The Landed Oligarchy


Some habits die hard. In the Middle Ages, the landed aristocracy used their ownership of one of the principal factors of production to control prices, rob the poor, manipulate politics, and enrich themselves. The 2008 farm subsidy bill would extend this lofty tradition of avarice for another half-decade.

The Wall Street Journal profiles some of the bill's egregious measures:
The House and Senate are now ironing out differences between their bills, and it's all but certain that farmers will get about $26 billion over the next five years in subsidies. Soybean and wheat farmers are slated to receive higher price supports, though bean prices hit a 34-year high last year and wheat prices have soared to a new record...

There's also a new $5.1 billion emergency "trust fund" for farmers, with almost all the money directed to Georgia, Minnesota, North Dakota and Texas. New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg predicts that "if a large wind comes up and blows a mailbox over in North Dakota, it's going to be declared an emergency because somebody's going to want to get their hands on that billion dollars." Credit for that one goes to self-styled "deficit hawk" Kent Conrad, the free-spending North Dakota Democrat...

Congress has also spurned the Bush Administration's sensible proposal to establish a $200,000 income ceiling in order to receive subsidies. Instead, full-time farmers will be able to earn up to $1 million per farm ($2 million for a married couple) and still be eligible for a USDA handout.
Can the Democratic Congress follow Bush's lead and end welfare for some of the very rich? Will Republican legislators realize how great a betrayal of their stated principles this is?

This is an issue on which all taxpayers - Republicans, Democrats, and others - can write our representatives demanding they oppose this flagrant giveaway of public money.

Posted by Chops at March 13, 2008 9:59 AM
Comments
Comment #247843

We so need to buy a farm.

Posted by: Dawn at March 13, 2008 10:49 AM
Comment #247850

Dawn,

Here in Houston suburbs, tract developers buy farms, leave the farm house standing and continue to recieve subsidies as they build the development. They recieve rebates, grants and the like for “rural” development. Once they’ve sold ennough lots to divest themselves of the land, the raze the house and the legal artifice, and a new subdivision is born.

Posted by: googlumpugus at March 13, 2008 11:27 AM
Comment #247851
We so need to buy a farm.
Funny. Seems so.
Can the Democratic Congress follow Bush’s lead and end welfare for some of the very rich?
Hmmmmm … Not likely.

And following Bush’s lead may be a bit of a stretch since Bush has not led by example (e.g. by vetoing pork-barrel, corporate welfare, and waste in the past 7 years)?
Has Bush set a good example?
Why did so many wonder what happened to Bush’s veto pen?
Why has federal debt exploded ($9.4 Trillion National debt, and $12.8 Trillion borrowed and spent from Social Security, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 77 million baby boomer bubble approaching)?

Will Republican legislators realize how great a betrayal of their stated principles this is?
It’s doubtful (for both Republicans and Democrats).

The problem actually crosses party lines, and it is likely to get worse as long as voters complain about it out of one side of their mouth, and then repeatedly reward irresponsible, pork-happy, tax-happy, corrupt, FOR-SALE incumbent politicians with 93%-to-99% re-election rates (as explained here by Nelson Lee Walker).

This is an issue on which all taxpayers - Republicans, Democrats, and others -
Definitely. But how do you get the message to Congress?

Wait until the nation is totally bankrupt?
Nation-wide debt is already $48 Trillion (almost half of the Nation’s total net worth; never worse since the Great Depression).
Wealth disparity today has never been worse since the Great Depression.
80% of all Americans only own 17% of all wealth.
40% of Americans (on average) have ZERO net worth.
1 out of 10 Americans own 70% of all wealth in the U.S.
The corporations (and the U.S. Air Force) are sending jobs over seas (www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/10/business/10tanker.php)
Some law firms, abusing H-1B Visa programs, teach U.S. corporations how to NOT hire qualified Americans.

Where will the money come from to pay the INTEREST on the $48 Trillion of nation-wide debt, much less the money to reduce the PRINCIPAL $48 Trillion of nation-wide debt?
The Nation-Wide Debt -to- Income ratio as grown drastically larger since year 1956:

  • __TOTAL U.S. Debt and National Income__(2006 Dollars)
  • T=Trillion
  • $50.0T | - - - - - - - - - - - - - D (Debt=$48T)
  • $47.5T | - - - - - - - - - - - - - D
  • $45.0T | - - - - - - - - - - - - -D-
  • $42.5T | - - - - - - - - - - - - -D-
  • $40.0T | - - - - - - - - - - - - -D-
  • $37.5T | - - - - - - - - - - - - D -
  • $35.0T | - - - - - - - - - - - -D- -
  • $32.5T | - - - - - - - - - - - D - -
  • $30.0T | - - - - - - - - - - -D- - -
  • $27.5T | - - - - - - - - - - D - - -
  • $25.0T | - - - - - - - - - -D- - - -
  • $22.5T | - - - - - - - - - D - - - -
  • $20.0T | - - - - - - - - -D- - - - -
  • $17.5T | - - - - - - - - D - - - - -
  • $15.0T | - - - - - - - -D- - - - - -
  • $12.5T | - - - - - - -D- - - - - - -
  • $10.0T | - - - - D - - - - - - - - I (Income=$10T)

  • $07.5T | - - D - - - - - -I
  • - - - - -
  • $05.0T |D- - - - I
  • - - - - - - - - -
  • $02.5T |I
  • - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
  • $00.0T + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - YEAR

  • _______1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 22

  • _______9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 00

  • _______5 6 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 0 00

  • _______7 1 5 9 3 7 1 5 9 3 7 1 56

  • The Debt-to-Income ratio in year 1957 was 200% ($5T/$2.5T)

  • The Debt-to-Income ratio in year 2006 was 480% ($48T/$10T)

  • That is, in 1957, total debt was 2.0 times national income.
Where will the money come from, when the $48 Trillion of nation-wide debt is 346% of the $13.86 GDP?
Still, no one can say where the money will come from.

But, perhaps that is understandable, since that money does not yet exist.

So, it’s gonna take a WHOLE lot of money printing to put a dent in $48 Trillion of debt.
Unfortunately, that won’t help the falling U.S. Dollar much, which has already been falling against all major international currencies since year 1999 (one-simple-idea.com/USD_Falling.gif).
That’s why we have exponential inflation.
Sure, 4% to 5% inflation doesn’t sound so bad, until it is EVERY year, making it exponential.
That’s why the Consumer Price Index looks like this:

  • ____INFLATION - Consumer Price Index (CPI)_______
  • CPI (CPI=100 for year 1967)

  • 700 | - - - - - - - - - - - X (=665: JAN-2008)

  • 650 | - - - - - - - - - - -X

  • 600 | - - - - - - - - - - -X

  • 550 | - - - - - - - - - - -X

  • 500 | - - - - - - - - - - X

  • 450 | - - - - - - - - - - X

  • 400 | - - - - - - - - - - X

  • 350 | - - - - - - - - - -X

  • 300 | - - - - - - - - - X

  • 250 | - - - - - - - - - X

  • 200 | - - - - - - - - -X

  • 150 | - - - - - - - - -X

  • 100 | - - - - - - - -X

  • 050 |XXXXXXXXXXX

  • 000 + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - YEAR

  • _____1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 22

  • _____8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 00

  • _____0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 00

  • _____0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07

This is an issue on which all taxpayers - Republicans, Democrats, and others - can write our representatives demanding they oppose this flagrant giveaway of public money.

Writing letters may not be enough.

That may not be nearly enough to give Congress any incentives.
Especially when Congress persons are well aware that they can prety much do anything they want, and still enjoy cu$hy 93%-to-99% re-election rates.
And Congress persons are well aware that voters won’t vote for a non-incumbent, since the non-incumbent is usually in the OTHER party.
So, as you can see, the incumbent politicians wil most like continue to enjoy 93%-to-99% re-election rates, despite ignoring the voters.
Too many voters simply have not yet figured out how the cards have been very cleverly stacked against them, and incumbents are VERY difficult to unseat, once in office.
In a sense, the majority of voters have actually programmed, encouraged, and empowerd incumbent politicians to be irresponsible.
After all, repeatedly reward your children for bad behavior, and see what happens?
However, it is still a government “Of, For, and By the People” as long as most voters choose to repeatedly reward irresponsible incumbent politicians with 93%-to-99% re-election rates.

So, writing letters most likely is not enough.
Take illegal immigration for instance.
Despite the majority (e.g. see ALIPAC.US to see the large numbers) of people that want secured borders and existing laws enforced, what has all the complaining about that accomplished?

Check out these huge and numerous subsidies
The numbers and BILLIONS in pork-barrel, corporate welfare, and subsidies is HUGE.

Just check out this one farm in Texas (H Bar H Farms Gp / Farwell, TX 79325):

  • Year / Conservation Subsidies / Disaster Subsidies / Commodity Subsidies / Total USDA Subsidies 1995-2005:

  • 1995 __ $0 ____$0 _____ $40,614 ___$40,614

  • 1996 __ $0 ____$0 _____ $52,806 ___$52,806

  • 1997 __ $0 ____$0 _____ $42,550 ___$42,550

  • 1998 __ $0 ____$0 _____ $76,898 ___$76,898

  • 1999 _$5,040 __$0 _____ $80,000 ___$85,040

  • 2000 _$1,050 __$0 _____ $147,208 _ $148,258

  • 2001 _$1,050 __$4,992 _ $229,849 _ $235,891

  • 2002 _$1,711 __$0 _____ $131,314 _ $133,025

  • 2003 _$1,050 __$0 _____ $128,299 _ $129,349

  • 2004 __ $0 ___ $0 _____ $-8,199 __ $-8,199

  • 2005 __ $0 ___ $76,348 _ $0 ______ $76,348

  • Total_ $9,901_$81,340_$921,339 __ $1,012,580

Somehow, it seems unlikely that Congress is going to cut the pork to the people that keep rewarding them for it with perpetual re-election.
Especially when Congress continues it (despite many watchdog organizations, such as CAGW.ORG giving out porker-of-the-month awards), and are repeatedly rewarded for it with 93%-to-99% re-election rates.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 13, 2008 11:33 AM
Comment #247854

d.a.n. are you a numerologist? What do all those numbers mean? Is there a hidden message contained within all this. Your chalk-talk doesn’t reveal anything to me.

Posted by: Jim M at March 13, 2008 12:03 PM
Comment #247856

Jim M. shut up!!!! You wrote 27 words. Now we are all going to have to plow through a five page reply using statistics, historical references, and annotated quotes. Don’t you know better then to go up against this guy??? You will lose!

Posted by: charles ross at March 13, 2008 12:12 PM
Comment #247857

Dawn:

You got that right!

d.a.n.:

Someone once said “Brevity is the soul of wit.” Please take note. I doubt if ANYONE can understand half of your graphs. They are cryptic and indecipherable.

And please save your constant anti incumbent screeds for your web site and not try and shoehorn it into every post.

Thank you

Posted by: Beirut Vet at March 13, 2008 12:19 PM
Comment #247862
Jim M wrote: d.a.n. are you a numerologist? What do all those numbers mean? Is there a hidden message contained within all this. Your chalk-talk doesn’t reveal anything to me.
Numerologist?

No. Numerology is the study of the occult significance of numbers.

The occult has nothing to do with it (e.g. subsidies); massive subsidies, pork-barrel, corporate welfare, and irresponsible spending, in a time with huge debt and inflation.

Beirut Vet wrote:
I doubt if ANYONE can understand half of your graphs. They are cryptic and indecipherable.
Really? I don’t think so.

Jim M wrote: Your chalk-talk doesn’t reveal anything to me.
The first chart is Nation-Wide Debt -to- Income Chart over a period of years. The vertical axis (up and down) is money (in inflation adjusted 2006 U.S. Dollars). The horizontal axis (left and right) is years 1957 to 2006. The Nation-Wide Debt -to- Income Chart simply shows that Nation-Wide Debt has grow drastically (up to $48 Trillion), compared to national income, since year 1957 to year 2006. The National Income has not grown as fast (only up to $10 Trillion by 2006). That is a unhealthy trend.

The other chart is Inflation over a period years.
The vertical axis (up and down) is Inflation (a.k.a. Consumer Price Index, based on year 1967 in which CPI=100).
The horizontal axis (left and right) is years from 1800 to 2007.
The CPI chart show that inflation becomes exponential, when it exists year after year.
We have had positive inflation since year 1956.
That is why a U.S. Dollar from 1950 is now worth less than 11 cents.
This is also an unhealthy trend, as the U.D. Dollar buying power falls (such as this decline since year 1999 against all international currencies).

The third chart is only a table showing massive subsides to one farm.

The point is, with so many fiscal problems, should the severely bloated government be engaging in all of this costly pork-barrel, subsidies, graft, waste, and corporate welfare, not to mention Congress giving itself 9 raises (between 1997 and 2007)..
Especailly when our troops have risked life and limb, gone without armor, medical care, and promised benefits?

Beirut Vet wrote: And please save your constant anti-incumbent screeds for your web site and not try and shoehorn it into every post.
No. It is not hard to inject it, since so many people keep complaining about how irresponsible incumbent politicians are (e.g. pork, subsidies, pork-barrel, corporate welfare, etc.).

Thus, repeatedly rewarding irresponsible incumbents with 93%-to-99% re-election rates certainly makes no sense.
If it bothers you so much, you realize that you don’t have to read it.
However, I plan to continue saying it.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 13, 2008 1:00 PM
Comment #247883

d.a.n,

I have to say it, and please, don’t take it personally.

Your verbosity is only exceeded by your single-mindedness.

I’ve got to give it to you pal. You are nothing but consistent.

Posted by: Rocky at March 13, 2008 6:00 PM
Comment #247885

Boy they always shoot the messenger and not the message. :)

Posted by: j2t2 at March 13, 2008 6:15 PM
Comment #247889
Rocky wrote: d.a.n, I have to say it, and please, don’t take it personally.
Only if it isn’t personal.
Rocky wrote: Your verbosity is only exceeded by your single-mindedness. I’ve got to give it to you pal. You are nothing but “consistent”.
Well, that’s not too bad. ; )

Howevever, I would argue the “single-mindedness” characterization.
Single-minded implies a “single” issue (i.e. one) issue only.
But I actually cover MANY issues; and some are pet issues (too many to issues list here; such as economics; some constitutional issues; pork-barrel, “subsidies”, corporate welfare, waste; voting records; Social Security; entitlements; DEBT; monetary systems and inflation; illegal immigration; etc.).
Especially the subject of this article by Chops (pork-barrel, subsidies, earmarks, etc.).
Now, if you mean the tendency to inject a reminder about “not rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians with 93%-to-99% re-election rates”, then you are correct.
That is because we (voters) are also part of the government, since we elect it, and I firmly believe that far too many incumbents are irresponsible because they are repeatedly rewarded for being irresponsible (with 93%-to-99% re-election rates).
But, despite some accusations, it does not fit into every topic.
On many topics of religion, abortion, education, stem cell research, etc., I usually refrain from injecting the anti-irresponsible incumbent politician message.

j2t2 wrote: Boy they always shoot the messenger and not the message. :)
j2t2, Thanks!

At any rate, Chops brought up an important topic. And this next election, if McCain is smart, will may a big deal about pork-barrel, subsidies, and welfare for the rich (since McCain has a pretty good CAGW.ORG voting record score on on pork-barrel and ear-marks). Especially with tens and hundreds of billions of pork-barrel per year. Too bad his voting record score on illegal immigration is so low (grades.betterimmigration.com/compare.php3?District=AZ&Category=0&Status=Career&VIPID=33).

Still, the pork-barrel issue is one that McCain can use to his advantage.
But, perhaps too few voters care about pork-barrel and the abuse of their tax dollars, with $9.4 Trillion National Debt, and $48 Trillion nation-wide debt?

What is needed is the passage of a ONE-PURPOSE-PER-BILL amendment, but that’s not likely to happen since Congress refuses to call an convention, despite the 38 states (more than 34 required; 2/3 of 50 states) having requested it for a BALANCED BUDGET Amendment (www.foavc.org/file.php/1/Articles/Table_Summarizing_State_Applications.htm#SameSubject).

Posted by: d.a.n at March 13, 2008 7:13 PM
Comment #247895

Dan

Just to let you know like Rocky I admire your persistence. I really can’t say that I have any problems understanding your graphs and I am about as far removed from genius status it gets. But the fact that you need to dumb then down a little for a few conservatives gives me a warm feeling inside. ;}

As for the incumbent issue. Well I agree. If they are lousy legislators it is time to go. There should be no such thing as political tenure.

Posted by: RickIL at March 13, 2008 8:44 PM
Comment #247902

Chops,

While I think the original idea of price supports to stabilize farm commodities and keeping a functioning breadbasket made sense, these subsidies have become little more than pork.

Perhaps we need to think about that when people decry the destruction of the US industrial base.

Posted by: googlumpugus at March 13, 2008 10:53 PM
Comment #247915

The tobacco quota buyouts of 2004 were a better deal than this. I’ll sell you some land Dawn, but sorry the payout check has already been cashed! Still time to throw out some soybeans though.

CRS Report on Tobacco

Posted by: George in SC at March 14, 2008 11:05 AM
Comment #247916

RickIL,
Thanks!
Funny too! (i.e. the dumb down part ;} … good point).

googlumpugus wrote: While I think the original idea of price supports to stabilize farm commodities and keeping a functioning breadbasket made sense, these subsidies have become little more than pork.
True, It probably started out being well-intentioned, but is now abused.
googlumpugus wrote: Perhaps we need to think about that when people decry the destruction of the US industrial base.
The U.S. is going to have trouble for some time to come competing with very cheap labor in China, India, etc. Thus, the U.S. needs to train, educate, and research to do something those other nations would find hard to compete with.

Areas that the U.S. could lead in are:

  • (1) technology

  • (2) information

  • (3) energy efficiency, green technologies and products, and reducing the world’s dependency on oil (by the way, the U.S. already leads in this area; we should build on it)

  • (4) eduation; although the U.S. is among the world’s leaders in mechanical engineering basic research, international competition is shrinking that lead (according to a report from the National Research Council). A decline in the number of U.S. citizens seeking advanced mechanical engineering degrees, and questions about whether the nation can continue to attract foreign students, also threaten American dominance in this field)

Ethanol is controversial. Part of the problem may be getting it from corn. However, it’s not yet clear if ethanol is a total zero (or negative) net benefit. There may be much better ways to get ethanol from algea or other things that have much greater oil content?

Perhaps some of those things above (education, research and development, mass transit, etc.), could be possible on a small fraction of the annual pork-barrel (also see: CAGW.ORG for congressional ratings), subsidies, corporate welfare, waste, and Congress’ annual raises 9 raises (in the last 10 years between 1997 and 2007; www.congresslink.org/print_basics_pay.htm)?

Posted by: d.a.n at March 14, 2008 11:29 AM
Comment #247922

Imagine John McCain sitting in the oval office for his monthly “fireside chat” with the nation. He has said he will make the porkers in congress famous. He reads the names of porkers who have inserted millions of pork into bills designed for some other purpose so they can stay in office.

For the first few months his porker list is as long as Hillary’s list of desired new spending. After a few months the list grows smaller and smaller until six months later the only one left on the list is Robert Byrd who inserted $1 Trillion into a transportation bill to study the mating habits of Siberian Musk Ox.

Just imagine how refreshing that would be. I believe McCain has the balls to do this and for that and many other reasons he will receive my vote in November.

Posted by: Jim M at March 14, 2008 12:46 PM
Comment #247925

Jim M

RE- Just imagine how refreshing that would be. I believe McCain has the balls to do this and for that and many other reasons he will receive my vote in November.

This is one area in which I do support McCain’s views. As to whether or not he would actually be able to manipulate the republican party into morphing into a financially responsible entity is a long shot at best. And no I am not defending or proclaiming the dems as superior with regards to spending. I think yesterdays near unanimous vote in support of earmarks is testament to the fact that financial reform will not be easy. Our congress persons seem to have little sense of responsibility these days. Opening the vaults at budget time is like letting a bunch of kids loose in a candy store with unlimited funds.

Posted by: RickIL at March 14, 2008 1:33 PM
Comment #247926

Jim, M. It is misleading to focus so much attention on funding for pork projects that involve spending millions or even 10’s of millions of dollars. Yes, the practice of inserting spending into bills at the last minute without debate is a poor one but the amount of money we are talking about is peanuts. It leads people to the false conclusion that the reason we have a large federal deficit is because of these add ons.
I often hear on this board the following statement or a variation of it: “Yes, there is a large federal deficit, but as a percentage of GDP, it has been worse in prior years”
Tell me, how many hours in the day must pass before we have spent a billion dollars IN INTEREST on the national debt; not monies spent to actually reduce the debt but just to service the required interest pay. With the amount of money run up by reagan, bush sr. and w. we could have rebuilt not only the infrastructure of Iraq but also even ours.
Republicans love to name things after ronnie, Why don’t they name the debt after him, after all he’s the one that allowed our current vice president to make the statement that “Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter”. (he didn’t and they do.)
Once again, how many hours in the day must pass before we, me, you! are charged a billion dollars in interest?

Posted by: charles ross at March 14, 2008 1:38 PM
Comment #247931

Charles, I do understand big numbers. A billion minutes ago Jesus was walking on the earth. Eliminating pork is certainly not the cure for our financial ills but is a great start. We need to ween politicians from their mother’s milk.

McCain has stated and believes in less government spending. Barak and Hillary believe in more spending for social programs. There is a stark contrast between these two philosophies. One can argue that spending by my party for things I agree with is good and spending by my opposition for their programs is bad. It really doesn’t matter, it is still spending money we don’t have.

Should we ever have a surplus again, which I doubt, we can then debate how we should spend it. Until then, we must become thrifty and tight. And no, I am not advocating eliminating any social programs already existing that help the needy.

Posted by: Jim M at March 14, 2008 2:22 PM
Comment #247941
charles ross wrote: Tell me, how many hours in the day must pass before we have spent a billion dollars IN INTEREST on the national debt; not monies spent to actually reduce the debt but just to service the required interest pay. With the amount of money run up by reagan, bush sr. and w. we could have rebuilt not only the infrastructure of Iraq but also even ours. … Once again, how many hours in the day must pass before we, me, you! are charged a billion dollars in interest?
Good question.

ANSWER: (1.0 Billion / 1.306 Billion * 24) = 18.4 hours

FISCAL YEAR ____ INTEREST on National Debt (now over $9.4 Trillion; 68% of $13.9Trillion GDP):

  • 2008 - $198.5 Billion ($54 Million per hour = $1.306 Billion per hour = $39.7 Billion per month; for Oct-2007 to Feb-2008; )
  • 2007 _ $430.0 Billion ($49 Million per hour = $1.178 Billion per day = $35.8 Billion per month)

  • 2006 _ $405.0 Billion

  • 2005 _ $352.4 Billion

  • 2004 _ $321.6 Billion

  • 2003 _ $318.2 Billion

  • 2002 _ $332.5 Billion

  • 2001 _ $359.5 Billion

  • 2000 _ $362.0 Billion

  • 1999 _ $353.5 Billion

  • ______________________
    TOTAL $3.235 Trillion in INTEREST alone on the National Debt since year 1999.

    But that is only part of the real federal debt.
    The federal governmen also borrowed and spend $12.8 trillion from Social Security, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 77 million baby boomer bubble approaching, and a decreasing ratio tax payers -to- entitlements recipients.
    And there’s the PBGC pensions that are $450 Billion in the hole.
    And the hundreds of billions of unfunded liabilities for Medicare.
    And the hundreds of billions of unfunded liabilities for 2 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    And hundreds of billions (possibly trillions) of unfunded liabilities for a potential universal health care system?
    And the nation-wided debt is currently $48 Trillion ($157,377 per person).
    And the nation is currently borrowing $3 Billion per day (www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_porkbarrelreport)
    And the annual pork-barrel is estimated at $30 Billion per year, but possibly much higher (hundreds of billion$) depending on one’s definition of pork-barrel.

    If nation-wide net worth is about $110 Trillion, and nation-wide debt is $48 Trillion (3.45 times $13.9 GDP), but 80% of Americans only own 17% of all wealth, and jobs are leaving the country in droves, incessant inflation is exponential and the U.S. dollar is falling against all major international currencies, what choice will the Federal Reserve and government have except to create more money out of thin air? They don’t want to default, because that would make the current falling U.S. Dollar look like it is in slow motion.

    What I’d like someone to tell me is WHERE will the money to pay the INTEREST on $48 Trillion come from, much less the money to reduce the PRINCIPAL debt of $48 Trillion, when that money does not yet exist?

    Get ready for more incessant exponential inflation.
    The U.S. Dollar has already fallen far since year 1999 against all major international currencies.

    Posted by: d.a.n at March 14, 2008 4:22 PM
    Comment #248017

    The far majority of farm subsidies subsidize corporate farming…they do little to zilch to support family farmers…monoculture agriculture is killing us…it uses up the land and its nutrients then feeds us fertilizers and pesticides.

    Eat local.

    Posted by: Rachel at March 15, 2008 9:17 AM
    Comment #248090

    Rachal,

    Good point. More worrisome to me is the attempt by groups like Monsanto to patent genetic variations.

    I do shop the farmers market.

    Posted by: googlumpugus at March 15, 2008 10:01 PM
    Post a comment