opiod epidemic. CA is nothing but homeless, needles, and people fleeing. Food stamps, welfare, farm subsidies, unemployment checks, all should require periodic drug tests. Which population has the highest rate of addiction?? Any guess?

Unconstitutional.

Welfare, food stamps, farm subsidies, and unemployment checks are NOT in the Constitution, they are "charity". IMHO we can put strings on those subsidies, especially health related strings.

Unconstitutional. There is a reason it isn't being done and this is it.

OK, then we keep losing morons to drugs. An Amendment would fix the constitutionality, and there might be support for it as long as we keep losing 80,000 - 100,000 a year with needles and feces on the streets.

Much of it was created by the greed of the pharmaceutical companies.

The OxyContin issue was exacerbated by Big Pharma, but the Heroin and Fentanyl problems are China and the Drug Cartels. Putting Pharm companies out of business only does so much. Then they make "bathtub meth" and other "generics".

OxyContin Maker Purdue Pharma Reaches $8 Billion Settlement In Opioid Crisis Probe

The drugmaker has also pleaded guilty to three federal charges regarding its role in the crisis.

www.forbes.com

The heroin issue was made worse by the US protecting the poppy fields in Afghanistan.

 

[kyzr]

nm

Where were all the demands for drug tests In exchange for getting federal handouts?

How about drug testing the 535, there were demands for that too and well founded. Many have been on the fed dole all their lives. Still are. Test them, let the farmer alone and let him grow your food.

Anyone can take drugs. Why should only some welfare be subject to drug tests? Because it isn’t the right picture?

1. The number of opioid deaths keeps setting records, 81,000/yr recently

Opioid Deaths Reached Record Number, Says CDC Data -- Occupational Health & Safety

The NSC hopes that the new presidential administration will use their plan to address opioid misuse.

ohsonline.com

View attachment 436752

2. IMHO opioid deaths are simply chlorine in the gene pool, stupid is as stupid does.

3. The point of my post is that many companies require drug tests as required by their insurer, so druggies are less employable. Hence to get off welfare, get clean and get a job.

And that should apply to anyone getting federal subsidies, wouldn't you agree?

Agreed. We need to do something to address the opiod epidemic. CA is nothing but homeless, needles, and people fleeing. Food stamps, welfare, farm subsidies, unemployment checks, all should require periodic drug tests. Which population has the highest rate of addiction?? Any guess?

Unconstitutional.

Welfare, food stamps, farm subsidies, and unemployment checks are NOT in the Constitution, they are "charity". IMHO we can put strings on those subsidies, especially health related strings.

Unconstitutional. There is a reason it isn't being done and this is it.

OK, then we keep losing morons to drugs. An Amendment would fix the constitutionality, and there might be support for it as long as we keep losing 80,000 - 100,000 a year with needles and feces on the streets.

Much of it was created by the greed of the pharmaceutical companies.

The OxyContin issue was exacerbated by Big Pharma, but the Heroin and Fentanyl problems are China and the Drug Cartels. Putting Pharm companies out of business only does so much. Then they make "bathtub meth" and other "generics".

OxyContin Maker Purdue Pharma Reaches $8 Billion Settlement In Opioid Crisis Probe

The drugmaker has also pleaded guilty to three federal charges regarding its role in the crisis.

www.forbes.com

The heroin issue was made worse by the US protecting the poppy fields in Afghanistan.

Obama ordered the poppy fields protected. Trump

U.S. Marines protect Afghan’s poppy fields | Canada Free Press

Obama’s First Order: Don’t Hurt the Heroin, U.S. Marines protect Afghan's poppy fields, Taliban infested Helmand Province in southern Afghanistan, world’s largest cultivator of opium poppies

canadafreepress.com

Richard Holbrooke, the Obama Administration’s top envoy in Afghanistan, says that poppy eradication - for years a cornerstone of U.S. and U.N. anti-drug efforts in the country – has only resulted in driving Afghan farmers into the hands of the Taliban.

Trump ordered the poppy fields destroyed:

Trump's Airstrikes Destroy Acres of Poppy Fields, Ends Afghanistan's Opium Trade

Taliban’s a top funding source of heroin cut off by US - The Trump administrations relentless airstrikes on the vast opium fields in southern Afghan... | NEON NETTLE

neonnettle.com

 

[pknopp]

nm

Where were all the demands for drug tests In exchange for getting federal handouts?

How about drug testing the 535, there were demands for that too and well founded. Many have been on the fed dole all their lives. Still are. Test them, let the farmer alone and let him grow your food.

Anyone can take drugs. Why should only some welfare be subject to drug tests? Because it isn’t the right picture?

1. The number of opioid deaths keeps setting records, 81,000/yr recently

Opioid Deaths Reached Record Number, Says CDC Data -- Occupational Health & Safety

The NSC hopes that the new presidential administration will use their plan to address opioid misuse.

ohsonline.com

View attachment 436752

2. IMHO opioid deaths are simply chlorine in the gene pool, stupid is as stupid does.

3. The point of my post is that many companies require drug tests as required by their insurer, so druggies are less employable. Hence to get off welfare, get clean and get a job.

And that should apply to anyone getting federal subsidies, wouldn't you agree?

Agreed. We need to do something to address the opiod epidemic. CA is nothing but homeless, needles, and people fleeing. Food stamps, welfare, farm subsidies, unemployment checks, all should require periodic drug tests. Which population has the highest rate of addiction?? Any guess?

Unconstitutional.

Welfare, food stamps, farm subsidies, and unemployment checks are NOT in the Constitution, they are "charity". IMHO we can put strings on those subsidies, especially health related strings.

Unconstitutional. There is a reason it isn't being done and this is it.

OK, then we keep losing morons to drugs. An Amendment would fix the constitutionality, and there might be support for it as long as we keep losing 80,000 - 100,000 a year with needles and feces on the streets.

Much of it was created by the greed of the pharmaceutical companies.

The OxyContin issue was exacerbated by Big Pharma, but the Heroin and Fentanyl problems are China and the Drug Cartels. Putting Pharm companies out of business only does so much. Then they make "bathtub meth" and other "generics".

OxyContin Maker Purdue Pharma Reaches $8 Billion Settlement In Opioid Crisis Probe

The drugmaker has also pleaded guilty to three federal charges regarding its role in the crisis.

www.forbes.com

The heroin issue was made worse by the US protecting the poppy fields in Afghanistan.

Obama ordered the poppy fields protected. Trump

U.S. Marines protect Afghan’s poppy fields | Canada Free Press

Obama’s First Order: Don’t Hurt the Heroin, U.S. Marines protect Afghan's poppy fields, Taliban infested Helmand Province in southern Afghanistan, world’s largest cultivator of opium poppies

canadafreepress.com

Richard Holbrooke, the Obama Administration’s top envoy in Afghanistan, says that poppy eradication - for years a cornerstone of U.S. and U.N. anti-drug efforts in the country – has only resulted in driving Afghan farmers into the hands of the Taliban.

Trump ordered the poppy fields destroyed:

Trump's Airstrikes Destroy Acres of Poppy Fields, Ends Afghanistan's Opium Trade

Taliban’s a top funding source of heroin cut off by US - The Trump administrations relentless airstrikes on the vast opium fields in southern Afghan... | NEON NETTLE

neonnettle.com

Afghanistan production increased. Your article is from 2018.

The U.S. Sent Its Most Advanced Fighter Jets to Blow Up Cheap Opium Labs. Now It's Canceling the Program

Trump failed.

 

[EL Rich]

In a late October campaign appearance in Omaha, Neb., President Donald Trump said he believed farmers were better off getting government payments than relying solely on their farming receipts.

“In fact, some people say our farmers do better now than when they actually had a farm,” he said.

Many top farm states voted again for Trump in November, including Iowa, Nebraska, Texas and Kansas. Several, however, left Trump to vote for Democrat Joe Biden, including Wisconsin, Michigan and Georgia.

U.S. government checks constituted 40% of farmers' income in 2020: USDA

Iowa farmer says that without federal money it would have been difficult to make ends meet but that it began to feel as if the government checks were...

www.marketwatch.com

Well, now we know how red state farmers, and Trump really think about socialism.

Capitalism.

Your article missed the point of helping US farmers since China retaliated against them for Trump's tariffs:

No one missed that taxes were taken from some to give to others.

Damn welfare slugs..

Farm welfare is one of the biggest government programs out there.

In a late October campaign appearance in Omaha, Neb., President Donald Trump said he believed farmers were better off getting government payments than relying solely on their farming receipts.

“In fact, some people say our farmers do better now than when they actually had a farm,” he said.

Many top farm states voted again for Trump in November, including Iowa, Nebraska, Texas and Kansas. Several, however, left Trump to vote for Democrat Joe Biden, including Wisconsin, Michigan and Georgia.

U.S. government checks constituted 40% of farmers' income in 2020: USDA

Iowa farmer says that without federal money it would have been difficult to make ends meet but that it began to feel as if the government checks were...

www.marketwatch.com

Well, now we know how red state farmers, and Trump really think about socialism.

Where were all the demands for drug tests In exchange for getting federal handouts?

Your article missed the point of helping US farmers since China retaliated against them for Trump's tariffs:

Well, that just shows Trump's trade wars were kind of stupid, since they hurt America more than they hurt China.

Capitalism.

Try again.

Your article missed the point of helping US farmers since China retaliated against them for Trump's tariffs:

Well, that just shows Trump's trade wars were kind of stupid, since they hurt America more than they hurt China.

How did Trump's tariffs hurt the US??

U.S. farm bankruptcies hit an eight-year high: court data

Very true. Its hard to make a decent living on the family farm, especially the smaller farms. They get hit with bad weather, low prices, and other costs. I'm not surprised that we're losing 500 family farm a year. However, their farm isn't scrapped, its sold and bought by a more successful farmer.
Bottom line: Trump's tariffs have zero to do with the continual loss of small family farms.

Most importantly, thank you for staying civil and on topic in the face of repeated personal insults.
From what I’m seeing you are trying to have it both ways. First, you want government intervention through trying to discourage Americans from buying imports from specific countries (tariffs) and then you want a laissez-faire approach when huge industrial corporate owned farms take over smaller family owned farms. The irony here, from my perspective, is that if President Trump never started a trade war with China, the farmers (small and big alike) wouldn’t have needed the subsidies. This has also had the affect of artificially creating a business environment for farms that gives larger farms an advantage over smaller farms simply because their profit margins are so much bigger than smaller family run farms. So, it appears that while not creating this trend (not just in farming) of larger businesses taking over smaller ones, this policy has certainly expedited the move to the edge of financial insolvency for smaller businesses that rely on China as a major share of their market.

Capitalism.

What is happening with farmers isn't capitalism.

Farming has been socialism ever since the depression.

When the government pays farmers to not farm their land for the only reason to manipulated or control the means of production to keep the price of a commodity at a certain level, that's socialism.

That is the government controlling the means of production.

In a late October campaign appearance in Omaha, Neb., President Donald Trump said he believed farmers were better off getting government payments than relying solely on their farming receipts.

“In fact, some people say our farmers do better now than when they actually had a farm,” he said.

Many top farm states voted again for Trump in November, including Iowa, Nebraska, Texas and Kansas. Several, however, left Trump to vote for Democrat Joe Biden, including Wisconsin, Michigan and Georgia.

U.S. government checks constituted 40% of farmers' income in 2020: USDA

Iowa farmer says that without federal money it would have been difficult to make ends meet but that it began to feel as if the government checks were...

www.marketwatch.com

Well, now we know how red state farmers, and Trump really think about socialism.

Those trump tariffs lead to a giant farmer bailout. What a success!

Your article missed the point of helping US farmers since China retaliated against them for Trump's tariffs:

No one missed that taxes were taken from some to give to others.

OMG, it was TARIFF money given to farmers, NOT TAXES

Trump tariffs: How much is US collecting in revenue?

Federal spending continues to outpace revenue collection.

www.foxbusiness.com

The US collected $60b in tariffs from China and paid farmers $30b because China cut agri imports.
Stop with the whining already.

They didn't collect that from china, you twit. They collected it from us.

Good, real, productive, positive contributing Americans take great pride in investing in the "GENERAL WELFARE" of our nation, our food sources...We like ROi...We HATE investing in ShaQuita, her baby factory and marijuana inventory...we hate investing in Guadalupe and her litters of silver tooth filth...I can't figure out how you struggle with making simple distinctions.
Listen, lets do this one more time..Follow along.
Forcing good real productive Americans to invest in Guadalupe and her litters of filth = SOCIALISM
Forcing good real Americans to invest in the GENERAL WELFARE of the Republic = NOT SOCIALISM
Still confused?

So you are saying that white Christians are the only ones who have a right to enjoy the blessings of liberty and the su

How did you arrive at that?

I arrived there because you seem to think welfare provided to farmers is simply strengthening the Republic and aid to urban populations (like the way I squeezed in a liberal term that is racist there?) is socialism. Or have I misread your use of ShaQuita and Guadalupe when Crystal or Cierra would have worked just as well?

 

[kyzr]

nm

Where were all the demands for drug tests In exchange for getting federal handouts?

How about drug testing the 535, there were demands for that too and well founded. Many have been on the fed dole all their lives. Still are. Test them, let the farmer alone and let him grow your food.

Anyone can take drugs. Why should only some welfare be subject to drug tests? Because it isn’t the right picture?

1. The number of opioid deaths keeps setting records, 81,000/yr recently

Opioid Deaths Reached Record Number, Says CDC Data -- Occupational Health & Safety

The NSC hopes that the new presidential administration will use their plan to address opioid misuse.

ohsonline.com

View attachment 436752

2. IMHO opioid deaths are simply chlorine in the gene pool, stupid is as stupid does.

3. The point of my post is that many companies require drug tests as required by their insurer, so druggies are less employable. Hence to get off welfare, get clean and get a job.

And that should apply to anyone getting federal subsidies, wouldn't you agree?

Agreed. We need to do something to address the opiod epidemic. CA is nothing but homeless, needles, and people fleeing. Food stamps, welfare, farm subsidies, unemployment checks, all should require periodic drug tests. Which population has the highest rate of addiction?? Any guess?

Unconstitutional.

Welfare, food stamps, farm subsidies, and unemployment checks are NOT in the Constitution, they are "charity". IMHO we can put strings on those subsidies, especially health related strings.

Unconstitutional. There is a reason it isn't being done and this is it.

OK, then we keep losing morons to drugs. An Amendment would fix the constitutionality, and there might be support for it as long as we keep losing 80,000 - 100,000 a year with needles and feces on the streets.

Much of it was created by the greed of the pharmaceutical companies.

The OxyContin issue was exacerbated by Big Pharma, but the Heroin and Fentanyl problems are China and the Drug Cartels. Putting Pharm companies out of business only does so much. Then they make "bathtub meth" and other "generics".

OxyContin Maker Purdue Pharma Reaches $8 Billion Settlement In Opioid Crisis Probe

The drugmaker has also pleaded guilty to three federal charges regarding its role in the crisis.

www.forbes.com

The heroin issue was made worse by the US protecting the poppy fields in Afghanistan.

Obama ordered the poppy fields protected. Trump

U.S. Marines protect Afghan’s poppy fields | Canada Free Press

Obama’s First Order: Don’t Hurt the Heroin, U.S. Marines protect Afghan's poppy fields, Taliban infested Helmand Province in southern Afghanistan, world’s largest cultivator of opium poppies

canadafreepress.com

Richard Holbrooke, the Obama Administration’s top envoy in Afghanistan, says that poppy eradication - for years a cornerstone of U.S. and U.N. anti-drug efforts in the country – has only resulted in driving Afghan farmers into the hands of the Taliban.

Trump ordered the poppy fields destroyed:

Trump's Airstrikes Destroy Acres of Poppy Fields, Ends Afghanistan's Opium Trade

Taliban’s a top funding source of heroin cut off by US - The Trump administrations relentless airstrikes on the vast opium fields in southern Afghan... | NEON NETTLE

neonnettle.com

Afghanistan production increased. Your article is from 2018.

The U.S. Sent Its Most Advanced Fighter Jets to Blow Up Cheap Opium Labs. Now It's Canceling the Program

Trump failed.

You missed the point. 93% of opium comes from AFG.
Obama ordered the US troops to protect the poppy fields
Trump ordered the poppy fields destroyed.

Whose policy do you support considering 80,000 US deaths a year from opioids?
Lets watch what happens to US opioid deaths under Biden.

 

[Moonglow]

They use the opium fields to negotiate a strategy of pacification and then Trump comes along and disrupts a previous process....The opioid problem was not created by Afghanistan or the poppy fields.

 

[BrokeLoser]

In a late October campaign appearance in Omaha, Neb., President Donald Trump said he believed farmers were better off getting government payments than relying solely on their farming receipts.

“In fact, some people say our farmers do better now than when they actually had a farm,” he said.

Many top farm states voted again for Trump in November, including Iowa, Nebraska, Texas and Kansas. Several, however, left Trump to vote for Democrat Joe Biden, including Wisconsin, Michigan and Georgia.

U.S. government checks constituted 40% of farmers' income in 2020: USDA

Iowa farmer says that without federal money it would have been difficult to make ends meet but that it began to feel as if the government checks were...

www.marketwatch.com

Well, now we know how red state farmers, and Trump really think about socialism.

Capitalism.

Your article missed the point of helping US farmers since China retaliated against them for Trump's tariffs:

No one missed that taxes were taken from some to give to others.

Damn welfare slugs..

Farm welfare is one of the biggest government programs out there.

In a late October campaign appearance in Omaha, Neb., President Donald Trump said he believed farmers were better off getting government payments than relying solely on their farming receipts.

“In fact, some people say our farmers do better now than when they actually had a farm,” he said.

Many top farm states voted again for Trump in November, including Iowa, Nebraska, Texas and Kansas. Several, however, left Trump to vote for Democrat Joe Biden, including Wisconsin, Michigan and Georgia.

U.S. government checks constituted 40% of farmers' income in 2020: USDA

Iowa farmer says that without federal money it would have been difficult to make ends meet but that it began to feel as if the government checks were...

www.marketwatch.com

Well, now we know how red state farmers, and Trump really think about socialism.

Where were all the demands for drug tests In exchange for getting federal handouts?

Your article missed the point of helping US farmers since China retaliated against them for Trump's tariffs:

Well, that just shows Trump's trade wars were kind of stupid, since they hurt America more than they hurt China.

Capitalism.

Try again.

Your article missed the point of helping US farmers since China retaliated against them for Trump's tariffs:

Well, that just shows Trump's trade wars were kind of stupid, since they hurt America more than they hurt China.

How did Trump's tariffs hurt the US??

U.S. farm bankruptcies hit an eight-year high: court data

Very true. Its hard to make a decent living on the family farm, especially the smaller farms. They get hit with bad weather, low prices, and other costs. I'm not surprised that we're losing 500 family farm a year. However, their farm isn't scrapped, its sold and bought by a more successful farmer.
Bottom line: Trump's tariffs have zero to do with the continual loss of small family farms.

Most importantly, thank you for staying civil and on topic in the face of repeated personal insults.
From what I’m seeing you are trying to have it both ways. First, you want government intervention through trying to discourage Americans from buying imports from specific countries (tariffs) and then you want a laissez-faire approach when huge industrial corporate owned farms take over smaller family owned farms. The irony here, from my perspective, is that if President Trump never started a trade war with China, the farmers (small and big alike) wouldn’t have needed the subsidies. This has also had the affect of artificially creating a business environment for farms that gives larger farms an advantage over smaller farms simply because their profit margins are so much bigger than smaller family run farms. So, it appears that while not creating this trend (not just in farming) of larger businesses taking over smaller ones, this policy has certainly expedited the move to the edge of financial insolvency for smaller businesses that rely on China as a major share of their market.

Capitalism.

What is happening with farmers isn't capitalism.

Farming has been socialism ever since the depression.

When the government pays farmers to not farm their land for the only reason to manipulated or control the means of production to keep the price of a commodity at a certain level, that's socialism.

That is the government controlling the means of production.

In a late October campaign appearance in Omaha, Neb., President Donald Trump said he believed farmers were better off getting government payments than relying solely on their farming receipts.

“In fact, some people say our farmers do better now than when they actually had a farm,” he said.

Many top farm states voted again for Trump in November, including Iowa, Nebraska, Texas and Kansas. Several, however, left Trump to vote for Democrat Joe Biden, including Wisconsin, Michigan and Georgia.

U.S. government checks constituted 40% of farmers' income in 2020: USDA

Iowa farmer says that without federal money it would have been difficult to make ends meet but that it began to feel as if the government checks were...

www.marketwatch.com

Well, now we know how red state farmers, and Trump really think about socialism.

Those trump tariffs lead to a giant farmer bailout. What a success!

Your article missed the point of helping US farmers since China retaliated against them for Trump's tariffs:

No one missed that taxes were taken from some to give to others.

OMG, it was TARIFF money given to farmers, NOT TAXES

Trump tariffs: How much is US collecting in revenue?

Federal spending continues to outpace revenue collection.

www.foxbusiness.com

The US collected $60b in tariffs from China and paid farmers $30b because China cut agri imports.
Stop with the whining already.

They didn't collect that from china, you twit. They collected it from us.

Good, real, productive, positive contributing Americans take great pride in investing in the "GENERAL WELFARE" of our nation, our food sources...We like ROi...We HATE investing in ShaQuita, her baby factory and marijuana inventory...we hate investing in Guadalupe and her litters of silver tooth filth...I can't figure out how you struggle with making simple distinctions.
Listen, lets do this one more time..Follow along.
Forcing good real productive Americans to invest in Guadalupe and her litters of filth = SOCIALISM
Forcing good real Americans to invest in the GENERAL WELFARE of the Republic = NOT SOCIALISM
Still confused?

So you are saying that white Christians are the only ones who have a right to enjoy the blessings of liberty and the su

How did you arrive at that?

I arrived there because you seem to think welfare provided to farmers is simply strengthening the Republic and aid to urban populations (like the way I squeezed in a liberal term that is racist there?) is socialism. Or have I misread your use of ShaQuita and Guadalupe when Crystal or Cierra would have worked just as well?

The racist fact is; darkies are 300-400% more likely to be a human pet to taxpayers so my use of dark people names is quite fitting and lets be honest, you can’t give two shits about poor Caucasian folks as they are way too likely to study Trumpology.
Anyhoo...you really need to familiarize yourself with the framers intent and what “PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE” means.
Society in GENERAL must benefit by every tax dollar spent.
What else can I teach you today?