Big Fat Subsidies
15/7/11 20:22![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
a-new-machine.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsDavid Sirota writes today about the effect of government subsidies on the eating habits of the average American. This has been a bit deal in recent news, what with the increasing prevalence of obesity in the US. Importantly, despite the high-sugar content of fresh fruits, "a dollar [can] buy 1,200 calories of potato chips or 875 calories of soda but just... 170 calories of fresh fruit."
The subsidy issue has always been contentious, especially those for corn. And nowhere is corn more important, and its politics more heavily felt, than in Iowa. Few have come out against the $5 billion in annual ethanol subsidies, afraid that it will cost them political points in the first national caucus. It would be hard to imagine Bachmann coming out against subsidies, given her history with them (though she denies it. So, Republicans are unlikely to clearly address ethanol this cycle, and Obama is moving to up the ethanol content of flex-fuels.
So where does the madness stop? When can we put actual policy over winning votes this election? Probably never. Such is the nature of rent-seeking. $8 billion a year in corn subsidies is a drop in the federal bucket, but it sure buys a lot of votes and political support, and the detrimental effect on final outcomes are remote, with hard-to-make connections that most people don't bother with. Meanwhile, the dollar menu is just a good value.
Edited to add: A lot of the conversation is focusing on fast food. It was a poorly chosen example. Rather than debate the dollar menu, look at this: at the local supermarket here in Boston, $2 can buy you about 2 apples, or a rather large bag of chips with a dozen or so servings. That's a terrible comparison to have to make, if you're trying to feed a couple of kids on a tight budget.
The subsidy issue has always been contentious, especially those for corn. And nowhere is corn more important, and its politics more heavily felt, than in Iowa. Few have come out against the $5 billion in annual ethanol subsidies, afraid that it will cost them political points in the first national caucus. It would be hard to imagine Bachmann coming out against subsidies, given her history with them (though she denies it. So, Republicans are unlikely to clearly address ethanol this cycle, and Obama is moving to up the ethanol content of flex-fuels.
So where does the madness stop? When can we put actual policy over winning votes this election? Probably never. Such is the nature of rent-seeking. $8 billion a year in corn subsidies is a drop in the federal bucket, but it sure buys a lot of votes and political support, and the detrimental effect on final outcomes are remote, with hard-to-make connections that most people don't bother with. Meanwhile, the dollar menu is just a good value.
Edited to add: A lot of the conversation is focusing on fast food. It was a poorly chosen example. Rather than debate the dollar menu, look at this: at the local supermarket here in Boston, $2 can buy you about 2 apples, or a rather large bag of chips with a dozen or so servings. That's a terrible comparison to have to make, if you're trying to feed a couple of kids on a tight budget.
(no subject)
Date: 16/7/11 01:11 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/7/11 01:25 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/7/11 01:32 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/7/11 01:35 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_prostitution
It's a common term, not one with prejudice.
(no subject)
Date: 16/7/11 01:41 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/7/11 01:45 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/7/11 01:56 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/7/11 02:10 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/7/11 01:50 (UTC)You want to know why this offends me so much? Because the large majority of these women and girls did not choose that life. They were lured into it by men or had no other options after running away from home to escape abuse, often sexual abuse.
Having said that, my objection is not in your phrasing, but that you made the comment at all. It added no value at all to this post. I have to believe you are just trolling because no one could be as consistently offensive as you are unless they were doing it deliberately.