truthiness

...
"I understand you like socialism." you say. You say wrongly and you have not read what I said. You just fall back into your mindless repeating record.
You are in a small minority if you want the economic to shrink (not expand). But it is not expanding very quickly and much less than trump said it would.

truthiness

Subsidies are socialism. Paying not to produce is socialism. In a very strict interpretation, any interference with a free market (free exchange of goods) is a form of socialism.

truthiness

...
You suppose wrongly. I do care if people cannot work. What I say here is that the anti-socialistic free market doesn't care who or what goes out of business. The free market says that businesses that are not efficient will naturally go out of business and be replaced by efficient businesses. That is exactly what is happening to farms; the large farm (agribusinesses) are much more efficient than the small farmer, and they push the small farmer out of business. Socialism (subsidies and paying not to produce in order to raise market prices) keeps the small inefficient farmer in business for awhile but not forever. When small farms get a subsidy, large farms do also. So socialistic schemes not only help small farms but big farms too, making it even harder for the small farmer.

https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistics-charting-the-essentials/farming-and-farm-income/

The natural market trend is always toward efficiency: Large-scale farms (>$1M income) represent 3% of farms but produce 46% of the value of production. Even with subsidies, the small farmer has to resort to non-farm income to survive.

So, because Trump needs the votes of these small rural farmers, he provides your and my tax money to give a socialistic handout to these people. Good or bad is your decision, just don't say that Trump doesn't do socialism because he does---that's my point.

son of witless

I like farmers. I love farmers, but I totally agree with you. It is no accident that Iowa is the first state that Presidential Candidates must compete in. Both parties must bow before the farm lobby. Agriculture is an American economic power which must be protected, but I agree it is over protected. I have always been angry about the whole ethanol scheme.

Radiance3

===============
I believe it is difficult for you to understand. To be honest, I don't like talking and wasting my time with democrats. Most of them are DUMB.

I'll repeat this:
President Trump is expanding the economy and shrinking the federal bureacracy. We have now reached the highest economic success since 50 years ago.

However, prior presidents have expanded the Federal government that covered so many political appointees during the Barack Obama tenures.
E.g. Since 2009 almost all those who assisted his winning the election got federal jobs, that duplicated so many works already assigned to other staff. GAO Audit report in 2010, have proven that.

I have no patience talking to democrat dumbells. I hope this is the last.

truthiness

As usual, no data--just opinion. You have to do better than that (if you can).

Radiance3

================
Here are the facts.
Cutting budget and spending will help economy grow.

https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/report/cutting-the-us-budget-would-help-the-economy-grow

truthiness

;;;
Oh sure, Rad, now you provide a Heritage document--no bias there.
It wants 'implementing reforms' now--after the republicans would not hear of that before.
It wants, now that the rich have been satiated, no more tax cuts (e.g., for the middle class) (who passed the last disastrous tax cuts? and who benefited?)
And of course, now that those trump tax cuts are adding $1T to the country's debt, now it is time for everyone except the rich to sacrifice for the good of the economy for which only the ultra-rich are benefitting.

http://econintersect.com/pages/releases/release.php?post=201904300846
"Real median household income has continued to display an upward trend over the past 12 months (up 1.5 percent), and especially since the low point reached in June 2011 (up 14.6 percent). We continue to monitor the course of inflation, as this has a significant effect on the trend in real median annual household income. The decline in real median household income of $635 between January 2019 and March 2019 is likely related to the uptick in inflation during the same time period. We are at a point now where real median household income is 3.5 percent higher than January 2000, the beginning of this statistical series. Not an impressive performance by any means over a period spanning almost two decades, but the overall trend line has been positive for about seven years.

Additional Highlights

The March reading on the labor market from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics shows a similar picture as February, with one exception:

The official unemployment rate was 3.8 percent in both February 2019 and March 2019.
In contrast, the median duration of unemployment increased from 9.3 weeks in February 2019 to 9.6 weeks in March 2019.
The broader measure of employment hardship, which includes the unemployed, marginally attached workers (of which discouraged workers are a subset), and persons working part-time for economic reasons, remained the same at 7.3 percent for both February 2019 and March 2019."

You must be a very rich person, Rad, to be in favor of the economics that so obviously benefit the rich. But if you are middle class (income up 3.5% in 20 years) and are willing to take a hit so that the rich can enjoy even more benefits, you are either a super patriot or an idiot. I hope you are the former, but you certainly don't support economics that support middle class status.