<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Why a Bush veto of the farm bill is bad for the food movement (and the world)]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by bravedeer http://www.grist.org/article/siding-with-the-bushies/ Mon, 12 May 2008 21:15:24 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/siding-with-the-bushies/1 Good article but...

there's really no need for "organic research". Research is usually done to try to circumvent necessary procedures such as crop rotation, green manures and fallowing. The research has already been done. Those who want to farm organically can do so. Those who want further research are just looking for an excuse.

]]> Good article but...

there's really no need for "organic research". Research is usually done to try to circumvent necessary procedures such as crop rotation, green manures and fallowing. The research has already been done. Those who want to farm organically can do so. Those who want further research are just looking for an excuse.

]]> Comment #2 by Bud Dingler http://www.grist.org/article/siding-with-the-bushies/ Tue, 13 May 2008 12:56:00 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/siding-with-the-bushies/2 junk farm bill

Pelosi and the rest of her ilk are a disgrace to this country. I cant beleive this is happening. I would not support that piece of crap bill just on principal.

Given the current predicament in agriculture who in their right mind could support all those subsidies?  Its lunacy thats why even GW can see that.

Don't try and make this more complicated then it is - Joe Six pack can see this issue for what its worth.

]]> junk farm bill

Pelosi and the rest of her ilk are a disgrace to this country. I cant beleive this is happening. I would not support that piece of crap bill just on principal.

Given the current predicament in agriculture who in their right mind could support all those subsidies?  Its lunacy thats why even GW can see that.

Don't try and make this more complicated then it is - Joe Six pack can see this issue for what its worth.

]]> Comment #3 by sideshow1979 http://www.grist.org/article/siding-with-the-bushies/ Wed, 14 May 2008 02:50:06 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/siding-with-the-bushies/3 Huh?

Quote:
"Do agribusinesses win big under the current farm bill proposal? Yep. Would they win even bigger if we got a veto? It's entirely possible."

Would it be more appropriate to ask this question:

"Do family farms/sustainable ag win big under the current farm bill proposal?"  No.  Would they win if we got a veto?  Maybe".

Calling for a farm bill veto on the basis of insufficient reform does nothing to advance a pro-WTO agenda.  And agreeing with Bush that a veto should occur is not in any way the same as supporting his reasons for a veto.  And besides, if Bush wants to predicate his opposition in a way that supports WTO, exactly how can those opposing the farm bill on other grounds do anything about that?

And this farm bill does nothing- and I mean nothing- to slow down the WTO train. Possible exceptions are cotton storage payments and a sugar to ethanol program, both of which are designed to support very small numbers of very rich people.  If the overriding concern is getting the WTO out of agriculture, I don't see how you could possibly support this bill and remain true to your principles.  

Quote:
"For now: Even if you believe that subsidy reform would bring about substantial change in the food system, Bush's support for the veto has nothing to do with this goal. As my former boss might put it, he's got darker aspirations."

How is Bush's support for a veto different from the support for the bill from various politicians and groups that have supported policy to screw family farmers for decades?  Somehow, I don't think the American Farm Bureau, Cotton Council, Saxby Chambliss, Thad Cochrane, Steve King, Collin Peterson, Kent Conrad, the National Corngrowers, and the US Rice Producers Association are the erstwhile allies sustainable ag and family farms need, and they sure as hell aren't going to fight for progressive reforms down the road- just like Bush isn't.  So what's the difference?

]]> Huh?

Quote:
"Do agribusinesses win big under the current farm bill proposal? Yep. Would they win even bigger if we got a veto? It's entirely possible."

Would it be more appropriate to ask this question:

"Do family farms/sustainable ag win big under the current farm bill proposal?"  No.  Would they win if we got a veto?  Maybe".

Calling for a farm bill veto on the basis of insufficient reform does nothing to advance a pro-WTO agenda.  And agreeing with Bush that a veto should occur is not in any way the same as supporting his reasons for a veto.  And besides, if Bush wants to predicate his opposition in a way that supports WTO, exactly how can those opposing the farm bill on other grounds do anything about that?

And this farm bill does nothing- and I mean nothing- to slow down the WTO train. Possible exceptions are cotton storage payments and a sugar to ethanol program, both of which are designed to support very small numbers of very rich people.  If the overriding concern is getting the WTO out of agriculture, I don't see how you could possibly support this bill and remain true to your principles.  

Quote:
"For now: Even if you believe that subsidy reform would bring about substantial change in the food system, Bush's support for the veto has nothing to do with this goal. As my former boss might put it, he's got darker aspirations."

How is Bush's support for a veto different from the support for the bill from various politicians and groups that have supported policy to screw family farmers for decades?  Somehow, I don't think the American Farm Bureau, Cotton Council, Saxby Chambliss, Thad Cochrane, Steve King, Collin Peterson, Kent Conrad, the National Corngrowers, and the US Rice Producers Association are the erstwhile allies sustainable ag and family farms need, and they sure as hell aren't going to fight for progressive reforms down the road- just like Bush isn't.  So what's the difference?

]]>