Not long ago this website ripped U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) for his support of sugar subsidies. Looks like Rubio will get another chance to show whether he’s a real fiscal conservative …
According to The Wall Street Journal, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is contemplating an $80 million purchase of 400,000 pounds of sugar as part of its efforts to “prop up tumbling U.S. sugar prices.”
This comes on top of hundreds of millions of dollars in loans made to sugar processors beginning last October – and on top of tariffs which restrict sugar imports. Oh … and according to The Journal, the USDA “wouldn’t say how many companies have received loans, or identify them.”
This is insanity …
As we’ve noted on repeated occasions in the past, agricultural subsidies are anathema to the free market, ineffective from a policy standpoint and completely unfair to the taxpayers who are forced to pay for them. They must be eliminated immediately … all of them.
Also, Republicans, Democrats and “Tea Partiers” like Rubio must all get on board with their elimination … irrespective of the special interests sweetening their campaign accounts.
***
20 comments
Marco needs all that sugar to mix with his tea. Teabaggers love that white stuff… Just ask Talbert Black and Harry Kibler. They love it when Ashley Landess mixes their “tea.”
Marco needs all that sugar to mix with his tea. Teabaggers love that white stuff… Just ask Talbert Black and Harry Kibler. They love it when Ashley Landess mixes their “tea.”
What we have now in America is a “crony capitalist” economy(which is not capitalism) for the most part. If you work for gov’t or for a company that doesn’t mind manipulating it for advantage to its best abilities/resources then you are fine.(or own such a company)
If you have standards, you’re screwed, or going to have a much tougher time at least.
What we have now in America is a “crony capitalist” economy(which is not capitalism) for the most part. If you work for gov’t or for a company that doesn’t mind manipulating it for advantage to its best abilities/resources then you are fine.(or own such a company)
If you have standards, you’re screwed, or going to have a much tougher time at least.
It is difficult to equate food with all “free market” products. Most, if not all, free market products we can live without if they stopped production due to the “free market”. Food doesn’t fit that mold. So food gets treated differently. Yes we can argue until the cows come home about sugar or some other food commodity but at some point farmers have to be kept in business.
I’m glad that someone finally has the balls to make an argument against free markets. Kudos to you, seriously-I mean that.
Everyone else always pussy foots around the issue. I may not agree with you, but I appreciate that you don’t obfuscate the issue in terms of your belief of the superiority of centrally planned markets over free markets.
?,
“your belief of the superiority of centrally planned markets over free markets.” That is not my belief. My point is that food (and water) are not items we can “pussy foot” with.
“That is not my belief.”
“but at some point farmers have to be kept in business.”
Ok, so how do stop farmers from going out of business if you believe in free markets?
edit: “you stop”
You have a mixed market system, which is what we have in the U.S.
Rubio is not a conservative and never was. Cane Sugar is not like other commodities. It can’t be produced competitively in the US without heavy subsidies and a heavy environmental toll. Rubio’s support of this subsidy is political, not logical.
It is difficult to equate food with all “free market” products. Most, if not all, free market products we can live without if they stopped production due to the “free market”. Food doesn’t fit that mold. So food gets treated differently. Yes we can argue until the cows come home about sugar or some other food commodity but at some point farmers have to be kept in business.
I’m glad that someone finally has the balls to make an argument against free markets. Kudos to you, seriously-I mean that.
Everyone else always pussy foots around the issue. I may not agree with you, but I appreciate that you don’t obfuscate the issue in terms of your belief of the superiority of centrally planned markets over free markets.
?,
“your belief of the superiority of centrally planned markets over free markets.” That is not my belief. My point is that food (and water) are not items we can “pussy foot” with.
“That is not my belief.”
“but at some point farmers have to be kept in business.”
Ok, so how do stop farmers from going out of business if you believe in free markets?
edit: “you stop”
You have a mixed market system, which is what we have in the U.S.
Rubio is not a conservative and never was. Cane Sugar is not like other commodities. It can’t be produced competitively in the US without heavy subsidies and a heavy environmental toll. Rubio’s support of this subsidy is political, not logical.
It has been argued by some that the reason why the US still has an embargo against Cuba is because of the sugar lobby who is fearful that sugar prices would drop if imported Cuban sugar started appearing on American’s tables. As a rule I do not go for conspiracy theories, but this one I think might have a grain of truth to it.
It has been argued by some that the reason why the US still has an embargo against Cuba is because of the sugar lobby who is fearful that sugar prices would drop if imported Cuban sugar started appearing on American’s tables. As a rule I do not go for conspiracy theories, but this one I think might have a grain of truth to it.