Kasz216 said:
famousringo said:
Not surprised at all. Ending subsidies is hard. Not only do voters see an increased sticker price (a very visible effect, even if you compensate with tax cuts and increased welfare), but rural voters are likely to punish lawmakers for the change. With rural votes being worth almost twice as much as urban votes, it's easy math for representatives to do.
@outlawauron
The idea of subsidizing healthy produce has some merit, but farm subsidies do certainly lower prices for rich and poor alike. I realize that poor people eat more corn-derived processed food, but the price of that food is low no matter what income your household has. There's no reason rich people need a discount on bread and tortillas.
|
Oh this isn't farm subsidies ending anyway, what the one guy above said is right, I looked it up, and basically what happened is right after WW2 a law passed setting the price of milk.
Essentially Milk isn't sold like a regular product, it's essentially sold "Communist" style. The government buys the milk from the producers then sells it to the market... pricefixing what milk can be sold for.
The Farm bills have temporary measures in them that make the price they pay cheaper then what the 1949 law says we should pay, which had inflation adjustments in it.
So really the government would just be way overpaying farmers for milk, then way overcharging supermarkets, who would be forced to pay because well... all milk is sold through the state.
Essentially it's a case of
A) The government being too stupid to repeal laws and instead layer dumb laws on top of other dumb laws.
B) More or less a perfect arguement for why the free market system works way better then state run goverment price controls.
|
Well, when price controls are there to set a fair rate and not just give a huge handout to the farm lobby while screwing everyone else over. The idea of price controls is to stop things from getting too expensive, not to keep things very expensive
