Sugar Farmers hope for help from Congress

What you don't seem to grasp as well as tirk is that what hurts the economy around you, including workers that have nothing to do with you, lowers your standard of living. In the example I gave, if the last dentist in town picks his ball up and moves to bangledesh where the workers can afford his business, and assuming you can afford his prices but can't afford to travel to bangledesh for dental care...who the hell are you going to get to fix that cavity? maybe tirk can get that 5 yr old mexican girl.
People get a clue, when you send jobs overseas, you rarely realize lower product costs. The difference is put into someone else's pocket, instead of the american workers. and whether YOU choose to believe it or not Martin YOUR standard of living is closely aligned with our manufacturing base. Spin it anyway you want.

 

hiring cheap workers sounds like a sound financial decision to me.

says who? why cant non manufacturing industries support lots of workers?

yes. i dont understand where the problem is.

yes, taxes are terrible.

aww, wait i hoped you agreed that taxes are terrible. oh well.

now there is something we can agree on.

 

i dont understand, are these the same banglashis who work for 20 cents an hour? how can they afford the dentist better than we can?

this is america, we are free. if you want to purchase a service from anyone in the world, you should be allowed. if you want to make a factory and put your factory in guatemala, good for you, enjoy yourself. nobody should restrict you. thats freedom, that is america. who am i to tell anyone that they should not employ foreigners instead of high priced americans? i am no communist. you can hire anyone you want, anywhere you want. freedom.

we are rich in america. we can afford to pay poor gooks (i love that word) from other miserable places to do our mindless tasks. fine.

if a poor chinese idiot wants a job and he will take far less pay than an american, then i am not some evil son of a bitch that wants to stop him from working. maybe he will make alot of money and realize that capitalism rules and everyone else will realize it also, and freedom and democracy will spread and the world can live peacefully.

government restriction = horrible evil

freedom/free trade = maybe best thing on earth

also i want other countries to get rich like us. i love foreigners. if we all got rich we could party together and quit with the backward magic and terrorism and just relax and watch baseball. democracy, capitalism, freedom, the more the better, everywhere. if we build factories in other countries, they will have jobs and they can invest in themselves and stop being poor losers who want to join their local communist revolution (like in all those central american places).

 

I'm new to the nomenclature, but correct me if I'm wrong Chaos.

I think Red just "schooled" or "owned" the pro-sugar argument.

 

It's not about lowering my cost for a Coke by 2 cents. It's about lowering the price of sugar to manufacturers so they can compete and make as much money as possible.

Here's a report by the proponents of CAFTA.

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The present sugar program, created by the 1981 Farm Bill, consists of a domestic commodity loan program that sets a support price (loan rate) for sugar and establishes an import quota system that restricts foreign competition and ensures a high domestic price for sugar. Instead of a more stable sugar economy, the result is higher prices for everything that contains sugar.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A recent study conducted by the General Accounting Office (GAO) demonstrated that the sugar program costs consumers at least $1.9 billion annually in higher costs for their personal purchases of sugar and products containing sugar. According to GAO, the sugar program also another $90 million annually in taxpayer dollars because of higher prices for sugar and sugar-containing products purchased for the federal government's feeding programs.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The program has also virtually destroyed the domestic sugarcane refining industry. Since the program was enacted in 1981, 12 of the industry's 22 refineries have closed. The industry has lost over 40 percent of its former capacity, and thousands of Americans have lost their jobs.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The only protection provided by the sugar program has been to a handful of wealthy sugar barons. Less than one percent (17 cane sugar growers) of the nation's sugar growers gobble up 58 percent of the program benefits. In fact, one grower alone received $65 million. Contrary to popular rhetoric, these are not small family farmers. Rather, they are wealthy members of the sugar cartel, which pumps millions of dollars into congressional campaigns to protect their precious subsidy. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The truth has finally come out. The Clinton Administration's decision this year to purchase sugar to prop up domestic sugar prices finally debunks the myth that the sugar lobby has perpetrated on the U.S. public. The sugar program does come at a cost to taxpayers.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The White House agreed in May to purchase 132,000 tons of sugar, which will cost taxpayers nearly $55 million. However, this is only the beginning. The Clinton Administration acknowledged that this purchase would not help strengthen sugar prices. In fact, according to a report in the highly respected agricultural journal Pro Farmer, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) budget analysts expect the government to spend $140 million on sugar this fiscal year.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Clinton Administration's mid-session budget review shows that from 2000 through 2005, the sugar program will cost taxpayers at least a cumulative $1 billion.[/font]

 

Dude, thats what I said. I said there was no direct subsidies, but a price support system that causes a "hidden" tax on consumers.

I showed a chart that showed the prices of sugar. You asked me if that price included subsidies. I said there were no subsidies for the price to include, but that the price included "hidden" costs because of the price support system.

I then included a link to an anti-sugar site to show that their is no direct subsidies, but price support system that costs tax-payers indirectly.
You responded with a link that says the same thing.

I guess if you consider a subsidy anything that helps an industry, then yes, sugarcane recieves subsidies. But if you consider a subsidy the direct money paid by the government, sugarcan does not recieve any (Whereas rice has recieved over 1.4 billion in LA alone over the past 10 years).

This is not really that big of a deal, but I'm pretty immature and can't let anyone else have the last word.

 

to me it is a semi big deal, much more important than the vast majority of issues .

subsidies, protectionism, all these restrictions on the free market, these are huge things that keep he world from being wealthier. and a wealthier world is more friendly and safe. i think these restrictions are terrible for us as well as our trading partners. we are forced to pay for crap (and taxes cripple the potential of our economy) that makes things worse, and hurts other countries.

all subsidies and price controls of all kinds (including rent controls, which really screw me up the ass and make my rent cost cost so much i am embarassed to admit it) are bad for everyone.

 

I absolutely agree that the tax burden for citizens and businesses is out of control, especially in La. where the only industry we get is the kind that ahs to pay us to come here.....i.e. the chemical industry. These politicians get their pockets-lined with dough from these industries that no one else wants.

But I digress..........

I see what you're saying but I don't see how artifically keeping the price of sugar or steel, not allowing imports of foreign steel or taxing it to make the price higher is helping either the American consumer or or American company. How can you force GM to pay a higher price for steel, because they have to buy it from U.S. Steel or a foreign steel maker, both whose prices are artifically inflated, and still compete with Kia who gets cheaper steel?

On top of that, GM is asked to compete with Kia and Honda, who both get steel at the market price while GM does not, all the while the labor contracts they agreed to are killing the company?

While does a company go into business? To make money, and through their corporate greed they employee workers and through competition for skilled workers they offer competitive benefits, salaries etc etc. Corporate greed is what ahs built this country and continues to make us a strong country.

 

not force them to pay HIGHER prices for steel. keep the world trade on steel EVEN. foriegn steel would cost the same as ours imported.