Now I think John Thune and Mike Rounds are just hazing the rookie, Dusty Johnson.
Back in April, U.S. House candidate Dusty Johnson predicted that this year’s Congress would fail to pass a Farm Bill. After winning election, Congressman-Elect Johnson said the first big thing he wanted to work on in Washington was the still-stalled Farm Bill.
Now Senators Thune and Rounds are working to take the pleasure of rightness and rectification away from Dusty by passing a big bipartisan Farm Bill through the Senate on an 87–13 vote.
Of course, like the celebration of big government grants for road construction in South Dakota, Senator Rounds’s press release on this late vote (Farm Bill should have been in place October 1, providing farmers certainty and support from the beginning of the federal fiscal year) is a hilarious celebration of even bigger government. Every plank Rounds highlights is a liberal expansion of government effort to intervene in the free market:
The farm bill includes a number of priorities Rounds has pushed for in farm bill negotiations:
- Strengthens safety net programs such as crop insurance;
- Allows for re-enrollment for producers utilizing commodity programs under Title I, specifically Price-Loss Coverage (PLC) and Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC);
- Increases the cap for Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) acres from 24 million acres to 27 million acres, with 2 million acres reserved for grasslands;
- Establishes an Animal Disease and Preparedness Program, which includes a vaccination bank to combat economic, food and national security concerns;
- Increases the total Farm Service Agency (FSA) Guaranteed Loan Program’s individual cap on Ownership and Operating Loans from $1.399 million to $1.75 million. Rounds called for an increase to these individual loan caps in the FSA Loan Guarantee Enhancement Act that he introduced;
- Establishes a Rural Health Liaison position to work in coordination with the Department of Health and Human Services to improve rural health care delivery. This measure is based on legislation Rounds sponsored [Senator M. Michael Rounds, press release, 2018.12.11].
Of course, neither Senator Rounds nor Senator John Thune mentions the cost—$867 billion over ten years. The Cato Institute does, with disgust:
…Congress is set to pass an $867 billion farm/food stamp bill with virtually no smaller-government reforms, and the president will probably sign it. The 800-page bill is backed by an 800-pound lobbying gorilla with two muscular arms—the farm lobby and the anti-poverty lobby.
Where does an 800-pound gorilla sit? Wherever it wants to, including on American taxpayers.
I said the bill is “appalling.” Heritage says it is a “nightmare.” NTU says it will “expand welfare to the wealthy.” R Street and AFP say it is “a huge jumble of subsidies” [Chris Edwards, “Farm Bill: 800 Pages from an 800-Pound Gorilla“, Cato Institute, 2018.12.11].
Among the meager nays was welfare-farmer and Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley, who agrees with Cato that the Farm Bill should have done something to reduce the number of rich farmers receiving farm subsidies:
…Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley… says the top 10 percent of farmers will receive more than 70 percent of the farm subsidies.
“To say I’m disappointed the bill makes more subsidies available to the wealthiest farmers and many non-farmers is a severe understatement,” Grassley said on the Senate floor.
“Today we have a farm bill that is intentionally written to have the largest farmers received unlimited subsidies from the federal government. There is no other way to characterize what the conference committee has done.”
Grassley said part of why he voted “No” on the 2018 Farm Bill is because it does not set limits on subsidies that he has sought for several years. Grassley is one of two farmers in Senate, but he voted against the 2018 Farm Bill in part because it makes more distant relatives of farmers, such as cousins, nieces and nephews, eligible to share in federal subsidies [Dan Flynn, “$867 Billion Farm Bill Now Moving Quickly Through Lame-Duck Congress,” Food Safety News, 2018.12.12].
Farm Bill 2018 moved because lawmakers struck the work requirements that Trump and election-lamed House Republicans had pushed for. Farm Bill 2018 is a win for Democrats, a win for hungry low-income Americans, and a win for farmers big and small, who get some much needed certainty in the fact of the ongoing Trump tariffs:
The deal is a win for Democrats, who unanimously opposed the House plan to impose stricter work requirements on millions of participants in SNAP, formerly known as food stamps. SNAP helps nearly 40 million low-income Americans buy groceries and accounts for more than 75 percent of the farm bill’s total price tag.
…Trump has repeatedly said he wanted the farm bill to include stricter SNAP work rules, but lawmakers told reporters the president is expected to sign the final deal even though it lacks those provisions. Republicans and Democrats are betting Trump will choose to give farmers certainty by locking in farm and nutrition policy over the next five years. Producers have been struggling with low commodity prices, which have worsened as a result of retaliatory tariffs precipitated by Trump’s trade agenda [Catherina Boudreau and Helena Bottemiller Evich, “Farm Bill Compromise Primed for Passage,” Politico, 2018.12.11].
Farm Bill 2018 does bring us hemp, which word appears in the 807-page document 114 times. The bill lets states and tribes apply to USDA to allow hemp cultivation for any use (with a plan, of course, to measure THC levels and watch for sneaky growers of smokin’-weed) and directs the Secretary of Agriculture to “determine the economic viability of the domestic production and sale of industrial hemp” by supporting pilot programs and research and to submit to Congress a report on this study within twelve months of enactment of the bill. For the hempification of America, thank Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who signed the Farm Bill conference report with a pen made from Kentucky hemp:
Making it official with my hemp pen!🖋️ Proud to have served as conferee on #FarmBill & to fight for #Kentucky priorities. With today’s signature, my provision to legalize industrial #hemp is 1 step closer to reality. Looking forward to voting YES on this bill & sending to @POTUS pic.twitter.com/8ypwBebXy7
— Leader McConnell (@senatemajldr) December 10, 2018
(Order your hemp pen today from Green Spring Technologies… founded by veterans!)
Legalized hemp? On top of all those liberal, big-government handouts? And no follow-through on those get=tough work requirements? Jeepers, maybe our pretend-Republican Senators are hazing all of us, not just Dusty.
But don’t fret, Dusty! You’ve still got plenty of other farm issues to work on, like ending the Trump tariffs that are threatening South Dakota farmers.
Only fitting that hemp comes in the front door as Jackley gets booted from the back door. Life is funny like that.
Hemp is the perfect example of horrible, reactive policy finally overturned. Good for the environment, many uses but demonized as part of “reefer madness” an innocent, useful plant condemned by politics BUT Cory is eager to have our government dictate environment and climate change policies. Scary. We don’t have a good history of sensible policies.
Cory was against government before he was for it. . .
“Price-Loss Coverage (PLC) and Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC)”
“Animal Disease and Preparedness Program, which includes a vaccination bank to combat economic, food and national security concerns”
Would someone with some expertise explain what these 3 items are for me? I’d really appreciate it. (Not you OS, Jason or Grudz. I asked for “expertise.”)
The environment dictations was needed and Nixon put it into play. Thirteen times the Cuyahoga River in Ohio caught fire, before the Clean Water Act was signed into law. camper is so anti government that he would roast marsh mellows on that river if the law would not have been enacted.
Government and laws of the people and for the people must be always held sacred.
In the news blip from Short Rounds, there is no mention of hemp. I find that curious that neither he nor or Number 2 saw fit to mention a multi billion dollar potential for a crop. They both stood by looking at their belly buttons doing nothing while trump laid waste to our farmers crops. They now both stand with the same drooling look, not bothering to tell producers that here now is a crop that is a hell of a lot more valuable than the gamble with beans….and on less acreage.
Hemp. I thought it strange that Mitch would be in favor of hemp. I was searching YouTube for videos of hemp production and most videos from the US show work being done by the University of Kentucky. Mystery about Mitch being in favor of hemp solved.
Good work Francis.
Chinless Wonder McTurtle never does anything because it’s best for average citizens and the right thing to do. There’s always got to be something (Bribes are preferred.) in it for him personally.
Well one good thing for McConnell:8 his grooming of Thune to take the heat as Trump ect are going down in a death spiral before our very eyes. I think predictions over the last few years of the GOP implosion, are happening. And Thune is standing there holding the bag, for Mitch. Wow. Photo-op.
Dusty may be too busy w fallout from Butina’s conspiracy plea today in exchange for cooperation against his and THUNE’s political operative Erickson (her lover, … I mean his lawyer … who argues: “Paul has never hurt this country”).
Love means never having to say you’re sorry! Or, Russian sniper rifles don’t pierce America body armor, any terrorist with an arms dealer (or perhaps an NRA connection) does!
Or, do you know where your children are? Dusty was on that job as the Teenage “Republican” kids were being “indoctrinated” this cute 20 something Russian spy dressed in black body leather&lace open-carrying NRA’s latest militia arsenal in photo-ops! She’ll be a green card felon after today’s plea.
This was going on around the time of Rounds Senate election when Tidemann shielded Rounds from subpeona in the EB5 fraud investigation. Dusty was political advisor to Rounds. Rounds beat primary challenger Ravnsborg. Dusty became Rounds Lt. Governor Daugaard’s COS after Republicans elected Daugaard governor, quitting a highly paid PUC elected office (the nations youngest PUC commissioner at 28). Daugaard filled Dusty’s spot with a nepotistic choice.
In 2018 Dusty beat the wise, experienced retired Democratic Yankton judge by 80,000 votes after beating Republican SOS primary challenger Krebs by 30,000 votes. Ravnsborg beat Vietnam veteran Democratic USA Seiler by 34,000 votes. It is said this new Republican AG has never tried a case (or a jury trial). Governor-elect NOEM beat Sutton by 11,000 votes.
This is why nobody will elect you in anything. You are sarcastically commenting on something you know very little about. Not only does this article make you sound narcissistic and unintelligent about agriculture, but it also proves that your policies do not fit those of rural South Dakota.
The legalized hemp is not the same thing as weed. It is used for clothing, rope, etc., and you cannot get a “high” off of the plant. It has nothing to do with legalizing any form of marijuana. It is a whole, unrelated issue. This will allow tobacco farmers gain a different source of income to counter the reduced demand for tobacco.
Subsidies allow farmers to survive low crop prices, droughts, or other disasters. Without it the number of farms going out of business would be drastically higher than it is now, and the land rent prices that families receive would drastically drop. Ag is the number one industry in our area, and without it small towns wouldn’t be able to survive. Anyone who lives in a ritual community, works an occupation dealing with agriculture, or owns land should be thankful that we have a representative like Thune that defends our way of life from people like this author.
For the individual asking about PLC and ARC programs: you can only have one, and it is basically a group insurance plan for farmers based on a county. It doesn’t pay out every year, but when it does it usually means the county had a bad crop year. This is another example of a program that helps mitigate the risk farmers take on YEARLY. How many people against farm programs can say they risk all their assets each year, and put it in the hands of the marketplace and weather? Also, how many other manufacturing businesses get their inputs at retail, and are forced to sell at wholesale?
Before you trash the farm bill or listen to someone that is “smarter” than everyone else who worked on it, please take the time to research what it all entails and how much agriculture supports our rural communities.
Evan, no duh, hemp is not smoking weed. I have hemp shoes. Quality material.
Subsidies = welfare = government assistance to people in need. No different from food stamps, unemployment benefits, Medicaid, and the other social safety net programs that Thune and Rounds and Noem and other Republicans like to trash when it helps people with far less money than the typical farmer.
I’m still looking for the part where I trashed the Farm Bill. I just point out what it does… and how what it does contradicts the slogans we get from Republicans. I like the Farm Bill; I just want everyone to be honest about it.
“no duh” is a new phrase for Mr. H.
People hide the growing of the demon weed in the rope plants. It is bad, bad.
Sorry, grudznick – The demons lie in the spirits and the pain pills. The legal weed has reduced the numbers of alcoholism AND opioid addiction. It would work in SD, too but maybe the “Pierre Powerful” and the “Roman Over-Godders) enjoy their drunken and drugged month away from Mama (every January) a little too much. Hmmmmm??
Grudz, the new farm bill still regulates hemp and takes action to get rid of any high-THC weed that sneaks into the field.
But the Farm Bill makes hemp a mainstream crop, eligible for federal crop insurance and everything. What a nice liberal policy!
Grudznick’s life of sobriety and celibacy is a marvelous model. Alas, not all SoDaksters possess his personal purposefulness. Many feel the need to “take the edge off” the wind and the winter with the safest solution. That being that sensible smoking substance. 😊
I like my edge. I try to keep it sharp at all times.
How’s the turnout in the bars on Friday afternoon and Saturday night? Same popularity as ever?
I’m the wrong guy to ask, Porter. Here I am, Saturday night, on the couch, at the computer, enjoying myself and my edge… and laughing at people like Evan who think they’re scoring points by talking about me while ignoring the hypocrisy of their elected Republican officials and the incompetence of their Führer.
Proud of you in so many ways, young man.
Evans, at least, proved he knows what he is talking about. Cory, on the other hand, is just talking.
Evan sounds a great deal like my parents, who farmed in Hand County till the mid 80s. They were avowed Democrats and supporters of the NFO in the 60s, joining in protests and rallies.
The NFO complained about, as Evan said, “get their inputs at retail, and are forced to sell at wholesale?” NFO felt the best response was to organize so they had the power to demand a better pricing structure. However, too many farmers insisted they were independent and refused to participate.
Most of those independent farmers are gone now. The family farmers who remain receive government welfare through the 2 programs Evan explained, PLC and ARC. (Thank you for the excellent descriptions Evan.) There’s no shame in that. It’s got to be reassuring to have a bit of a safety net under one’s business.
I don’t know what to say to other business owners who ask why they don’t get a program that mitigates their risks. Any suggestions?
Here is my breakdown of your replies. Whether I am right or wrong, these are my opinions that I believe in based on my experience and education:
“Subsidies = welfare = government assistance to people in need.” – Subsidies and welfare are not the same. Subsidies are designed to help the general population to reduce prices on sales of goods (i.e. farm subsidies reduce the cost of groceries for everyone). Welfare only affects certain groups or individuals that qualify. Welfare does not benefit anyone who is not receiving the benefits. Since you are trying to be someone who creates public policy, you should refer to reading material on this subject to be more well-informed.
“No different from food stamps, unemployment benefits, Medicaid, and the other social safety net programs” – See my first response. Farm subsidies are very different than what you listed. Crop insurance and FSA programs are safety net program that helps farmers. The subsidies used for crop insurance allow farmers to afford crop insurance. Without those subsidies, the majority of the farming operations would not be able to afford crop insurance that fits the needs that a bank requires for operating loans. Thus, that would effectively eliminate a large number of farmers, which would decrease land prices/rent, kill local business and towns, and create larger farming operations that could (in theory) control market prices which would increase grocery prices that affect everyone.
“Thune and Rounds and Noem and other Republicans like to trash” – First of all, this is a bipartisan agreement that I believe is fair for both sides, democrat and republican. I know you think your opinion is always right based on reading your blogs, but because someone has a different opinion, does that automatically make it trash? I am by no means a fan of the individuals you listed, or you. In my opinion, all of you are under-qualified to be in a position to make decisions for our state. Thune, Round, Noem, and you have only accomplished political achievements (except you, I’m not sure you’ve done anything besides voice your opinion. There have been no evidence of major success in the private sector, really. What do you all know about healthcare, farming, economics, etc? What makes all of you qualify to be in charge of a billion dollar operation, which is South Dakota’s economy? Unfortunately, with the landscape of politics is, the best and brightest people in this state do not run to represent us because it doesn’t make sense for a highly successful person to run for office just to have their name and opinions “trashed” by people, like Corey, who haven’t remotely done anything successful in the private sector.
“when it helps people with far less money than the typical farmer.” – I would hope if you decide to stick with politics that you would never use this phrase again. Is there wealthy farmers? Yes, just like there are wealthy people who don’t farm. Are they typical? No. If a ‘typical’ farmer were to take his net revenue and divide that by the hours spent working, I am willing to bet that most of them make far less per hour than many who don’t farm. There’s plenty of farmers that make little or lose money in a down year. However, according to your statement, we should be spending more of the money to help those working less hours at a higher wage? There are people who always try to vilify farmers in bumper years saying they ‘earn too much’ to receive assistance, but those same people seem to be pretty quiet in years of drought and low commodity prices. See my opinion in the earlier paragraph if you think the subsidies farmers get is a waste of tax dollars.
“I’m still looking for the part where I trashed the Farm Bill.” – Sorry, I must have interpreted your “edgy” commentary wrong. It sounded more narcissistic to me.
“I just point out what it does… and how what it does contradicts the slogans we get from Republicans.” – If you understood the difference between welfare and subsidies you would understand a little better how it doesn’t contradict the slogan of ‘most’ republicans. Obviously, there are radical republicans in office that would rather remove all subsidies and welfare programs, just like there are radical democrats in power that want socialism. Neither are good for the country.
“I like the Farm Bill; I just want everyone to be honest about it.” – I like it too, and I hope you like my honest opinion.
Evan, when you say “Welfare does not benefit anyone who is not receiving the benefits,” it seems you might be overlooking a couple of facts that we really cannot contest. The direct beneficiaries of welfare payments that your comment seems to focus on, such as people who receive temporary assistance to families in need (TANF), food stamps (SNAP), school lunches, housing assistance, Medicaid, county poor relief, low income energy assistance (LIEAP), and the other various subsistance programs that you might label “welfare,” do not get to keep and save any of these “welfare” payments or funds.
The recipients cannot save or accumulate this money because the funds are either needed for whatever subsistance they are intended to cover, such as food and clothing, or the funds are paid to a third party that provides such assistance, such as payments directly to housing project owners in exchange for charging reduced rent, or payments directly to medical and health care providers for taking care of the sick, indigent children, and elderly or disabled nursing home residents. Hence, these payments simply come and leave immediately.
The payments go to grocery stores, farmers, hospitals, landlords, gas stations, ulitity companys, and many other places in the community. Hence, these payments benefit a whole lot more people than the direct recipients. In reality, the direct beneficiary is no more than a conduit for the money paid.
Whether labeled welfare or subsidies, generally speaking such funds are no different. In the long term these payments benefit many people beyond the direct recipients, and ultimately are accumulated and retained by folks rich enough through good fortune who do not need the funds for necessities or even luxury items.
This is not a liberal or conservative political argument, it is simply reality.
Right, Bearcreekbat. The Farm Bill includes SNAP because feeding low-income people is good for them, their kids, their ability to work and study, and their communities. SNAP supports the local economy. SNAP means more buyers of farm products. Welfare payments, SNAP and farm subsidies alike, are justifiable on the basis of the good they do for the general welfare.
Plus, helping people in need is just plain moral. And Christian, I hear….
Surest way to trigger conservatives is to point out that they are really liberals, dependent on welfare and government, just like everyone else.
Corey and Bearcreekbat: You just proved my point that I was making: the difference between subsidy and welfare. Welfare doesn’t directly benefit anyone but the recipients (Although it obviously benefits indirect individuals like you explained), and subsidies benefit everyone. I am not sure what your argument is about saving welfare money, because you cannot accumulate subsidies either. I guess that is one thing they have in common?
I agree that welfare is a good thing, but it still only applies to select individuals vs. subsidies that affect everyone. I wasn’t attacking welfare, I was just stating that it isn’t the same as subsidies like Cory was inferring, or bearcreekbat for that matter. I agree with a lot of welfare programs, but I also believe they’re abused by some people as well. There should be regulations added to make it so people aren’t so dependent on the programs. In my opinion, the programs should be geared more towards helping children, people who temporarily need help, and assisting those who have physical, mental, or other impairments that limits their abilities to have higher incomes or sustain a suitable lifestyle. There should not be any long-term, able bodied citizens using government assistance to maintain their lifestyle for the longterm. If you lifestyle is too expensive, then maybe it should be altered to fit your budgetary needs or
you need to work harder to increase the amount of money you bring in to support it.
You last response, Cory, is something I figured you would say due to your “edgy” commentary. You forgot, however, to respond to a few other replies I had:
What have you accomplished outside of politics that would make you qualified to represent anyone in legislature? Would you have the credentials to run a multi-billion dollar operation if you applied?
Can you clarify what your version of “typical farmer” is? Also, why they are less deserving of government benefits than people who don’t farm as you stated?
So far, you have not stated anything that I have that is wrong or proved your point. You, and bearcreekbat, have just proved my point that welfare is different than subsidies and that I am a conservative. That is, of course, I am interpreting your “edgy” commentary wrong again.
I’ll just wait for your response that probably is going to conclude that everyone is a liberal and just doesn’t know it yet.
LOL, great post bcb and good analysis of that post Cory. I love the pretzel twists Evan makes, almost of Olympic proportions to deflect that word “welfare” from ag producer’s who receive it in subsidies (welfare). Evan, it’s okay that farmers receive welfare payments, how else would they be able to produce the food we all consume?
SNAP (food stamps) are also a subsidy as indicated in the Farm Bill. There is no difference. In fact, farmers are sometimes SNAP subsidies recipients.
I am not sure what your argument is about saving welfare money, because you cannot accumulate subsidies either. I guess that is one thing they have in common? Oh?
Instead, it explores two existing policies that actually subsidize wealth inequality. First, reduced tax rates on capital gains and dividends increase the after-tax rate of return on wealth, which makes it more likely that the rate of return on capital will exceed the overall economic growth rate. Second, capital gains are never subject to the income tax at all if the investor dies, which subsidizes wealth concentration within a family dynasty.
So how is this not accumulating subsidies? Secondly, how does this benefit everyone?
Jerry – The government doesn’t pay them anything that goes towards paying for seed, fertilizer, employees, equipment, etc. A farmer/rancher would use money secured from a bank or their own savings to produce the food we all consume.
Yes, you are right. If a farmer qualifies for SNAP benefits then they may receive the benefit – just like everyone else. If was up to Corey, however, a “typical farmer” should not receive any benefits over someone that does farm. He has them in a separate class than the rest of the population.
My post comes from this link- https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2014/06/25/92656/how-the-government-subsidizes-wealth-inequality/
Evan would feel guilty if he told himself he was a welfare recipient. That’s a self esteem issue. Evan thinks he’s better than those low life welfare cheats. So, Evan redefines his portion of the welfare pie to protect his personal dignity.
Evan. We don’t caste people in need. You’re a business in need and we see a need to give you help for the “welfare” of us all. Subsidies are simply a subset of all assistance.
Porter – I already admitted that I (as well as everyone else in the country) receive benefits from subsidies. Where did I say I didn’t? When did I say I was better than “welfare cheats”, and when did I use that term to describe anyone? Also, not that you need to know, but my self-esteem is fine the way it is.
I didn’t ‘caste’ anyone in need (Corey did though. He put ‘typical farmers’ in a separate class) – I clearly stated that the funds should be directed to people in need and not people dependent on it. We should be using programs to eliminate people dependent on it, not by just removing their benefits, but by creating higher paying jobs.
Mike from Iowa – Thanks for the article. No doubt the wealthy have an advantage over middle and lower income people when dealing with taxes. This is one of the byproducts of trickle-down economics, a conservative view on how the economy should be. This is more of an argument of capitalism vs. socialism. Both have their good and bad, depending on what you support. Since I am not a tax expert, I would have to leave my response to that, but I conclude the subsidies talked about in the article are different than what is referred to in this blog’s argument. That article is talking more about tax cuts, which is a different discussion. One could infer tax cuts as a subsidization, but I don’t view it as that – not in the sense of the subsidies we are talking about. I am talking about the subsidies that are actually paid out by the government, for this discussion.
Evan asks me … When did I say I was better than “welfare cheats”, and when did I use that term to describe anyone?
Evan used an example that some welfare programs are “abused by some people as well. There should be regulations added to make it so people aren’t so dependent on the programs.” Evan doesn’t make an example that some people on farm subsidies are abusing the programs. He doesn’t assert ideas of how to add regulations to make it so people receiving farm subsidies aren’t so dependent on the programs; only people on he thinks are on “poor people” welfare. This distinction paints the people on personal welfare as possible criminals but implies that farmers on welfare (aka subsidies) aren’t.
Evan, do you know how President Trump became a billionaire? (I personally don’t think he’s worth as much as he boasts.) By using welfare programs from New York state designed to subsidize developers that build low income housing projects. There are few larger beneficiaries of welfare than the Trump Organization.
Evan, your self esteem is the whole issue here. You’re on welfare, sir and you belong to a political mindset that labels people on welfare as worth less than those that aren’t. We don’t see you as such but you clearly try to paint a distinction between personal poor people getting help and dignified business farmers getting help. It’s a pie, Evan and you’re hands are in the pie just as much as people than need help with their rent.
So, Porter, you agree subsidies and welfare are different then, since you separated welfare and subsidies in your statement?
You are inferring that I only mean poor people. When in any of my statements did I attack poor people? You are the one who seems pretty stuck on separating poor people from the general population in this discussion.
Here is exactly what I stated:
“I agree with a lot of welfare programs (you forgot to mention this part in your response. Must have been an honest mistake), but I also believe they’re abused by some people as well. There should be regulations added to make it so people aren’t so dependent on the programs. In my opinion, the programs should be geared more towards helping children, people who temporarily need help, and assisting those who have physical, mental, or other impairments that limits their abilities to have higher incomes or sustain a suitable lifestyle.” Where is the example I gave that stated people abused the system? This statement also includes people who live in higher income tax brackets, but still cannot support their lifestyle – this could entail some farmers. I never gave an example attacking poor people, nor did I give an example of farmers abusing subsidies.
Then, you stated that I think poor people are criminals and brought in Trump (whom, of which, I am not a supporter of). And then back to my self-esteem again. You even repeated that I am on welfare – I am not, but I did admit to receiving benefits from subsidiaries.
I also believe that you took my general opinion and twisted it to fit your agenda. Not once did I ever use the term “poor people” or even reference lower income, except for the example that I gave stating that some farmers have a lower hourly wage than what the federal minimum wage requirement is. This comment was more aimed at making Corey explain his “typical farmer” comment, as I took his comments as stating the average farmer makes too much money for assistance.
You are just repeating your opinion over and over, and then trying to change the rhetoric of my opinion to fit your agenda. Sounds like you may have a little Trump-ism in you?
Evan. Subsidies are a subset of welfare. What you agree with matters most to you, not me.
Ok, thanks, Porter, for caring for my well-being so much!
Now, please can you explain where I singled out poor people in any of my responses? Or labeled them as criminals?
Also, I would like to state that I am anxiously awaiting Corey’s answers to these questions:
What have you accomplished outside of politics that would make you qualified to represent anyone in legislature? Would you have the credentials to run a multi-billion dollar operation if you applied?
Can you clarify what your version of “typical farmer” is? Also, why they are less deserving of government benefits than people who don’t farm as you stated?
You never know. Maybe is response will get him my vote!
Without farm welfare subsidies, people would go hungry, banks would shutter and the corporate farms, who suck the hardest on the government teat, would be the new boss. In short, without the welfare system set up for farmers and those of us in need, our whole system would collapse. We need lower pricing on our food products that do not reflect the actual costs of producing them. We cannot achieve that without welfare subsidies.
Thank you for agreeing with what I stated earlier, Jerry.
Now please, can you state the examples I gave attacking poor people?
For the second time … You gave examples of people on personal welfare (poor people) cheating the system but you didn’t say that business farmers also cheat the system.
Porter – For the third time, please state the examples I gave. You can copy/paste, type, or paraphrase. I give you permission.
Again, you’re stating something wrong to prove your point. Are you Trump in disguise?
Evan, I am confused about what you mean when you say:
By “directly benefit” are you describing the individual who actually receives the cash welfare payment, such as a SNAP or TANF recipient?
Understanding what you mean will help me determine whether we can agree on the facts, rather than opinions. I did not intend to state an opinion in my earlier comment.
What exactly is the “direct” benefit, in contrast to the “indirect benefit,” that you are refering to when you distinguish welfare and subsidies?
Please explain how Al Novstrup knows about your farming needs and how he has personally helped you get your welfare subsidy Evan. I am curious.
Unless you are in cahoots with Joop, I do not see how the South Dakota Republican party has done anything to help your bottom line. How does that work for you?
Bearcreekbat – this is what I mean by that statement. The welfare payments, such as SNAP, go directly towards an individual that qualifies in order to primarily assist that individual person. Indirectly, that person supports a local grocery store to buy food which will benefit a grocery store accepting those payment. I was agreeing with your point on this, but that wasn’t my initial argument.
However, the SNAP payment isn’t intended to help the entire population like the farm subsidies. The primary goal of the farm subsidy is to keep the food costs low for the entire population – it helps everyone, regardless of economic status.
This is the point that I am trying to make between the difference between welfare and subsidies. The programs like farm subsidies are generally a bipartisan agreement. The difference between the welfare programs is what causes a rift between liberal and conservatism. Whether you agree on those programs is a difference of opinions, but my argument is that you can’t say they are the same thing.
I see I’m not able to explain in a way that gets through Evan’s cloaking device. To other readers, when someone singles out a group (poor people) as cheating and exempts the group they belong to (farmers, who also cheat) they are “picking on poor people” and forming a caste. A totem pole of worth, if you will.
I never said he helped me. I don’t believe I ever mentioned his name. I am also not a supporter of big supporter of him, either. Plus, he doesn’t have any real impact on the Farm Bill. The farm bill is also a Federal, not state (although states influence it), so I am not sure what you are arguing there.
I mainly vote Republican because I believe in capitalism over socialism. That is my opinion, and I am not stating it is better than someone who supports more liberal socialism policies. Just because I support capitalism, it doesn’t mean that I reject all socialism policies. I hope that could be said with you as well, Jerry.
Holy cow, Porter! How did you know I was in Hogwarts using my cloak when answering you!
But seriously, I never singles out any group nor did I say anyone cheated. There is a difference between abusing policies (term I used) and cheating (term Porter used). You can abuse a policy and it would be 100% legal. If you cheat, odds are that it is illegal.
Also, in my main argument, and multiple sub arguments, I stated that some farmers make less money/hr as many lower income people. This was not a shot at “poor people”. This was a comment aimed at clarifying Corey’s label as “typical farmer”.
If it sounds like you are not able to explain why your comments on my words are correct, then it must mean that you have no evidence of this, Mr. Trump.
No, you never mentioned his name, just like you never really chastised disabled veterans who need SNAP. But you did bring Cory’s name into this and you mention this “Can you clarify what your version of “typical farmer” is? Also, why they are less deserving of government benefits than people who don’t farm as you stated?
You never know. Maybe is response will get him my vote!”
That tells me that either you are just trying to abuse Cory, you have a farm in the city limits of Aberdeen or you bring up the compassion between Cory and Al.
I am a landowner, that qualifies for a welfare subsidy. I lease my land so my tenant gets the welfare subsidy. They are happy and I am happy that my land is being cared for. I know the welfare subsidy helps them pay their bills and helps them to pay the lease to me.
So you believe in capitalism over socialism, Evan, yet you entered this conversation to defend the socialist practice of farm subsidies. I get the impression there’s some conflict in your worldview.
C’mon, Trump…sorry, I mean Jerry. You’re all over the board stating that I said stuff, then saying I didn’t say that but I said this, but I didn’t really say that…..
Asking for someone to clarify their comments is abuse? And hey, he could change my mind on the issue with his answer. I’ve changed my opinion on many of things in the past based on hearing opinions of other people that have changed my perspective. Sorry if my tone was too “edgy”. I thought that is how Corey stated he likes to respond on his blogs.
Congrats on being a landowner. I am happy that you’re happy a bipartisan farm bill helps you and your tenant.
Cory, please read what I stated again:
“Just because I support capitalism, it doesn’t mean that I reject all socialism policies.” Are you saying that we can’t have pieces of both capitalism and socialism in our policies?
Also, you still have a couple questions that are awaiting your response:
What have you accomplished outside of politics that would make you qualified to represent anyone in legislature? Would you have the credentials to run a multi-billion dollar operation if you applied?
Can you clarify what your version of “typical farmer” is? Also, why they are less deserving of government benefits than people who don’t farm as you stated?
Very astute, Mr. H. Evan is experiencing the mental dissention called cognitive dissonance. (The term used to describe the state of holding two conflicting beliefs, simultaneously.)
Evan likes the money but Evan hates the label.
President Obama was speaking to Evan when he noted, “You didn’t build that.”
Farmers just got lazy with the welfare subsidy payments and have neglected their farm ground. (I insist on grazing and haying). They rely on the bank to purchase chemicals to go further into debt. Sustainable farming is for hippies and dreamers. Much easier to just collect a check and if the whole thing goes down the crapper, file an insurance claim and then deflect your welfare payments to complain, like Evan, that he does not get welfare. Evan insists that his payments from the government are to pay his banker and chemical company and NOem’s hubby for insurance…oh, and to put food on his table just like disabled American veteran’s do every day with SNAP. At least be honest Evan without a welfare/subsidy you would be looking for a better way to farm, and there actually is.
So Cory is against Capitalism Porter?
Jerry,
Name a farmer you know that has neglected land he farms that we can verify?
Evan said- Yes, you are right. If a farmer qualifies for SNAP benefits then they may receive the benefit – just like everyone else
Who grows the food for the SNAP program if not farmers? They benefit from the program whether they get SNAP cards or not.
When corporations were allowed to repatriot offshore profits at a lower interest rate, the only beneficiaries were the corporAtions and wealthiest Americans who could avoid taxes and accumulate even more wealth. How does that benefit everyone?
That’s right it doesn’t and wasn’t intended to benefit any but the wealthiest.
Thanks for your opinion, Porter, but insulting me doesn’t really isn’t an answer for your wrong assumptions of what I said earlier. I’ll just take this as admitting you are wrong. Thanks!
I do know what I believe in – and surely my viewpoints today will be different 10 years from now as society changes. It seems like I am the only one in this discussion that thinks we can have both liberal and conservative policies?
Of course I like money, do you? What label do I have? I’ve been called a lot of things on this blog, so I’m not sure what one you’re referring to.
What in the world does your Obama comment mean?
So many errors in Evan’s comments:
SNAP is not a direct payment to individuals. SNAP beneficiaries get an Electronic Benefits Transfer card that can only be used to buy food and garden plants and seeds. The money doesn’t go directly to the individual SNAP recipient; the money goes to the grocer.
I don’t think farm subsidies come in the form of a restricted debit card. I think Uncle Sam just writes a check to an individual. Thus, farm subsidies and SNAP are the opposite of what Evan says they are.
Additionally, farm subsidies are not somehow more bipartisan than SNAP benefits. Both are part of the Farm Bill. It would be very hard to pass one welfare program without the other.
I stand by my comment about the “typical farmer” having far more wealth than the typical SNAP recipient. The median farm size in 2012 was 1,234 acres. The “typical farmer” has nearly two square miles of land, plus equipment, and thus has far more standing capital with which to make a living than almost any SNAP recipient and/or minimum-wage worker.
Given that average value of non-irrigated cropland in South Dakota this year is $3,937, the “typical farmer” could cash out to the tune of over $4.8 million.
I challenge readers to come up with an example of any SNAP recipient who could liquidate his or her estate and have a million bucks on hand to feed his or her family.
Seven in eight Americans manage to eat without SNAP. In South Dakota, 89% of us get food on the table without SNAP.
Nationwide, 62% of farmers manage to get by without subsidies. In South Dakota, only 26% of farmers manage to survive without subsidies.
Gee, looks to me as if the “typical farmer” in South Dakota sits on seven-figures worth of wealth and still takes welfare checks from Uncle Sam.
And don’t even get me started on that federally subsidized crop insurance that pays Kristi Noem’s bills and the majority of which federal assistance goes to the richest 10% of farms
To me it looks like Evan is for capitalism for the wealthy and socialism for the …wait for it…..wait…wait…the wealthy.
Jason inserts a false equivalency requiring no response, due to it’s invalidity. The thread is about Evan who likes to picture himself as a capitalist but knows (in truth), he’s running a business dependent on socialism. Evan likes the money but hates the label.
All of them except these guys, farmers who can actually farm the ground with great admiration and care of their stewardship’s of the ground. There are a few in South Dakota that is for sure, but the vast majority like them so sterilization to just kill everything and let the chemicals grow the crop. https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/09/cover-crops-no-till-david-brandt-farms/?utm_source=mj-newsletters&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=food-for-thought-2018-12-16
Evan asks, “What label do I have?” You’re a welfare recipient, Evan.
President Obama means that you couldn’t operate your business without hefty government assistance. No one can. Everything from roads, to cops, to courts to schools are paid for by all of us and used by you to operate your business successfully. That’s why you didn’t build your business, we all built your business.
Jerry, I do not receive any farm subsidies, crop insurance, etc. as I do not have any farming interest. I only assist my family in our farming operation, but none of it is in my name. Therefore, your comments about me receiving payments is wrong.
Of course farmers rely on banks to get funding for their operations. I don’t believe you know much about farming, so I am just going to let you say what you want and everyone who understands it knows how idiotic your comments are.
Also, you make a lot more with a good crop than you do receiving crop insurance checks. There is no incentive to producing bad crops because your crop insurance protection is based on your actual history of production. If you have a bad history of producing crops, you are probably pay more for insurance than what you would actually receive in return. You also have to follow good farming practices in order to get an insurance check, so your opinion on that is wrong.
Are you saying every disabled veteran is on SNAP?
Without subsidy, my family wouldn’t be farming, nor would very many people in the area.
Evan, Thanks for your quick reply.
If your explanation – “go directly towards an individual that qualifies” – means that the welfare payment (or voucher) is paid in hand directly to the recipient, then you would be factually correct for some welfare programs, such as SNAP or TANF, but incorrect on several other programs such as rental assistance, medicaid payments for nursing home, doctor or hospital care, LIEAP, as well as many other programs. In the programs I mentioned, the payments are made directly to vendors, rather than the recipients, hence the vendors receive the “direct benefit” under such a definition.
If you mean the group that Congress intended to help by adopting a particular program, then It would be a mixed bag. For example, although a key purpose of the food stamp or SNAP program currently certainly is to assist families in need, it is intended to directly serve other people in our nation:
https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/reflecting-on-snap-purposes-spending-and-potential-savings/
This current purpose is consistent with the intent of the original food stamp program, which was to create markets that directly benefit U.S. farmers suffering from depressed prices during the depression:
https://www.snaptohealth.org/snap/the-history-of-snap/
Thus, under this alternative meaning of “direct benefit,” (if that was your intent in defining the term) many more individuals, businesses, and society as a whole were intended direct beneficiaries from the program.
Thus, if either of these understandings – recipients of direct payments or intended beneficiaries – of your exact meaning of “direct benefit” is correct, it appears that in fact, not opinion, many individuals and groups, including recipients, receive such direct benefits.
And it would appear that as a matter of fact, subsidies would work the same way. The subsidy would be paid directly to a recipient, or vendor, and it would be intended to directly benefit both the recipient as well as others in the US economy.
It’s a good thing Jerry and Porter don’t have to use their brains to make a living.
Yes, Mike, capitalism benefits wealthy more than socialism. The principle behind capitalism is to make free up money at the top to have them reinvest it into the bottom. It also doesn’t inhibit anyone from increasing going from the bottom to the top, or vise-versa.
Socialism, however, decreases the floor and the ceiling – not as many lower income and not as many wealthy. However, it makes it very difficult for anyone to change their economic situation.
If you are a highly motivated individual, a socialistic policy would greatly hurt you. If you have no aspirations of increasing your status, but you don’t really want to get left behind, a socialism policy would suit you.
It’s all economics.
Capitalism helps the poor more than socialism.
Jason … Jerry and I certainly don’t have to use much of our brains to out think you. You’re simply a simple contrarian in need of attention.
As an aside … It’s been said that Trump’s voter base is a group of people that just want to be talked to. It matters little that Trump is lying to them, it’s just that he talks to them that makes them feel better.
Jerry, I am sorry. I didn’t realize you were a great farmer based on all your experience. Obviously you know more than others about how to run a farming operation.
Porter, you are not very good at this argument. I’ve already stated multiple times that rural America relies on government assistance. You keep stating that I’m against all forms of assistance, but I’ve clearly stated multiple times that they are important, but some need more regulation to prevent abuse. I would think everyone would agree on that? And, yes, you are right. If the subsidies were gone I would not be in business – which I’ve already agreed upon.
I didn’t say every farmer gets crop insurance payouts. But farmers pay lower premiums thanks to government subsidies.
Evan seems to think that saying “X is welfare” is the same as saying “We should end X.” I have taken no such position. That’s a knee-jerk Republican position.
Socialism is needed to mitigate the greed of capitalists.
Bearcreekbat, I appreciate your research on the subject, but what you sent really just clarifies my points in my first or second posts. The programs you researched are different from the subsidy farmers get. If I did a bad job in distinguishing direct and indirect payments, then so be it. However, this is starting to get a little off subject when you are focusing on the terms direct and indirect.
Nope, not a great farmer at all, just like you. I am just one who got out and now leases as many of the fellers you see in the local coffee shops. I only know that in the days past, there was not the use of chemicals for everything as there are today.
I am very happy that your family will get the welfare/ subsidy to keep the farm going. I hope that you yourself find an interest in the business as a young person and will try the cover crops in lieu of the chemicals and try the tillage mentioned to move away from the steel that destroys the very needed nutrients and water needed to farm independently.
It can be done in South Dakota, here is an example https://www.motherearthnews.com/homesteading-and-livestock/sustainable-farming/organic-farmer-charlie-johnson
Evan … I do not agree that some need more regulation to avoid abuse. I mean that all need regulation to avoid abuse and that no high level of abuse is happening with the current regulations. You live out in rural America and think you know what’s happening with urban poor people? Where do you get your opinions on urban poor people since you obviously don’t interact with or observe them? From right wing talk radio and FoxNews, maybe?
Here is a golden opportunity from the Farm Bill if you are willing to work at it Evan. You can save the family farm and do great things for the land and the earth itself.
“The nation’s organic food sector is far too dependent on imports to meet the growing demand for organic here at home. Although organic food accounts for more than 5 percent of total U.S. food sales, less than 1 percent of the nation’s farmland is farmed organically.
Thankfully, the 2018 Farm Bill includes a number of provisions that will help increase the amount of organic food grown in the U.S., including historic investments in organic research and help for more farmers making the transition to organic.” https://www.ewg.org/agmag/2018/12/2018-farm-bill-big-win-organic-food
In South Dakota, the first thing is to demand that Al Novstrup and the rest of the gang in Pierre keep our water clean. As legislators, they can actually do something about that. Short Rounds and his Number 2, will do all in their power to contaminate our water. The legislature can stymie that poison water with the same kinds of laws that will stymie CBD.
Yes, Mike, capitalism benefits wealthy more than socialism.
Where did this come from? I never said any such thing. I did say subsidies do not benefit everyone-your claim-n when bigly tax breaks go only to the wealthy and then are passed on tax free.
Your idea that capitalism, as a form of trickle down economics works is 100% wrong. That money virtually floods upwards and stays there. Not benefiting the masses at all.
There are any number of socialist programs that serve the wealthy well. The rest have to fight tooth and nail to survive.
One other thing, Evan, you had 18 minutes to read bcb’s post and peruse the links he sent. Are you a wunderkind speed reader?
Cory, thanks for explaining how SNAP works. Just because someone doesn’t physically get a check doesn’t mean it’s not a direct payment towards helping a target individual. I never once said that an all the benefits a person receives goes directly into their bank account. I was talking the impact of the payments directly or indirectly affects people.
Farm subsidies are very much more bipartisan. The main argument when debating the bill was for SNAP and other welfare programs, not the farm subsidies for crop insurance and FSA programs.
The “typical farmer” also has much more debt than a typical SNAP recipient. Also, in case you missed how hot and dry last summer was, I’m sure the farmers out west would disagree with your “Plenty of standing capital” comment. I believe losing money would be worse than working a job at minimum wage? I’m speaking purely math, of course.
I also challenge you or any of the readers to come up with an example on how it can take only one or two bad years to lose everything you have on factors you cannot control: commodity prices and weather.
Also, your subsidy facts do not apply. You remove subsidies for farming, regardless if a farmer can afford it or not, then you kill off every farm that cannot afford subsidies – driving down land prices and increasing food costs.
Please, start on federally subsidized crop insurance. To explain in math terms again, if farmer A has 500 acres and farmer B has 1,000 acres, and both receive $10/acre subsidy, obviously farmer B will get more subsidy based on farm size. Those stupid “top whatever percent receive more” arguments make no sense. The rates are the same. I could have told you that without having to use Google.
Anti-ag is not a very good agenda for getting elected in South Dakota, Cory. But, again, you still have one more response:
What have you accomplished outside of politics that would make you qualified to represent anyone in legislature? Would you have the credentials to run a multi-billion dollar operation if you applied?
I also have another question: what ag background do you have to say whether a farmer should get help or not?
Hey, Porter. I’ve spent the majority of my life in South Dakota, but I also spent five years living in Sioux Falls. Not the biggest urban city, but many similar problems with on a lower scale than Minneapolis. You?
Jerry – as soon as you mentioned organic crops as sustainably, you lose all credibility. I am no longer responding to anything you have to say since you obviously are out of your element in this conversation.
Mike – nope, skipped the links. Not much of a reader on Sunday when watching football.
Sorry if I inferred that you think capitalism benefits wealthy more than socialism. I agree with that statement. I also disagree with what you said about capitalism and trickle-down economics. What are you going to do with your extra tax money this year? I plan on buying something that I wouldn’t have had the money for last year – which will support the local business that I will buy from. Trickle, trickle, trickle.
Evan, if I have made a factual mistake, I certainly would apologize and retract my statement, but it appears I am correct. I respect your decision to refrain from further discussion or analysis of the factual question I posed about the factual accuracy of one part of your earlier comment. You have generated many more interactions on other aspects of your comments that have kept you quite busy.
bearcreekbat – No kidding! Quite the busy Sunday!
I don’t blame you for not responding, you lost. The gent from Madison wins as do the producers who follow the Leopold Awards methods of sustainable ranching. The Cammack family https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGUE0h-FwGg
Evan, do you know the names of the birds on your farm?
Evan nails it when he states that he doesn’t read. Typical trumper. Nothing to see or hear from this, just more Cory bashing.
Have a happy holiday season, Jerry!
Thanks for responding Evan, you have a holly jolly holiday season as well.
Sorry, but I want to repost this for Cory. There’s been quite a few posts, so I wanted to make sure they didn’t get missed.
What have you accomplished outside of politics that would make you qualified to represent anyone in legislature? Would you have the credentials to run a multi-billion dollar operation if you applied?
I also have another question: what ag background do you have to say whether a farmer should get help or not?
Evan, you spent five years in an urban setting. Were you on welfare at the time? SNAP? SECTION 8? LIEAP? TANF? If not than you don’t know how many regulations and inspections are in place to assure that fraud isn’t happening. I live in a city of three million people, have over a hundred friends and undocumented co-workers who are generally poor. I’ve been on welfare, after an extended medical illness caused me to lose everything I owned and have over a million dollars in medical debt. This was before Obamacare made insurance companies unable to cancel policies when customers got extended illnesses. With a pre-existing condition, no policy was available to me.
As I’ve often said to those on Power’s blog that rant about poor people cheating on welfare. “If you know someone who’s committing fraud give me their name and I’ll turn them in for the reward. If not then STFU because it’s not happening.”
Evan, were you aware some red states allowed EBT-SNAP card owners to only withdraw 20 bucks at a time with a 2 or 3 dollar charge leveled for each transaction?
Someone not named card holder was benefiting nicely while effectively stealing food money from people that need it. The people that the benefits were supposed to reach got short circuited so some campaign contributor could rip off government funds meant for the poor. Privatization/capitalism. Isn’t it great?
As for Cory’s qualifications , and believe you he doesn’t need me to defend him, he is at least as qualified as Drumpf and has a much better grasp on how government works, a more thorough mastery of relevant subjects and is smarter by order of magnitude than Drumpf or the AG elect.
Mike – nope, skipped the links.
How did I ever know that? Well you don’t answer questions any better than the other trolls, but your exits out the side door are faintly amusing. And you still haven’t answered my first post.
Porter, I am sorry for your hardships. No, I was not on welfare, but according to a couple people in these discussions I guess I was/am but don’t believe it.
Again, you are confusing abuse and criminal activity. I don’t believe there is a large amount of people committing fraud or other illegal activities to get more benefit than they would not get in the first place.
My point is we should be trying to create policies that spur higher salaries, more jobs, and lower the cost of living certain situations to try and get them off of welfare or be able to afford their lifestyle without having to rely on the government for some programs.
Obamacare most definitely helps people in your situation, and I think that part of it is great! I also have people in my family that benefit from requiring companies to not exclude medical conditions. However, someone who is self-employed and healthy, like myself, had benefits greatly cut and the cost has gone way up. Is that fair to me? The premises for Obamacare is to take advantage of young, healthy individuals, which I don’t agree with.
However, talk about healthcare is off topic to this discussion about the Farm Bill.
Try to find how much stores are reimbursed for foodstamp purchases and the fed and big business thinks you want the keys to Ft Knox. Proprietary info is what I believe Jonathan Ellis was told lo those many years ago when he filed for the info.
It still isn’t available to the public.
Mike – sorry for missing your first post. There have been a lot of discussions, so I may have missed it. Please send it again.
On your rip-off post. I guess I’m not sure what you are referring to, as it seems I am not as well-informed as you are with the SNAP program. When it comes to the Farm Bill, I am more educated towards the farming side, opposite of you and Google. Sounds like this would be abuse that needs to be fixed? I believe I mentioned earlier about fixing abuses within the system. Thanks for agreeing with me!
As for qualifications, I absolutely believe that is important. Would you be able to get a CEO position without having any past accomplishments?
“Try to find how much stores are reimbursed for foodstamp purchases and the fed and big business thinks you want the keys to Ft Knox. Proprietary info is what I believe Jonathan Ellis was told lo those many years ago when he filed for the info.
It still isn’t available to the public.”
Again, abuse of the system that needs to be fixed? Thanks again for agreeing!
How are welfare recipients abusing the system? The programs you described are in place and have been firmly in place since Bill Clinton. No one but disabled people can stay on welfare more than a short time. ( 60 months over a lifetime)
The cost increases in your insurance came from Republicans sabotaging the program. Had the ACA rolled out as written things for you would have been better.
Porter, please see Mike’s comments about abuses in the system. He seems to agree with me, since he has named a couple of instances in things that need to be fixed.
Health insurance for me increase the day Obamacare was enacted and it is still increasing today. A problem started by democrats and made worse by republicans. Both parties are at fault. As it is today, it needs to be fixed – and that will take effort by both parties.
Again, healthcare is off subject.
Evan, I don’t agree with you. The abuse about not releasing records has nothing to do with the poors that get the help. Don’t try to twist my words around to make it look like I agree with you.
The other part about states allowing campaign contributors to rip off the poors, again has nothing to do with the people in need abusing the system.
Mike – so, freeing the records would not result in money savings to be used towards people in need? What would freeing the records do then? Eliminating campaign contributor from ripping off the “poors” would not result in money savings to be used towards people in need? What would be the reasoning to fix it then? I’m not twisting your words around. Sounds like we both agree that it needs to be fixed, but you just don’t want to agree with anything I say. Sad!
Reminder for the blogger-turned-wannabe-decision-maker Cory:
What have you accomplished outside of politics that would make you qualified to represent anyone in legislature? Would you have the credentials to run a multi-billion dollar operation if you applied?
What Ag background do you have to say whether a farmer should get help or not?
I believe you write blogs about people avoiding answering questions. Are you a hypocrite? I guess you may be busy with other things. I just thought that when you responded earlier you were reading these and that you may have conveniently missed a couple questions that were asked.
Evan still hasn’t answered my first post. Sad.
Mike, I already asked you to repost because I missed it. I would gladly inform you of my opinion. I’m not going to shy away like Cory does.
Mike – here is the response I had to your first post a while ago. I hope you are no longer sad now that you see that I’ve replied. Sorry for the confusion! If this isn’t the correct post, let me know!
Mike from Iowa – Thanks for the article. No doubt the wealthy have an advantage over middle and lower income people when dealing with taxes. This is one of the byproducts of trickle-down economics, a conservative view on how the economy should be. This is more of an argument of capitalism vs. socialism. Both have their good and bad, depending on what you support. Since I am not a tax expert, I would have to leave my response to that, but I conclude the subsidies talked about in the article are different than what is referred to in this blog’s argument. That article is talking more about tax cuts, which is a different discussion. One could infer tax cuts as a subsidization, but I don’t view it as that – not in the sense of the subsidies we are talking about. I am talking about the subsidies that are actually paid out by the government, for this discussion.
My question was how subsidies for the rich that are paid to the rich and then saved and /or invested by the rich for the rich benefit anyone but the rich?
If those benefits are passed on tax free to family members how is that not accumulating subsidies?
mfi, Evan is the J E L L O Man like the rest of the trolls, to get an answer from. Like jason, he does not read the links. Putting a pin in Jello Man is just exercise for your fingers on the keyboard. The one thing in common that this new troll has, with the current batch of resident trolls, is their dislike towards Cory. Nothing personal to Cory, just his blog site that scares the crap out of them.
Firstly, Mike, subsidies aren’t paid out in the form of checks to rich people. I believe that was established in earlier posts. Nobody is writing checks to the rich. Also, the article you had dealt more with taxes and not actual subsidies. Although, which I stated earlier, you could view tax breaks as kind of a subsidy – it generally works the same way.
It is economics 101: If you reduce the tax payments at the top and middle class, that money is typically reinvested into the economy. This creates jobs, increases wages, increases sales tax revenue, etc. This is the trickle-down effect. The example I gave earlier was that I am going to receive a larger tax return this year than last. I, like many other Americans, will most likely use that additional income to purchase something. Thus, generating revenue for the business and sales tax for the state. Most people don’t pocket extra money just to pocket it, although there are some that may just throw it into a savings account in order have emergency funds.
I’m confused by your second questions. I think you are combining the article you read about taxes with farm subsidies. Nobody can accumulate subsidies, but you can accumulate wealth due to tax breaks. This applies to everyone in the country, just some have more money than others which allows them to earn more. Again, simple math. The more you have, then the more money you will receive vs. someone at the same rate that has less money.
Jerry – shouldn’t you be saving the world by trying to inform everyone how organic farming is the way to go?
Saving the world from a fraud like you kid, one troll at a time. Sustainable farming is the way to go, the Farm Bill says so.
Evan asserts … It is economics 101: If you reduce the tax payments at the top and middle class, that money is typically reinvested into the economy. This creates jobs, increases wages, increases sales tax revenue, etc. This is the trickle-down effect.
Sorry, Evan. This isn’t economics 101. It’s voodoo economics 101. Trickle down isn’t real.
PS … Business owners don’t create jobs. Customers create jobs.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/voodooeconomics.asp
Still Voodoo Economics Porter, 9 items listed that could fundamentally change for all of us. Believe it or not, it would still end up screwing farmers. Life is funny like that https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2018-06-27/9-things-in-the-farm-bill-that-affect-almost-every-american
Porter, if you don’t mind a question, how much, if at all did your insurance crisis move your needle on insurance, welfare, and politics in general? Sometimes a dramatic incident changes a person’s outlook, or solidifies it, or even radicalizes it to some extent. You have my sympathies our laws have allowed insurance companies to be immoral.
It reads like a shopping list for evil. More pesticides. More refined white sugar. More dirty water. Less fruits and vegetables. Who attacks childhood nutrition?
HC … That’s a valid question. I got sick (osteomyelitis and MRSA) in 2002. At that time I had a $750,000 home. A 528 BMW. A full years income in savings and no idea that my healthcare insurance was vulnerable. I was a fiscal conservative Republican. I was in bed fighting a deadly infection for over two years. Had 14 surgeries in 12 months. I already had liberal social views about immigration, women’s rights and gun regulations but becoming indigent and homeless (after the eviction) my views on income inequality shifted to the liberal side.
I was bewildered as to where McConnell’s intrigue with hemp came from all of a sudden until I read that it’s a favorite research project of the University of Kentucky. Or maybe it was Kentucky State U. I can’t remember where I read it now. But it was on the news.
Jerry – you do know that there is no where close to sell organic grain in NESD, right? Also, it is impossible to feed the world if everyone switched to organic. Plus, it is much more expensive to grow and to follow organic guidelines. You must not have googled that. Of course, I’m just a troll, so my logical responses to your illogical solutions don’t mean much.
Porter – there is no such thing as “voodoo economics”, however, trickle-down economics is one of very many forms of economic policies. You would learn about this if you ever took an econ101 class. It is as real as the earth is round….although, since you believe business owners don’t create jobs, you probably think the earth is flat as well. Last time I went into a store to buy something, I didn’t have to hire anyone or write out a paycheck. Not sure where you shop at, though.
Jerry – Finally, your article you shared is highly opinionated towards liberalism. Not everyone will be happy with the changes/no changes involved in the new bill. However, Porter and your rhetoric about all ag is evil is probably something you many need to evaluated, considering without ag in our area there would be nothing.
Also, Jerry, you do realize $11.5 million allocated towards organics is barely anything out of an almost $200 billion farm bill, right? I’m guessing this was a small concession to get a group of liberals to vote “yes” on the bill instead of stalling it. It is a nice, meaningless gesture that allows a small group of wacko’s to go home thinking they’ve won something.
Also, before I forget, here is my reminder for Cory:
What have you accomplished outside of politics that would make you qualified to represent anyone in legislature? Would you have the credentials to run a multi-billion dollar operation if you applied?
What Ag background do you have to say whether a farmer should get help or not?
This anti-trump following you have is very similar to the trump followers you seem to dislike….
Evan says, You would learn about this if you ever took an econ101 class. That’s pretty good, considering I was a business major at University of South Dakota at Vermillion. You?
Ah, yes, that explains it why it wasn’t taught to you. SDSU, where I graduated from, had classes that explained basic economics. Go Jacks!
Let me revise my statement to clarify for you, Evan. There’s no such thing as a successful application of trickle down economics. It was labeled voodoo by George H. W. Bush. Giving tax breaks to the rich results in stock buy backs. Giving tax breaks to working class people results in sales which creates jobs.
I do realize that the real money goes to welfare simple as that. There is always a small pittance for real ideas, but the real money goes to welfare and the destruction of the water and land. But hey, good news. Researchers have found that you can grow bananas in rock wool. I wrote that there because you don’t read sonny. It is a brave new world you are gonna inherit, just remember that taxpayers are footing the bill for your poor management. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/dec/14/first-dutch-bananas-could-help-tackle-fungal-threat
Evan … I started my first business at age ten and owned over fifteen before I sold every one and retired at age 50. How many businesses have you owned?
Currently we are experiencing reinvesting in the economy by corporations, aka trickle down effect. I would say the manufacturing sector has improved with the tax breaks. Do you have an example of a successful country that has adopted socialism?
Jerry, now you’re talking about bananas?!?! I recommend you take a break from the google machine before you go bananas!
Wow, that is impressive, Porter. I currently only own one that keeps my full-time attention as of now. I am glad that the fundamental root of the US economy is capitalism which allows you to make unlimited money without worrying about the government stepping in and setting caps, like they do in the socialistic economy of Cuba. It’s great that we live in a society that allows you to retire at age 50!
Wrong, Evan. (It’s time you stop using your word and start using valid links to facts.) “It’s just wrong for big corporations to pocket massive, permanent tax breaks and reward the wealth of top executives with more corporate stock buybacks, while workers are given pink slips and face layoffs,” said Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), who has introduced legislation to limit buybacks and require public companies to give workers the right to elect one-third of their company’s board of directors. “We need to rewrite the rules of our economy so we start rewarding workers instead of the wealth of executives and shareholders with more stock buybacks.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/a-year-after-their-tax-cuts-how-have-corporations-spent-the-windfall/2018/12/14/e966d98e-fd73-11e8-ad40-cdfd0e0dd65a_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.69468c900cc9
I only sent it to a chimp er chump sonny. But you never read it anyway so there is that. A graduate of college and you still are just a chump…good career choice. How much are you paying on your loan?
Sure, young fella. A blend of Democratic socialism and highly regulated capitalism has been successful in the Nordic countries, Netherlands, Germany, France, England and more.
Hey, Porter! It looks like reading your article that the tax breaks have caused lots of reinvesting into the economy. It also stated corporations also did buybacks of their stocks. Are you saying you would rather see all the record-breaking investing into the economy taken away because a few people made more money?
Now now, Jerry. No need to resort to name calling because I didn’t read your banana article….And if you must know, I just finished paying off my loans last year! It’s a great feeling!
Porter – you do realize that all those countries are failing. Did you see the French protesters due to the liberal policies? Have you heard of Brexit in England? Germany just had their worst quarter in years. I didn’t know much about Netherlands economy, but here is an article stating they are going through a rough patch:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-netherlands-economy/dutch-economic-boom-to-last-through-2018-says-central-bank-idUSKBN1EC1DY
Any other examples that support your socialism over capitalism argument? The ones you have don’t seem to be very good.
They’re not failing and your link doesn’t support your assertion that they are.
I’ve now had enough. You’re not open minded and trying to teach you is boring Cory’s readers. I think we all have an accurate read on you by now.
Pleasure was all mine, though.
PS … don’t move away from SD. You wouldn’t be accepted in other more balanced political environments.
LOL, that college you claim you graduated from, doesn’t teach basic reading skills. From your link. what a dunce. “The Dutch economy has beaten all expectations this year, outperforming most other euro zone countries as accelerating international trade and a surge in employment led to a decade-high growth rate of 3.3 percent, DNB said.
Domestic demand will be its main driver in coming years, as the strong job market leads to faster wage growth and increasing labor shortages in sectors including construction, communications technology and other service sectors.” Hope your pappy has your work set out for you spreading manure as that seems all you’re capable of.
The Netherlands is in the EU. It has very socialized medicine and vacation times for the workers there.
Your right, Porter. Brexit and the French protests are FAKE NEWS! Sorry for boring the readers of a guy who lost by 17% in the last election. 17%! Thanks for realizing that I have the opinions of the majority of the people in the Great Red State of South Dakota!
PS… I recommend visiting Cuba to see how your policy views actually look like when enacted.
Also, my arguments have been far more balanced than yours. I both support subsidies and welfare (liberal policies) while also admitting I prefer capitalism over socialism (conservative).
Have a happy holiday season!
Hey, Jerry – I learned basic reading in elementary school. Did you go to a college to learn to read? It was probably Banana U, ha! However, you did best me on the article I chose, and for that I say touche. The US economy is still better than the Netherlands. I still haven’t seen a socialistic economy that is better.
You’re a pretty funny guy, Jerry. Your comments and view points really crack me up. At least the other guys know what they are saying…most of the time. Keep staying you, Jerry! You bring a smile with every comment post!
Jerry … this jerk kinds of reminds me of someone else that posts here. Maybe Miranda got a new cell phone number and is tired of being Jason. There’s a familiar pattern to his/her grammar and the same with his writing cadence. We got eyes on you Even … even when you’re not watching. lol
Oh, so you’re saying I’m not the only one that thinks Porter and Jerry are like “Dumb & Dumber”! Jerry is definitely Lloyd! Banana man!
I’m guessing you could probably check with that now-quiet Cory guy to see if I am the same person as that Jason or Miranda.
If you do check with him to prove I am not a dup of previous people, can you ask him these questions for me? He seems not inclined to answer a couple valid questions. I’m guessing the “Edgy” guy is a little dull when it comes to proving his worth:
What have you accomplished outside of politics that would make you qualified to represent anyone in legislature? Would you have the credentials to run a multi-billion dollar operation if you applied?
What Ag background do you have to say whether a farmer should get help or not?
The reason I started commenting is because I am sick of Cory acting like he knows way more than everyone else when he has never done anything productive in his life, but acts like he should be President. He has about as much experience to make legislative decisions for South Dakotans as I do calling plays for the Minnesota Vikings. All he does is argue and offer off-base opinions (or opinions of his party. I don’t think he has a mind of his own) to get people riled up. It is probably why he refuses to answer my two questions. He has no answer. And for those who say he doesn’t have to answer because he has already proved it, proved what? All he does is write blogs, argue, and campaign. Nothing else! Prime example of a nincompoop! – I’m not sure I spelled that right. I’ve never had to spell that word before, ha!
We all have opinions, but there are wasted space people, like Cory and Jerry, that should be treated with the smallest amount of ones attention. If Porter is actually as successful as he says he was, then his opinions may have some Merit.
Also, didn’t Cory get booed out of a meeting a couple years back in Aberdeen because his ideas were so outlandish? I think that speaks volume for how he should be listened to.
I’ll probably feel a little dumb, though, when I open the Farm Forum and see that Jerry has become the best organic banana farmer in the world!
I know, now. It’s not Evan. It’s Kevin, isn’t it BIRD? Cory blocked OS and now Kevin’s here as Evan. Same obnoxious behavior.
Wrong, buddy, although my name rhymes with Kevin. I’m not sure what BIRD is. Cory blocked someone? Does that mean he wasn’t against Trump blocking people on Twitter? Huh, not only is he wasted space but he is also a hypocrite!
Right, Bird. You’re dismissed.
Here you go Robin. From way early in this post: Francis Schaffer
2018-12-12 at 17:34
Hemp. I thought it strange that Mitch would be in favor of hemp. I was searching YouTube for videos of hemp production and most videos from the US show work being done by the University of Kentucky. Mystery about Mitch being in favor of hemp solved.
Evan prattles on similarly to the way the Pompatus of Pablum Ryan does. Lots od words and not much substance.
Hey, Mike! I like to believe that my opinion aligns pretty close to the majority of people who live in South Dakota. Good thing we live in a democracy that we can elect officials that have similar values as the majority, and keep wackos like supporters, and no-answer, edgy-turned-dull Cory, of this blog out!
It’s funny how liberals always want something to change, whether it is beneficial or not, but when a conservative makes a change for the better of the economy he is mocked.
If you talk to Cory, can you have him answer my questions? I know he can’t be that busy. All he does is write opinionated blogs based off of Google articles.
If you’re happy with something, or can’t figure out anything to be unhappy about, talk to a liberal! They always find doom something anything.
Also, burning question: Will Cory speak up to answer legit questions about his background? Or will he hide behind his shield of blogs?
I’m guessing the scared, little weasel has no intentions of replying to questions he has no answer for.
It’s funny how liberals always want something to change, whether it is beneficial or not,
Beneficial for whom? The wealthy? The polluters? Land and environmental rapists?
Why do you wingnuts embrace corruption in your government year after year? Apparently it is inbred in wingnut voters. Plus, when it gets pointed out via suicides and murders, wingnuts act like it is just the price you pay for corrupt cronyism.
I wouldn’t be a complicit wingnut voter like you for all the dirty money in the world.
You own it. It is all yers.
Sorry OldSferbrains Junior. Master has job plus substitute teaching jobs.
I’ll take it! Thanks, Fidel Castro…or, I mean Mike from Iowa!
Evan, if you dial it down you will learn something here even if you don’t agree you’ll be forced to fine tune your arguments. You’ll probably never change anybody’s opinion here, as a minority poster you’re gonna get jabbed, but there is benefit in hearing other sides (and not just this liberal one).
Happy Camper – If you start reading where I started posting comments, I spoke positive about both liberal positions and conservative in regards to the farm bill. I also respectfully answered others. Then, I was mocked about my self-esteem, reading abilities, etc. Therefore, I decided to answer back in the same tone.
It seems to me that I am the only person in this discussion that has seen positives from both liberal and conservative policies, and the only one who has pointed out faults of both ideas. This is something that is missing from most of the too-far-left leaning individuals who like to post on here.
Also, my main reason for commenting was to get Cory to answer questions since, you know, he wants people to vote. I called him out as being unqualified, and he has yet to respond. The comments made towards his defenders are more of just a side thing.
Once Cory answers, I am done and you guys can have your special complaining session back. Until then, I will continue to assert that his opinion doesn’t matter because he is just talking out of that big hole he sits on all day.
Happy camper – I believe I am the only person in this conversation that has stated positives on both the liberal and conservative agendas. I was also very reasonable in my initial responses before I was attacked about trolling, self-esteem, reading, ect. Then that’s when I pointed flaws in others. Plus, I complimented Jerry multiple times on his affection towards organic bananas!
Thanks, and happy holidays!
Then Evan use the experience to become less defensive, less reactive, and stay on course with logical arguments. If they’re pokin on you, you’re probably saying something relevant they don’t want to hear but you’re allowing your message to be deflected, and that’s on you.
Nah, it’s funner to troll back.
Also, since “Edgy” Cory thinks I have “some conflict in your worldview”, I find this hilarious from his About page:
“I make no pretense of strictly objective reporting. I’m a South Dakota Democrat, the loyal opposition, and the closest thing to liberal media South Dakota produces.”
“I am 100% owner and operator of this blog. No political party, corporation, or other organization dictates content or editorial choices.”
Hmmmm. Seems like the liberal party dictates your editorial choices, according to you anyways. Maybe you should rename the blag “dakotaliberalpress” since, you know, you aren’t REALLY independent with your own opionions.
Obvious to all the dog in the manger is not here for anything other than disrupting the blog with his three year old Drumpfian fits.
Drumpf is soon to be shown the door. Too bad he can’t be muzzled first. He has made America the laughingstock of the world and his dog in the manger minions are no different.
Hey, little brat, what some nana?
Ah, logical. Insult and mute me and my opinion because you disagree. I thought you guys were against that when Trump blocked the CNN reporter? Hypocritical, or is this one of those things that we aren’t supposed to remember because it doesn’t fit the liberal agenda?
Merry Merry, MFI. 🎅 🎄 🕯 We all chipped in and got your dog a squeeze toy. If you squeeze it’s head it makes noises like a little boy who needs it’s diaper changed. Enjoy. (the DFP crew) ⚔
Evan you come across as a South Dakota Snowflake who takes pride in being a conformist Cory doesn’t take marching orders but the progressive movement is just a bubble. South Dakota is a bubble too, just a tiny backwards state.
Ps …. Jerry, we got you one, too. :)
Thanks, Porter! I really appreciate it! Happy holidays to you as well!
Happy camper – I have yet to be offended, but it seems like I may have offended some people with my conservative opinions? Yes, I may have changed my attitude from the beginning to match Cory and the rest of the “gang”, but that is just to get Cory to answer a reasonable couple of questions about his qualifications that give his opinions merit. As soon as he answers, I’ll be gone.
Thanks for the nickname though and the description of South Dakota! Sorry you don’t enjoy the state…
You’re very welcome here, the boy/girl calling itself Evan. It’s the slow time of year and the blog makes money by how many posts are put up. You’re kinda entertaining. Not in what you think or say but in how you act. Just a few questions, for now. How did your Dad treat you as a child? How did he treat your Mom? Or wasn’t he around? How did he react when you told him? Take your time. No need. School doesn’t start again until next year.
Thanks for taking so much interest in me, Porter, but it seems you may be getting a little personal?
I am male, I have a great relationship with both parents, they have a great relationship, I’m not sure what I told him that your referring to, I hope I answered timely, no need for what?, and thanks for the info on the school, however, it doesn’t really apply to me.
You should see happy campers posts about being nice to others….I think he would label you as a “snowflake”.
I’m labeling you a snowflake Evan cause you could add diversity to the conversation while putting up with some hazing but you’re throwing it away for the short-term pleasure of being a troll. Are they fair? No, but the majority never is and here they are the majority. They love it!!!
Great relationship. Timely. Interest in you. There aren’t any right answers, you know.
Cory’s the blog master, here. Kind of a father figure to the proceedings that go on. A genuine South Dakota liberal icon. You seem to be showing a strong attraction to him. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. We’re mostly liberal here with a few that need other things. Just wondering. Anything else to say? Jerry and MFI seem to enjoy your company, ‘ya know.
Happy camper – Thanks again, but I believe I already established my appreciation for the nickname. I believe I did add diversity with my conservative point of view, as well as establishing the pros and cons of both capitalism and socialism. I also stated how I liked some socialism policies, just not adopting socialism as the main form of an economy like most people on this blog suggest we should do.
I don’t mind the hazing, I can take it. To me, these guys (and you) respond to me in Junior High styled insults and name-calling whenever a valid question was asked or counterargument was made.
Is there something else I should have added to become more diverse in my previous comments?
Thanks again, Porter. Sorry I didn’t answer your questions about me correctly. If you have the answers, please let me know so I can respond to another person correctly.
Congrats to your liberal icon. Maybe some day he can get close enough to have his name mainstream in South Dakota, or at least close the gap on his 17% election loss. I would probably choose Sutton over Cory to idol. I think he has done more, and seems like a likable person.
I don’t believe I’ve shown an attraction to him. If anything, an interest. I want to know what his background is that give merit to his “Edgy” opinions on just about everything in politics.
That’s it, for now, unless you have more questions to ask? Otherwise, I believe I stated quite a few logical opinions on the current subject matter that seems to have gotten away a bit.
happy and I disagree on a myriad of interesting issues, but as to one point he makes, he is 100% correct in his comments to and about Evan. I too thought I was discussing issues with a reasonable person at first, but in following this thread and Evan’s comments I can see I was mistaken. Lesson learned – no more feeding the troll on substantive issues.
And as a matter of fact, Evan’s comments here do not give conservatives a bad name. Rather, Evan’s comments on this thread have now given himself a bad name, and this result has nothing to do with his political views.
Thanks for your input, bcb. I would like to add that I have never personally insulted anyone on this blog, although I may have mocked a couple (Like Jerry and his organic bananas). I now apologize to both Jerry and anyone else I offended.
I also did make a general reference that I inferred applied to all liberals, but in fact it only applies to far-left individuals like the commentators on this blog. For that I also apologize. I do, however, stand by my OPINION on far-left liberals.
Other than that, what have I said that was unreasonable, or at the very least, less reasonable than what others on this blog may have stated? I may have used terms to describe my feelings toward Cory, and some terms he used to describe himself. He can prove me wrong. All he has to do is respond to a basic couple of questions that any voter should ask.
I’m starting to think you all are going to take away my dog toy you promised me…
Most attractions begin with an interest, obviously. Sometimes an unfulfilled relationship with your Father can be repressed until something makes you recall things you’ve restrained. Father figures. Interest in someone who scolds you. Striking out at a perceived creator of your situation. Things haven’t “gotten away a bit”. We’ve not gone anywhere.
It isn’t easy admitting you are wrong (which I did to Jerry about an earlier article), however it is easy to throw out name-calling to others with valid opinions that you don’t agree with. Even happy camper, who scolded me about stooping down to MFI, Porter, and Jerry’s level of name calling, decided he was not going to follow his own advice and call me a “snowflake” with opinions that were not diverse.
You can’t make up rules for other people and have them only apply to that person. That is why there is such a divide between liberals and conservatives. I also think what I said about liberals applies to conservatives as well (see HC, diverse!).
Having said that, Cory should now start answering my questions since I’m making him so much money on this blog – according to Porter.
Porter is the poster child of what I just said.
Evan, you ask:
Re-read your own comments. Look for repetitive name-calling, insults, distracting statements, meaningless off topic questions, belittling others, what aboutisms, and similar general offensive non-substantive language.
I did read my comments again and found I name-called Jerry quite a few times, calling him a banana man, ect. I also referred to Porter as Trump and Fidel Castro a couple times to get my point across that he/she was acting like that.
The rest of my replies were generally answers to questions intended to belittle me, to no avail, and logic base on my thoughts.
Did I say anything insulting towards you?
I feel like I’m getting singled out on the mocking here.
Let me explain my thoughts exactly to get back on point:
Farm subsidies (liberal) = good! Welfare (liberal) mostly good, but need some changes to remove abuses (abuses is different than criminal activity, although a couple stated that it is the same).
I prefer capitalism over socialism for our economy, however, I believe we should be using socialism programs to create safety nets to counter the bad effects of capitalism.
We good?
Evan, I’m under no obligation to answer questions about my background. That’s not the topic.
I have not asked questions about your background, Evan, because your background is irrelevant to the facts presented.
Congress passed a Farm Bill filled with big liberal programs and continuing welfare checks for farmers. That fact does not change whether you and I are rich or poor, CEOs or janitors, farmers or eaters, Republicans or Democrats, moral exemplars or A-1 jerks.
Another conclusion that has emerged from our discussion appears to be that the proportion of farms than cannot survive on their own in the free market without government assistance appears to be greater than the proportion of American families who cannot cover their own grocery bills without government assistance. That fact carries no inherent moral judgment; it simply expresses our unavoidable interdependency… and the fact that capitalism doesn’t work very well without a healthy dose of socialism… just as socialism by itself appears not to work very well without a healthy dose of capitalism.
(If I wanted to spend all day writing about myself, I’d spend more time on Facebook posting selfies, or I’d write a daddy blog—gaacckk!.)
Dog in the manger- when you Google Dakota Free Press this is what pops up- Dakota Free Press – South Dakota’s True Liberal Media
Should give even yerself a pretty good idea where Cory stands on issues.
Now run along. Cory answered you so be a dog of yer word and hit the road.
Thanks for replying, Cory. You have sufficiently proved what I’ve already previously concluded about merit behind your blogs. I would say, as a politician, you should be obligated to answer questions about your background to registered voters to prove you are capable of leading the South Dakota people. I would never hire anyone without knowing their experiences. I also am not looking to get votes, so I don’t really know why you would need to know my background. I will, however, share it with you if you want to know. Asking about your qualifications, in my opinion, is not considered an illogical question. This is no different than you wanting Trump to show his tax returns to prove he is as good of a business person as he says he is.
I will no longer (as promised) be commenting on anything (unless you reply directly to me) after my final response to your answers.
1. Agreed, which has already been stated in the previous comments of this blog.
2. Nope, that is not my conclusion. My conclusion is that without assistance to farmers, our area that we live in would essentially die. In no part of this discussion did I ever say that the proportion of farmers relying on assistance was greater than American families who cannot cover their own grocery bills. In fact, I stated that farmers qualify on both sides for assistance. I am willing to bet that less individuals receive farm subsidies than people on other welfare programs, but I do not know the answer to that.
I also partially disagree with your interdependence theory. Technically, you’re right, but I think are inferring that its is a 50/50 split between the two. Of course there is a small amount of interdependence between the two (everything in the economy is dependent on each other). However, Farms would survive if we came up with other sources that decrease the amount of people off of welfare (job creation, programs to lift wages).
That is the main difference between my opinion and others here: I prefer a strategy that creates opportunities for people to take advantage of, take risk knowing there is a temporary safety net, and have no limitations on how successful in their career they can be.
The liberal policy wants take from the successful and give to the poor. It also seems like if someone makes too much money, he gets vilified for that. I believe that people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have more money than they could ever spend in their lifetime, but the impact that their companies have on the world far outweighs the consequences of a group of people thinking they don’t need that much money and we should take it away to give to people who haven’t been as successful. Without capitalism, these two individuals would not make nearly the positive impact that they could if the US adopted a socialism policy. See Cuba for a reference of what that looks like.
Everyone likes to bash the top 1%. It is true that they are looking to make their money and stay rich, but they are also the main source of job creation, innovation, and income for all the citizens who choose to work for them. How do you increase your money? You reinvest into the economy and collect on returns. Does it benefit wealthy more than others? Of course, just based on math. However, we fortunately live in a society that allows any of us to go from $1 to $1,000,000. Is it harder for some people than others? Yes. Impossible for some? Yes. Is life fair? No. Not everyone finishes a marathon, but the reward for those who work hard and persevere is amazing. That is what makes America better than any other country in the world.
So when I see people bashing farmers, who do the majority of reinvestment in this area, for getting too much government assistance that should be used for people having a much smaller impact on our economy, I get a little upset. We should be supporting what is strong in order to help lift what is weak. This applies to business as well. Capitalism should always remain the root of America, a land built on this economic philosophy.
I also agree with you on capitalism doesn’t work very well without socialism. My argument is that capitalism must be the base layer with socialism trickled in. 100% capitalism leaves too many behind, 100% socialism removes our freedom. I highly disagree about your opinions on how it should work, however.
I believe with your views on income tax, or taking money from farmers to people who have a much smaller impact on the economy, is a rural area killer – especially in bad crop years. That philosophy is what will slow down an economy and make it harder for those with aspirations of meeting goals. Why inhibit the freedom of living a lifestyle of one’s choosing?
Your opinions on the matter are different than mine. If you wish, you can prove me wrong. If not, have a great life.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/12/20/u-s-department-agriculture-food-stamps/2373309002/
Drumpf and the USDA want to put restrictions on food stamps in just passed Farm Bill that didn’t include making recipients work.
Currently, able-bodied adults ages 18-49 without children are required to work 20 hours a week to maintain their SNAP benefits.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/12/20/u-s-department-agriculture-food-stamps/2373309002/
Not sure where this belongs, but, wingnuts in their zeal to cut taxes for the koch bros placed a 21% tax on certain benefits of tax exempt charities and they are catching holy hell for this.
https://www.sheilakennedy.net/2018/12/not-the-onion-really/
Work where and how, for food?
“Rural America faces an affordable-housing crisis that, if left unchecked, could raise rents for low-income residents and contribute to rural population loss in coming years, said a national nonprofit organization.
“We’re learning that in rural housing, there is a crisis and people think that it’s different than urban America,” said Stephen Sugg, government relations manager at the Housing Assistance Council (HAC), which sounded the alarm during its biannual conference in Washington, D.C. earlier this month. “It looks different, but very high percentages of rural renters are paying over half their income in rent.”
HAC officials are worried about the future of an affordable housing program from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that provides loans for buying or renovating buildings for affordable housing.” http://www.ruralhome.org/whats-new/menu-policy/1468-trump-fy18-budget-usda
So if there is no housing in rural areas, then there is no one to do the work needed. trump and his trumpians supports Buffalo Commons!! Who knew that they were actually environmentalists? Who am I kidding, this is all part of the war on women and the poor. Let them eat cake.
Jerry, trailer houses, modular homes, tiny houses, remodeled farm outbuildings into homes. I see a lot of all of those already in Minnesota.
How much do those homes cost Ms. Debbo? All of those listed are nearly the same price as conventional. But what this Farm Bill takes away are affordable housing and financing for that.
Let’s build those tiny homes out of hemp plywood… and then tie ’em down with strong hemp rope so the tornados don’t blow them clean to Wisconsin!
Further trashing of the farm economy is on Malicious Moron’s menu. Japan is the target and meat and wheat farmers will suffer for this one. MM plans to use the same worthless tools to make a new, bilateral deal with Japan like he’s ruining with China.
Japan imports half its wheat from the US. The head of US Wheat Associates expects the market to collapse.
The US Meat Export Federation expects sales to drop by $1 billion in 5 years due to this.
goo.gl/MEJ4ym
I am seeing more used grain bins being turned into residential dwellings around my area. I hear the biggest concern is making windows fit on smaller diameter bins. They may have to much curve for the windows until someone makes bin-specific windows. There you go, Northern Mississippi. a perfect new industry for your low wage workers.
Grain bins for homes? Wouldn’t a metal building get awfully hot in the summer and cold in the winter? Does it need extra insulation?
What’s the smallest bin you’ve seen made into a house, Mike? One could go ape and buy curved glass, but wouldn’t it be easier to get a normal window and just box it into the space? Or buy a nice bow window and set the panes to match the curve, turning the cylindrical bin in that spot into a prism?
https://www.motherearthnews.com/diy/buildings/grain-bins-z10m0gri
Quite interesting article. Local DNR has a couple large bins turned into cabins for rent at local lake. And some are quite spectacular looking.
The largest single family home I have seen is only about 20 feet in diameter and are not the best looking homes.
https://www.traveliowa.com/destination/dog-creek-grain-bin-cabins/12685/
Both sleep 12 people in 6 Queen size beds.
Telling your kid to go stand in the corner would be the ultimate punishment while living in a grain bin.
There are bunches of bins needing new purposes other than grain storage. Most of them are just too small for farmers to mess with anymore. And they slowly rust away.
Visiting a fancy tube like that would be fun, if it wasn’t in Iowa. I found one in Utah that would be fun, but pack your own Scotch in because the stores there are few and close early.
Round bins are fast to put up. You build them from the top down. We put up a few on the farm. I wonder if it would pay to put a smaller bin inside one a few feet bigger in diameter, then use blown in or expanding foam insulation? That would be pretty cheap construction. Gas, plumbing, walls, windows, doors, etc, would still be necessary of course.
Interesting ideas.
Silos are somewhat popular for turning into homes, but I think I’d rather live in a round bin. I’m not that fond of stairs. Barns are favored, but there are other outbuildings that might work quite well.
The farm I grew up on still had the original claim shanty my great grandfather built on the site. 12′ x 12′, raised 6 children in it. It was used for storage when I was a kid. I used to go out and stand in it, trying to imagine 6 children, 2 adults, a wood or coal or cow chip or hay twists (Depression) burning cookstove/heat source and space for everyone to sleep.
Still can’t fathom it. That’s an insane level of tiny house living.
Ms. Geelsdottir is righter than right about the round bins going up fast from the top down. It’s fun to watch them get pushed up because those fellows just push it higher and higher. It would be fun to torch the openings into it with a plasma cutter, and outfit it with the fancy innards one would need. grudznick would like a fat, tall bin, with a nice yard and an elevator to go up and a slide to come down.