Subsidizing Beef

Subsidies work the opposite.

A farmer gets subsidies to not grow crops.

To support price stability so folks can eat because farmers couldn't afford to grow the crop in bad years.

Quote: DoubleGold

Subsidies work the opposite.

A farmer gets subsidies to not grow crops.

To support price stability so folks can eat because farmers couldn't afford to grow the crop in bad years.

the only agricultural subsidies I am for are the ones that stabilize prices. As odd as it is to pay a farmer not to grow a crop, this is a logical form of this. I'm not currently for subsidizing corn producers in any way, certainly not to make ethanol . Surely they are being encouraged to grow as much corn as they can because of the Ukraine situation now, so I can hardly believe they get paid not to grow it? If meat producers benefit, how are you going to stop that without the heavy hand of government?

As for ethanol, that usage should totally be a clean air project. People think it is used for climate-change, a complete waste of time for that project. Meanwhile also a sop to Iowa, showing the political importance of that state.

There can be special subsides, like for corn and ethanol that disrupt the markets.

What I am showing, is farmers are vital.

Any extra pressure from UN or WEF for fictitious climate theories, could put farmers out of business.


And that's what they want.

To affect the food supply so folks have to be compliant.


However, here is what they're really after.

They (smaller countries like Switzerland) want access to the USA's resources, and other countries that are rich in resources.

Quote: DoubleGold

There can be special subsides, like for corn and ethanol that disrupt the markets.

What I am showing, is farmers are vital.

Any extra pressure from UN or WEF for fictitious climate theories, could put farmers out of business.


And that's what they want.

To affect the food supply so folks have to be compliant.


However, here is what they're really after.

They (smaller countries like Switzerland) want access to the USA's resources, and other countries that are rich in resources.

We don't want rules from UN or externally. Or new rules domestically. All we want is to end the welfare tit for farmers (subsidies). If this truly will not effect meat prices, meat farmers should not care.

This is not about new rules, it's about ending handouts.

The WEF is trying to move us to eating bugs.

If climate change was real and negative, as opposed to smaller countries accessing our resources, then they might have something.

Smaller countries have trouble accessing resources.

Their birth rates are dropping like rocks.

So to prevent from getting taken over by another country, like Russia, they have to access the USA's resources (and Canada, Brazil, etc).

-------------------------------

New York To Track Residents’ Food Purchases and Ration Meat

5/20/2023

New York City has announced that all residents in the Democrat-run state will now have their carbon footprint of household food consumption tracked and their intake of meat strictly limited, as part of a plan to achieve a 33% reduction in carbon emissions from food by 2030.
.
.
.
https://www.planet-today.com/2023/05/new-york-to-track-residents-food.html

-------------------------------

Quote: Gandler

We don't want rules from UN or externally. Or new rules domestically. All we want is to end the welfare tit for farmers (subsidies). If this truly will not effect meat prices, meat farmers should not care.

This is not about new rules, it's about ending handouts.

We won't have a choice.

The WEF is taking over the world and replacing religions.

Subsidies in agriculture are related to the variability of nature, especially climate.

There has to be a risk buffer in order to provide consistent food.

If the buffer is removed, then folks can go hungry.