Post #193,425
2/7/05 1:10:46 PM
|
Actually no...
In one sense, Bush's policy here is right though. In the long run, removing subsidies is in the interest of the farmers and the country. Or rather, it is in the interest of the farmers that will survive. The whole thing could be handled vastly better then Bush's plan to simply cut the money and let the chips fall where they may.
An American farmer raising a family of 4 cannot compete with a farmer in a 3rd world country raising his family on $50 a year. Furthermore, while it may be in the economic interest to cut our American farmers and allow other countries to raise our food, I'm not certain it's in our best self-defense interests.
But you do indirectly have a point here. I have seen quite a few liberals complaining that people are being stupid for voting for Bush because it goes against the interest of their class or against the finances of their class. Which is odd, since it is essentially saying that they where not greedy enough to vote democrat.
Voting against Bush because you think he is ruining the economy is a good thing, and against him because you think he favors the rich over the poor is sensible, even voting against him because you think the government needs to support the poor better is a valid idea. Voting against him because you think Kerry would direct more subsidies your way is bad.
And you think these cuts are going to affect ADM? Shrug. There's two arguments: Is what a politican doing good for the country? is what a politican doing good for you? If they voted for Bush because they thought he'd do the best job for the country -- shrug. If they voted for Bush because "he's a straight up guy and I can trust him...." -- suckers.
|
Post #193,460
2/7/05 3:44:36 PM
|
Re: Actually no...
In one sense, Bush's policy here is right though. In the long run, removing subsidies is in the interest of the farmers and the country. Or rather, it is in the interest of the farmers that will survive. The whole thing could be handled vastly better then Bush's plan to simply cut the money and let the chips fall where they may.
An American farmer raising a family of 4 cannot compete with a farmer in a 3rd world country raising his family on $50 a year.
Furthermore, while it may be in the economic interest to cut our American farmers and allow other countries to raise our food, I'm not certain it's in our best self-defense interests.
My point about subsidies is that in the long run they generally don't end up in the hand of the people you want them to. Subsidies support a company or person that is having their finances squeezed out of them by some other economic force. But the subsidy doesn't make that force go away, and eventually the same force that killed their profit will eat the subsidy. For example, lets say company A makes something that costs them $10 per unit to make. But company A can't make any money becuase they have to distribute the product through company B that will only buy them for $11 each. The government then decides to subsidize company A for $2 per unit, to support the company. What happens after that is that company B decides to lower it's offer to $9 per unit. It might take a while depending on how much company B thinks it can get away with, and how much economic pressure they can apply, but that will be the result eventually. The end result is that Company A is still nearly broke, and Company B is getting the subsidy. And that is the fundamental problem with long term subsidies, and why many farmers can't make any money despite heavy subsidies. If the government really wants to protect US farmers against low paid foreign farmers, then tariffs on imports is the better solution. And I do agree that a country has a vested interest in protecting enough of it's food market to support itself. Shrug. There's two arguments:
Is what a politican doing good for the country?
is what a politican doing good for you?
If they voted for Bush because they thought he'd do the best job for the country -- shrug.
If they voted for Bush because "he's a straight up guy and I can trust him...." -- suckers. If they voted for Bush because they think they can trust him, then they are suckers. What I was commenting on is the number of liberals that think people where stupid for voting for Bush because voting for Bush was against their monetary self interest. Jay
|
Post #193,463
2/7/05 3:57:57 PM
|
s/shrug/idiots/
Bush may be bad for particular people, but he's also bad for the country as a whole as well.
I think that this is likely to be clear even to most current supporters within 10 years.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #193,465
2/7/05 4:06:25 PM
|
I guess what I was trying to say...
If they voted for Bush because they think they can trust him, then they are suckers. What I was commenting on is the number of liberals that think people where stupid for voting for Bush because voting for Bush was against their monetary self interest.
is that there's only two reasons (well one actually) for voting for a politican, you think they're going to do something for you. (Either directly or indirectly) Liberal are no better or worse than conservatives on this.
|
Post #193,468
2/7/05 4:28:34 PM
|
And you're wrong on that
There are also people who vote for someone because they believe that that someone will do the right thing, even though it may be personally inconvenient.
Like someone returning a stranger's wallet, it is something that is easy to mock, but happens more than we think.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #193,530
2/7/05 11:12:47 PM
|
<grin> I'm not sure that that's not
doing something for you...indirectly. :-) As such an individual would lead to better government (and less corruption) which would (eventually) benefit you again, no?
|
Post #193,535
2/8/05 12:03:08 AM
|
That would be a big stretch
With enough work you can coerce any theory into your preconceptions.
The better way to reach in this case is to note that it is a benefit to me for me to see things that I want to happen, happen.
This, of course, pushes the problem down one level, and we're now left to wonder if people only want things of benefit to themselves. (The answer to which may depend on how we define "benefit".)
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #193,754
2/8/05 11:45:35 PM
|
Perhaps...
but I guess I don't look at the situation as a us-vs-them approach whereas they are evil (or greedy) and we're wholesome (and perhaps stupid. ;-)).
Each group works toward their own self-interest to some degree and to their vision for the country. I'm not about to claim their vision is evil as I believe that is intellectually dishonest. I do have lots of problems with their vision for the country, for a variety of reasons, and am more than willing to point those out.
But I won't be dishonest with myself to claim that I'm not working toward my own vision and my own self-interests.
Back to the original post (to tie it all back together again), I don't agree with Bush's tactics for cutting subsidies to the farmers will bring lower food prices to Americans (or that it's beneficial to our farmers). I do agree with Jay that tariffs are a better solution than subsides.
And yes, I think (as a liberal) that if you voted for Bush and are now getting nailed by his polities, you're getting what you deserve and have no right to complain.
|
Post #193,547
2/8/05 8:58:17 AM
|
B.S.
Simon pontificates:
is that there's only two reasons (well one actually) for voting for a politican, you think they're going to do something for you. (Either directly or indirectly)
Liberal are no better or worse than conservatives on this.
A "liberal" (whatever that means) like me supports/votes for politicians whose policies are never targetted for my personal benefit. I have never voted for a politician on the basis of self-interest. Recent example: in a move uncommonly progressive for a Repo-man, our new governor - W's former Budget Chief - Mitch Daniels recently called for a one-time-only additional 1% state income tax on all those Hoosiers (all 6% of them) who have an adjusted gross income above $100,000. That alone would balance the books (i.e. the school budgets, state aid for the poor, etc.)
Most of the people in that group are - rightly - Republicans. I am fortunate to find myself in that group. I wrote the governor congratulating him on this move and asked him (in kinder words) why in hell if it balanced the budget to do that would he not make that additional 1% permanent as opposed to slashing programs to help 94% of the state's population.
(Aside: this is a typical Repo policy, sacrifice ~95% of the population for the benefit of the ~5%. It's also consistent with the way capitalists think.)
Note: If he had made this proposal during the campaign, moreover, if he had made the case for a permanent 1% tax for those in the top 6%, he would have gotten my vote. So there is an example of a "liberal" voting intentionally against his self-interest.
The difference between "liberals" and "conservatives" is that so-called conservatives vote exclusively in their own self-interest, liberals vote in the interest of everyone. There is a HUGE difference between them.
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
(Just trying to be accepted in the New America)
|
Post #193,585
2/8/05 11:12:34 AM
|
You've just got a different definition of self-interest. :)
Having the plebes cared for so they don't put you up against the wall and shoot you when the revolution comes is, while more long-term, definitely in your own self-interest.
"Here at Ortillery Command we have at our disposal hundred megawatt laser beams, mach 20 titanium rods and guided thermonuclear bombs. Some people say we think that we're God. We're not God. We just borrowed his 'SMITE' button for our fire control system."
|
Post #193,598
2/8/05 12:11:20 PM
2/8/05 12:11:41 PM
|
Naw, if that's what I was worried about.
I'd support Dub in his efforts to eliminate liberty for "the great unwashed." ;0)
Besides, the revolution will, of course, need "professional revolutionaries" and that's what I plan to be. :-)
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
(Just trying to be accepted in the New America)
Edited by mmoffitt
Feb. 8, 2005, 12:11:41 PM EST
|
Post #193,759
2/9/05 12:20:05 AM
|
Perhaps...
but I think, if you look, you'll find issues where conservates voted and the politicans didn't receive a dime. Furthermore, while you state that you're a liberal and voting for the interest of everyone...you didn't state how voting to increase a tax of 1% would be in the interests of everyone. Most conservates would point out that we're rescuing our government, by allowing them to go to the well without learning fiscal discipline. The goal isn't to allow kids to suffer at school but rather to force government to eliminate waste. (And our government specialises in creating waste) Likewise, most liberal would point out that our government is very good at creating waste and politicans salaries simply don't go down when there's a revenue shortfall. The only people to suffer are those who can't defend themselves politicially (usually kids). Furthermore the long term costs of failing to provide for the kids now grow over the years. (Pay me now or pay me later.) There's different views.
Your enemy is never a villain in his own eyes. Keep this in mind; it may offer a way to make him your friend. If not, you can kill him without hate -- and quickly.
-- Robert A. Heinlein, Notebooks of Lazarus
|
Post #193,805
2/9/05 2:21:05 PM
|
But the politicians salaries are NEVER on the block.
Even if I grant the outrageous supposition that "conservative politicians" are motivated by fiscal responsibility - cough, cough, GAG! - how do 'splain that a personal pay-cut is never a part of their efforts?
Furthermore, while you state that you're a liberal and voting for the interest of everyone...you didn't state how voting to increase a tax of 1% would be in the interests of everyone.
You make a good point. That was a judgement on my part. See, I think that hiring enough teachers so that a 35:1 student/teacher ratio is reduced, fixing crumbling public schools, providing Medicaid to the poor, mental health services to those who need them, not charging public school children "book rental fees" for non-existent books, etc., in short all the things that the additional estimated $260 million dollars could buy, but the governor says must be cut, is in everyone's interest. Others disagree. They're called Republicans. And Indiana is lousy with them.
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
(Just trying to be accepted in the New America)
|
Post #193,577
2/8/05 10:38:10 AM
|
Nah, not for you... TO you.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
