Let's talk about farm/agriculture subsidies

However...

They certainly read differently to me.

The first might mean you are just profiting from yet more government waste and abuse ($600 toilet seat syndrome) spending while the second sounds exactly like a handout. Either way, you will have to pardon me if I am not thrilled that you got tax dollars for either case and for thinking these farm 'programs' are exactly why our country is in so much debt.

 

Oh! My! Now who else does that I wonder. BTW, Department of Agriculture.

 

Wow. Are you just really reaching here or are you.....I'll stop there & just assume you're reaching. Okay, I'll go slow, so I had this piece of land that was sitting idle (read as: I was not growing a cash crop on it). Then, the gov't offered to pay me to grow a research crop for them (still on this piece of land that wasn't being used for anything else). I said "yes" to their proposal.
The fact you aren't 'thrilled" is of no consequence to me. Perhaps, if this turns into something in the future, we will all benefit, huh?

 

So, it is as I thought the first time around. You accepted taxpayer money to grow something the government, and not the free market or the private sector, thinks is a good idea. The same people who can't run the Post Office. Congratulations on your taxpayer funded 'stimulus' farm program. I will hold my breath waiting to heat my home and fuel my car with Obama's Wonderful Cacti.

Don't take it personal, though. I don't blame you for jumping in and taking the money the handouts that the government is giving out any more than I do the people who get more money back in taxes than they paid in. But these things need to go from the budget as soon as possible.

 

Let's phrase it truthfully...I accepted gov't money to grow something that may be good for the country...that is the reason for the program. Would you rather it be summarily dismissed without being explored? They tell me this plant has more natural sugar than corn (and you know corn is widely used as an energy crop, right?). How would you rather see this potential alternative fuel researched?

 

I would rather the private sector funded it and research it and not the taxpayers. And they would if it was really a viable program for the future.

And you are using corn as an example? We don't need cactus to go along on that ride. Corn is the most heavily subsidized crop in the US. And ethanol is nothing but a hugely tax payer subsidized and government mandated alternative fuel. On its own, it would never survive as an alternative fuel. It requires 50 cents per gallon of taxpayer subsides and mandated use to 'succeed'. Again, the antithesis of a free market.

 

Follow me now...this crop they are investigating has more of what makes corn a potential energy source (natural sugar). Maybe, just maybe, this plant will accomplish what corn production can't. Or we can just scrap the whole thing before we know for sure.
Let's see...which one makes more sense.....Hmmmm.....I think I'll give it a chance before deferring to your expertise.

 

You can keep up your faith in yet another wasteful government boondoggle program - one that just so happens to benefit you directly. I will rely on a less biased, real world opinion and defer to the free market businesses...the ones who don't seem to be interested in using their money for you and BO's wonderful 'research'.

 

Yeah, let's say "to hell" with it all...why should we explore alternative fuel sources anyway, right? We should be thrilled with $4/gal gas prices. Well, maybe not.

 

With the yours and the BO's plan, you get to pay $4 mandated corn ethanol gas prices and then, in addition, have your tax dollars used for corn ethanol fuel subsidies and for paying an untold number of farmers to grow cactus. No thanks. I'd rather cut the subsidies, let the private sector put their money into alternatives that they think will work, and have a true price at the pump. I can choose whether to take a 200 mile vacation or a 2000 mile vacation or whether I drive the car that gets 20 mpg or 40mpg to work, etc, etc. Which is a whole lot better than having no choice in giving up tax dollars so some farmer can take his vacation.

 

Therefore David it is as I say not a subsidy but a payment for a product and a service