"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
news:Coicc.24265$vo5.756001@bgtnsc05-
Are you saying farmers in the US are so helpless they would go out of
business without government support?

A lot of them would.

One form of government support pays farmers not to grow crops. What is
the
wartime value of that?

Same thing. Think about it.

Which potential enemy could engage us in a war so protracted as to risk
American starvation? And wouldn't such a war turn nuclear long before
starvation was a risk?

China, Russia, the rest of the world if we're not careful. If nukes were
used at all, it would be in limited fashion. It is survivable. Forget the
propaganda.

Isn't manufacturing at least as important to our war fighting capability
as
farming?

Food is more immediate than manufacturing. You have a bit of time before
manufactured resources run low. A lot longer than it would take for people
to starve. Manufacturing is quite important though. Present policy toward
that simply shows that short sighted greed is becoming the norm.

Frank Dresser

"CW" wrote in message
...

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
news:Coicc.24265$vo5.756001@bgtnsc05-
Are you saying farmers in the US are so helpless they would go out of
business without government support?

A lot of them would.


Alot of them have in the last 30 years. Far more if you go back 50 years or
farther. Yet crops get grown, and food ends up on the table.

Farmers sell their farms every day to other farmers. The farm still
produce. Farm production has never been higher, despite the fact that we
have few farmers than we did 100 years ago.



One form of government support pays farmers not to grow crops. What is
the
wartime value of that?

Same thing. Think about it.


The same as what? That keeping small farms from turning into big farms is
necessary for US defense? If that's true, we should reverse the process and
break up the big farms.



Which potential enemy could engage us in a war so protracted as to risk
American starvation? And wouldn't such a war turn nuclear long before
starvation was a risk?

China, Russia, the rest of the world if we're not careful. If nukes were
used at all, it would be in limited fashion. It is survivable. Forget the
propaganda.

Then you're saying we would be defeated without using all our weapons. That
seems unlikely, but I won't argue the point.

Our farmers produce a big surplus of basic foods. Wheat, corn and soybeans.
No seige would cause starvation in the US.


Isn't manufacturing at least as important to our war fighting capability
as
farming?

Food is more immediate than manufacturing. You have a bit of time before
manufactured resources run low.

Very little time for many items. Companies don't like to carry much
inventory any more, and a large amount of that not carried inventory is
imported.


A lot longer than it would take for people
to starve. Manufacturing is quite important though. Present policy toward
that simply shows that short sighted greed is becoming the norm.


Farm subsidies aren't keeping US food production up by more than a few
percent, if that much. Some price supports actually depress food
production.

The only way eliminating price supports would significantly reduce US farm
production is if there's a big worldwide surplus of cheap food waiting to
come in. That ain't the case. Except for sugar.

Frank Dresser