[/COLOR][/B]
Well let's be intellectually honest here, how can you go by YOUR criteria, and ever trust ANYONE or ANYTHING ever again? Are you perfect? Have you never made a mistake? Have you ever thought you were right about something but found out later you were wrong? I think most of us have, and we tend to accept that sometimes people can do the wrong thing for the right reasons, and we don't condemn them for life. We certainly don't condemn their organizations through guilt by association! What republicans of the past have done, has no bearing on what republicans of the future might do, or what the party itself will do. Things change, perceptions change, people realize the error of their ways, etc.
Oh, so you are saying the GOP has seen the light on its profligate ways? You are saying they are no longer going to be Democrat Lite? You seem to be making a lot of excuses for your party.
And I don't know if you have a reading comprehension problem, but I clearly didn't blame democrats while absolving republicans of any responsibility on Ethanol subsidies. I merely stated that Ethanol has always been a left-wing pet project, used extensively to offer as an alternative to domestic drilling. Now, you can IGNORE what I said, and pretend I said something completely different if you like, but expect me to call you on that and not let it stand unchallenged.
Again, I'm not seeing where I said what you want to claim I have said! Are you sure you are reading and comprehending what I am posting? I know of NO fiscal conservative who has supported Ethanol subsidies... if you have one to give as an example, I will apologize, but I don't think you do.
It appears we are talking past each on this and will have to agree to disagree. You seem to be content with the fact that because ethanol was a dreamchild of the left that the GOP is absolved in their support of the program. While they may not have been championing the cause, they sure didn't do anything to stop it. That may satisfy you, but it doesn't satisfy me. As far as fiscal conservatives vs the GOP, surely you know that the two are not necessarily one and the same. If you do not, then there is no point continuing this conversation.
Oh but in politics, right is not always right, or at least it's not always the right thing to do what is right. Iraq, for example. The Media is going to crucify you if and when you cut subsidies to farmers, you may as well expect it. Get ready to see sweet innocent 7-year-olds in sun dresses picking wildflowers, and the caring narration explaining how she will now be homeless and penniless, not knowing where her next meal will come from, all because of the cuts. We'll have Jim and Sue, the struggling middle-American farm couple who've invested their entire life savings into Ethanol corn production, and will now lose everything. These heartbreaking stories are going to be endlessly paraded before the doting American masses who watch prime time TV. What is your plan for dealing with that?
Basically you are saying nothing can be done about spending period because guess what? There can be those types of sob stories with ANY gobblement spending that you try to cut. Apparently you don't have the courage of your convictions to do the right thing. Apparently, you suffer from the same affliction the RINO GOP establishment in DC suffers from. You are more worried about what the lame stream media is going to say about you than doing the right thing. Well, from where I sit, it hasn't helped your party and worse it has not helped our country. But, hey at least the lame stream media isn't trying to paint you as some reactionary. Wait.......Oh yeah, they already do.
Don't take me the wrong way here, I am not saying we shouldn't cut subsidies for Ethanol, or that a bunch of the stuff we do in terms of farm subsidy is beyond insane, but it's not ALL insane,
But you already said we can because the media will create sob stories and you aren't willing to take the heat.
and we can't eliminate ALL of it! Doing so would be STUPID, politically AND practically.
THe only people who believe this are those who do not understand or believe in free market economics
That's the point I am trying to get you to realize, you are far too EXTREME in your approach, with the right idea and way of thinking. YES... we do need to make cuts, we need to make SERIOUS cuts, and we need to stop federally funding Ethanol, but we need to find solutions to the problems caused by no longer doing it, this needs to be phased in, so as not to completely destroy people's lives, while trying to "the right thing." You can call me names all you like, I think that is a reasonable approach.
Let's see. Gobblement created the problem and you think that gobblement is going to fix the problem doing the same things gobblement did to get into the mess in the first place? Yeah, that sounds about right. What could go wrong?
I agree with you in principle here, but what you want to do is something you haven't thought about the consequences of completely. If you have, then you are INSANE! It's not a matter (or shouldn't be) of what is "your subsidy" or "my subsidy" in this debate. It should be, what is working and benefiting Americans, and what isn't? There are a LOT of things we subsidize for VERY good reason, and we don't need to completely STOP doing it, unless we have solutions to the problems the subsidy is addressing. You think we just need to end it ALL... one whack! I am conservative as the day is long, but I wholeheartedly disagree with this approach. Yeah... it would be GREAT if we could invent a time machine, go back in time and change what has already been done, but we can't. That seems to be what you are hoping to somehow find.
Again, you obviously don't understand free market economics or don't really believe in them or maybe you are benefitting from some sort of subsidy yourself. But, ALL americans are hurt by subsidies. The only ones who are helped are those who are being subsidized. You are picking winners and losers. Take sugar cane subsidies. It is great for sugar cane producers. Whoopy! Happy day. How dare they have to survive in a competitive world? No, let's have the gobblement subsidize them so the US pays 5 times the world market for sugar cane. Yeah! Fucking AWESOME! Then candy manufacturers who use sugar cane for inputs move their production overseas, not because of cheap labor costs, but cheaper inputs so they can be competitive. So while the sugar cane producers live high on the hog, the consumers of the product suffer. Shall I go on? How about steel subsidies? Bush 43 or Bonesman as I like to call him, caved to political pressure and put a tariff on imported steel because it wasn't fair that Japan was providing cheaper steel. AWESOME! Yeah, those steel workers are saved. Except, fuck the workers in New Orleans which lost good paying jobs because steel wasn't being imported. And fuck the consumers of steel because now they have to pay a higher price for steel than they otherwise would have. But, we SAVED the steel industry from competition. Goody.
I totally agree that the Free Market should be doing this stuff, if it's worth doing! 100% agree with you on that!
If you really believed this, then you would not have started your next sentence with a BUT. If you truly 100% believed in the free market, you would not support ANY subsidies. Read Friedman, Hayek, Bastiat, Williams, Sowell. All brilliant free market economists who would disagree 100% with you.
But that's the thing, much of what we subsidize is not worth doing commercially, but we need for someone to do it. If we don't have someone growing corn or wheat, we have a supply problem, and then something that is relatively cheap, becomes unfathomably expensive overnight, like FLOUR.
Are you saying that flour production is not worth doing without subsidies? There is no market for flour?
This makes the cost of everything associated with it, MUCH MORE expensive. So we spend a few billion to ensure we have farmers growing ample supplies, so that this sort of thing doesn't happen. That is certainly not a BAD thing for us to do, it HELPS us more than it hurts in the long run. The Farmers Extension Service, another very beneficial thing we fund, and important to maintain. We can't just cut it because we are wielding a big budget machete, like Ron Paul in an Indiana Jones hat! We need to THINK about what is cut, and it needs to be looked at in terms of how many people it effects.
It is clear that you have no idea how market force economics work, nor do you have any idea how subsidies distort the free market and make things worse for everyone. Like I said, from an economic thinking standpoint, you really aren't much different than a democrat. You are one of those republican types who likes to grow gobblement, you just don't want to grow it as fast as the demalquedacrats.
Again, you are the one with the reading comprehension problem. Ethanol was primarily the brainchild of liberal environmentalists, who were searching for ways to produce energy without fossil fuels. Now that is just a fact of life, and we can either be honest about it or we can run around flailing our hands with our hair on fire, declaring that NO political party is suitable to run our country, but I am not ready to become an ANARCHIST just yet. Yes, mostly MODERATE REPUBLICANS who have felt the need to PANDER to the left, to win votes in their districts or whatever, HAVE supported this Ethanol kick... John McCain front and center leading the way! And ALL ALONG, the "Tea Party" conservatives have been saying it is a STUPID idea, and what we need to do is more domestic drilling, while continuing to explore other alternative energy sources.
There you go throwing around baseless charges. I didn't say anything about being an anarchist. All I said, is that we should eliminate ALL subsidies. You obviously disagree. You obviously think (by your statement) that if we don't have subsidies we have anarchy. Oddly enough, we were able to grow corn and all sorts of agricultural products hundreds of years ago without a department of agriculture. Subsidies only serve to favor one constituency over another and create a gobblement supported competitive advantage. It is crony capitalism at its worse.
No... No one is going to insanely gut all subsidies. That's not going to happen in this universe. You can dream and hope of it happening in yours, but it's just not going to happen in this one. The best we can do is elect sensible people who are committed to looking at how we can eliminate what we don't need, and get government out of our lives. I hate to break it to you, but the ONLY party who can be expected to attempt this, is the GOP.
I know that nobody is going to gut all subsidies because there are too many people that think like you. You are more worried about what people think about you than doing the right thing. If you can't eliminate subsidies, then you have no real prayer of getting gobblement out of your life. Apparently you like gobblement in your life because you like subsidies. Your last sentence is laughable to the extreme. By what track record as the GOP showed you they are willing to cut the size of the federal gobblement? Show me when it has happened. You are worse than the demalquedacrats in my book because at least I know what to expect from them. They proudly proclaim they want to grow gobblement and everything they do seeks to accomplish that goal. You on the other hand make false claims about small government but when push comes to shove (like subsidies) your tail goes between your legs and you run for cover.
Awww... But I've always enjoyed combating cynical wacko extremism with hyperbole, it's so much FUN!
