Radiance3

=================
Another FAKE NEWS FACTNO. The president had even announced at the State of the Union address,that Social Security and Medicare will remain stable. And Seniors will be consistently have better medical care, with Social security given increased budget every year.

Sanders will have a socialized medical care with the 31 million illegals included that would cost $61 trillion every 10 years. Then tax 70% for the higher income who work hard, and 50% for the Middle Class who work hard.
Sanders role model is Maduro of Venezuela.

factnotfiction

The trump budget is DOA, so you are partially correct,(first time ever), trumpism will not be able to cut his hated social programs when the HOR gets done with his silly little budget

Radiance3

=====
Factno, don't fool me, I am an auditor, and knows budget well. You are not talking to an illiterate democrats. I am a republican who understands budget process and how it is prepared.

All radical dems do is manufacture and coin words since they have nothing intelligent to write.

Another positives for president Trump.
No more free loaders if anyone left they are disabled. But 96.5% of people are now working. They don't need food stamps anymore unlike Mr. Obama who created 46 million of them . That was why budget for defense was reduced by Obama to feed these dependents. Now, they are working. They are now happy in their lives. Ask the people if they are happy now than 4 years ago. The report was 90% are happy Americans now.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/284285/new-high-americans-satisfied-personal-life.aspx

American Vet

At least farmers are providing something......

American Vet

But you overlook something. Fiscal items must originate in the House - but have to go thru the Senate and then the President (usually).

So the democrats need to focus their energy on getting together with the Republican Senate, the President, and quit wasting time on schemes to impeach president Trump. As I said earlier, if the democrats would expend half their energy in doing the job they are supposed to be doing, we would all be better off.

Radiance3

================
Congress will be red Republicans by 2020, budget will be provided. Drive away those radicals DEMS. They are barriers to the president's agenda for the people.

factnotfiction

The trumpism budget is DOA, if you were even as fractionally as smart as you claim to be, no matter what trump and gang of economic morons say, the house will scrap the trump crap and then send it to the senate.
Go back to school and learn something this time, instead of thinking that your trump is already a dictator.

Radiance3

================
DOA? Pelosi will be gone soon. And Schumer as well.

factnotfiction

What a chooch, you are even more clueless and delusional than the average low intellect trumpcon that infects this forum with nonsense

son of witless

You have a valid point. Would you like to try for two ?

Radiance3

===============
You are the VIRUS more potent than the Corona. You extremely lie typical of the RADICAL SOCIALIST DEMS. You are not even worth my time. Get lost free Obama loader.
You are worried that your handout welfare, and food stamps will be cut off.

Under president Trump there are very few poor people now. Most of them are working. And the disabled are being given welfare. Are you disabled why you are so worried that the president may cut off or reduce your welfare?

96.5% are now working, No need for poor welfare. But you worry cause yours will be reduced. Shame on you. Get a job handout.

truthiness

Thank you, but not trying to accumulate points. It bothers me that folks can't seem to come to a firm or at least workable definition of socialism because it will be on all our minds in the coming year. My standard definition is that socialism is a form of government that is based on the principle of 'Production according to ability; consumption according to need.'

This definition is quite general and allows one to easily skim by the situation that some farmers are in where they do produce something, but they cannot sell at a market value that supports their farming. (As exemplified by a previous responder above who said 'At least they (farmers who receive subsidies) produce something'). In my mind making up the difference between selling price and 'stay in business' price economically supports a business that the free market says is not efficient enough and should be removed from the market place. So receiving that kind of subsidy support payment is just as socialistic as being paid to not produce anything.

One historical answer to this is that we (the country) need the small farmer. But pure free market economics does not allow choice of certain exceptions to the efficiency rule: compete or leave. When small farmers don't compete, but government supports them with subsidies to increase their income, I do not see how that is anything but socialism. So let's call it what it is. If there is a reason to support inefficient small farms, OK; just be honest and call that support what it is--socialism.

The problem then becomes what special socialistic exemptions will be made and which ones should be rejected. And that is a political decision that is out of the realm of free markets. At that point the tax payer pays for the socialism and competing receivers like farmers, food stamps, auto companies, insurance companies, housing, etc. all vie for the socialistic largess for a variety of rationals.

While I am no fan of Bernie and his socialistic philosophy, I find it hypocritical to set the problem up in a way that implies that we are a free market society when in fact there is a lot of socialism in our political culture.

Radiance3

================
In short, your role model is Maduro of Venezuela. I'll make this short, since I don't have too much patience explaining to those low caliber who could not understand economics. I rest my case.

American Vet

You make valid points. However what if the government subsidy is used to keep them afloat while the trade 'war's in progress. Now that it is settled, the farmers will be in a position to produce. I believe I read that for the first time in history China is going to be buying rice fro the US.

Second part: Farming is an industry. The large commercial farms are more efficient than the 'family farms'. Just part of the business cycle....

truthiness

''''
Again, I agree completely. I was not trying to make a case for the less efficient unit. But what does the bankrupt small farmer do? He may not have the opportunity to stay in the more efficient farming situation---for example, be hired by an agribusiness. Do we treat him as a lazy dolt because he now can't earn a living or does he deserve an honorable way to get back into production of some sort?

Rice: I had not heard that China was going to buy more rice--really good news. But here again, we have a human problem. Most dry land soybean farmers in the US cannot change their next crop to rice because of geography, temperature, equipment, water kinds of issues. I'm not sure the issue here is the same as the factory worker and the bankrupt farmer above, but a real problem exists.