May I introduce aid for the socially disadvantaged to deal with bigotry?
Sure if it was just them who had problems.
Farmers in general are lowkey fucked so I'd say the bill doesn't cover enough.
I keep hearing that, and I've yet to meet a farmer who didn't have over a million dollars in assets, or who had to pay taxes (you aren't a person, you're a business. Everything you buy is a business loss). You can't buy stuff directly with assets, but it's a lot better than having no money or assets like most of us.
Corporate farmers yes. (Almost) every other one, you are wrong.
Small farms are vastly different than big farms. Large farm equipment is expensive. In addition small farms seem to receive much less in government support; in fact there are quite a few barriers in marketing for example. For the smallest farmers, it may be limited to hanging a sign outside and visiting the local farmers market. Due to cost barriers in processing food for sale, often very small farmers are limited to selling raw ingredients locally and certain markets such as meat are very hard to enter without a large enough herd to justify facilities. Thus creative measures to legally avoid the expense of processing facilities (think stainless steel resteraunt quality facilities) are sometimes required to sell a small flock of meat chickens or even a goat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_farm_billI don't know know if my dad didn't qualify for subsidies or if he never bothered to look, but that article says it required crop insurance so maybe it wasn't worth it without having a huge crop of whatever to insure.
Tractors are also pretty expensive; my dad used an old 20 to 30 year old lawn mowing tractor and a push roto-tiller and only recently upgraded to an even older 60's era actual farm tractor that can mount a bigger tiller under it. From what I read in an economics book about farming or tractors or some such nonsense I think I remember the reason why those old as heck '60s tractors are so widespread among small farmers are because back in those decades the government had a program that spread those tractors out to small farmers affordably or as a subsidy or something; and once that program was ended the dang tractors got so expensive that 60's tractor models (being easy and simple to repair tractors) are still very widely used as they can be purchased relatively cheaply while still doing the job.
Here are some random tractor examples; I chose from the Detroit Farm and Garden section of Craigslist, one for being an old tractor and the other for being a new tractor of about the same size. The new one does have some attachments, but I assume the old tractor has a hookup for (older versions of?) that stuff too, though it would add to the cost a bit. I didn't see any newer used tractors without attachments shown; they must bundle them often or something.
EDIT: I approve of the removal of the standing AUMF, it went way past it's intent. I think also that it's possible that Iraq may be in less need of the US nowadays after ISIS but I am no expert. However Afghanistan is gravely worrying to me as even though I don't recall being in favor of that war even at the beginning, I am proud of what the women of that country have only begun to achieve.
I do think peace with the Taliban is possible; I have read in some article at some point that there is hope that their youngest members are more open minded than the ones who are aging out so to speak. I don't know if that's true, but it sure would be cool. However I do believe what is happening currently is that the Taliban are applying as much pressure as they can on the US supported government due to the Trump agreement, as the US supported government has been excluded from peace talks and agreements apparently. I am no expert but I believe this is a tactic, of great risk to the involved (as the other side may respond in kind) in order to bring whatever gains achieved to the negotiating table so to speak. I saw an old black and white Korean War movie, that while jingoistic and somewhat racist (it was an old movie) showed this situation, where American infantry had to attack a hill and hold it in what they knew were the last days of the shooting war. I think the Taliban are trying to show they aren't done fighting and aren't exhausted. Again I am no student of this field so I won't guess the answer to how exhausted of fighting they may truly be.
Are there any historical examples of effective alternatives to maneuvoring for peace treaty leverage through destructive means, other than acting in return in the same wasteful way? Otherwise the US leadership may face a difficult choice of another troop surge there or watching what may be similar to South Vietnam. The partial US Taliban agreement would also be interesting to read historically similar instances of.
A reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_peace_processI think Ghani's offer should be looked at again; it seemed decent as a way for all sides to find some victory. The wiki article suggests it was well supported by the population of Afghanistan. I think that result along with generous and honest rebuilding efforts funded from outside the country, especially the US, would possibly lower the liklihood of future civil conflict as well as not cost the people of Afghanistan foreign support from one bloc of alliances or the next as this may be palatable to all the foreign interests who to some degree probably wish the US was not there; but this way the US itself doesn't withdraw what aid it tends to offer after a rough lesson learned from WW1 -> WW2. At the very least it seems terribly unfair and untrustworthy of the US that Ghani's government has been excluded from the process to at least a large extent.
Author
Topic: AmeriPol thread (Read 3593370 times)