Trump announces mega trade war subsidies for farmers…

Trump announced today mega subsidies to aid farmers this year while his trade war with china continues:

NY POST – President Trump announced $16 billion in fresh aid to help farmers and ranchers who have been hurt by his year-long trade war with China.

“We will ensure that the farmers will get the relief that they need and very, very quickly. It’s a good time to be a farmer, we’re gonna make sure of that,” Trump said Thursday at an announcement ceremony in the Roosevelt Room.

Agriculture is one of the sectors that have been the hardest hit by the conflict with China that has led to both countries imposing tariffs on the other’s goods.

Last year the administration doled out $12 billion in aid to boost farmers.

In the Roosevelt Room, Trump again told the story of how in a previous meeting with American farmers he was told that they didn’t want subsidies. “Just give us a level playing field,” the president said the farmers told him.

“I’m very honored to have done this for you. I don’t consider this a gift at all, it’s not a gift,” Trump said.



So where will this 16 billion come from?

The new cash for farmers, paid through the Commodity Credit Corporation fund, would be paid in three installments, with the first one given to them later this summer. Another payment would come in November and again in January 2020.

There has been some criticism from at least one Republican over the timing of Trump’s announcement. Politico explains:

President Donald Trump’s snap decision to send billions of dollars in new aid to farmers could be bad for the farm economy and the federal budget.

Many farmers are still deciding what to plant this spring and could be swayed toward crops that receive higher payouts from the aid package, such as soybeans. That would add to already record supplies and further depress prices that have been falling for five years.

But the Trump administration’s decision to roll out the program now is drawing critics.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican, told reporters Wednesday that the White House should have been more cautious about the timing of the announcement because farmers are still planting.

“[W]e want farmers to make decisions on how many acres of corn and soybeans to plant based on the market and not something the government’s doing,” he said.

I believe since Trump already has the funds in the Commodity Credit Corporation fund, that Congress won’t have to pass a new authorization for the funds. If I’m wrong about that someone let me know.

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.
newest oldest most voted
C.W. Smith
Member
Active Member
C.W. Smith

Gee, this is starting to look an awful lot like yet another self-inflicted, sucking chest wound.

Thor77
Member
Trusted Member
Thor77

And all this time I thought trade wars could be won very easily, because somebody really famous said so.

Chow Yun Fatty
Member
Trusted Member
Chow Yun Fatty

Not a fan of subsidies, but if were going to give them away, at least with farmers you know it won’t be going towards dumb sh*t like a high speed rail. It’ll help them feed the country.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

Do carrots grow in slush funds?

Chow Yun Fatty
Member
Trusted Member
Chow Yun Fatty

Again, not a fan. But I support farmers who have a difficult & thankless job. If they got half the appreciation teachers did it’d be a miracle.

JL_US
Member
Member
JL_US

Even Levin has jumped on the Tariff bandwagon. He was strongly apposed to it before. Trump created this issue. What he should have done is make it easier for farmers by cutting more government regulations.

Thor77
Member
Trusted Member
Thor77

I don’t find that surprising anymore

rjp977
Member
rjp977

Ruin their industry then put them on the government dole. Great policy.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

Backhanded nationalism.

kong1967
Member
Noble Member
kong1967

The only way we’re going to survive the tariffs is if they do this. I don’t know about the timing. It would seem to me that even if the farmers know it’s coming they don’t know how it’s going to be doled out so I don’t know that the announcement would alter whatever decision they make on what crops to grow.

Dr. Strangelove
Member
Famed Member
Dr. Strangelove

kong1967kong1967 The bean market has been hardest hit and would probably receive the most aid. Corn planting is way behind due to the flooding, but beans are worse. China buys most of their beans from Brazil and Argentina, who (like ourselves) have been having record crops.

kong1967
Member
Noble Member
kong1967

Dr. StrangeloveDr. Strangelove They’re definitely in a tight spot. No one’s really excited about subsidizing anything, but I would kinda like to have a stable agriculture.

Dr. Strangelove
Member
Famed Member
Dr. Strangelove

kong1967kong1967 Part of it is a glut on the market. Farming has become so efficient, here as well as other countries, that the prices are low.

kong1967
Member
Noble Member
kong1967

Dr. StrangeloveDr. Strangelove I agree with that as it always is part of it. However, part of it is from retaliatory tariffs.

I probably part ways with a lot of conservatives because I’ve never had a problem with agricultural subsidies. It’s highly important we keep a stable farm industry. Sure, there’s waste and money spent where it shouldn’t be, but that comes with the territory with anything government funded. That’s another debate though.

Since government itself is using a tactic that is indirectly harming the industry I do not have a problem with helping farmers out. We aren’t talking about non-necessities like a car stereo. Agriculture for sure is life itself.

sam
Member
Trusted Member
sam

Dont you just love it when Government “helps” certain industries out at OUR expense? /s

I’m assuming this is on top of the $20B that is paid in subsidies to farmers EVERY year.

kong1967
Member
Noble Member
kong1967

Avatarsam Because they’re having to shoulder an undue burden as a result of the leverage tactic (tariffs) placed by the U.S government. The tariff doesn’t work if we shoot ourselves in the foot at the same time.

Seems that so many people have no respect for the farmer until there’s no food on the table. “I don’t need farmers. I’ll go to the local grocery store”. An actual paraphrased comment by someone who doesn’t care if farmers go under.

I see contradicting complaints around here. Complaints that the government is hurting the farmer and could put many of them out of business, and complaints now that they’re helping the farmers to keep that from happening.

sam
Member
Trusted Member
sam

kong1967kong1967
Government is in the business of creating welfare/subsidies for everyone. They do nothing but screw things up…period.

Name something/anything that Govt has done that benefits American citizens? And doesn’t cost us an arm & leg?

kong1967
Member
Noble Member
kong1967

Avatarsam You reply with a non-specific generality about government? I’m not referring to welfare, Obamacare, or even subsidizing farmers on a normal basis outside of this situation. I’m specifically referring to the squeeze being put on farmers because of the tariffs.

No, in general I don’t think we should subsidize an industry that cannot compete, but that isn’t the case here.

David Jenson
Member
Trusted Member
David Jenson

Didn’t you know that protectionism and crony capitalism go hand and hand??

Like peas and effing carrots…

kong1967
Member
Noble Member
kong1967

@david-jenson Except this isn’t protectionism. The farmers are hurting largely because of the tariffs.

Tariffs aside…do you think it’s a good idea for us to have to import everything agriculture? A stable agriculture is a must.

DinoDoc
Member
Active Member
DinoDoc

Except this isn’t protectionism. The farmers are hurting largely because of the tariffs.

What exactly do you think tariffs and subsidies are?

kong1967
Member
Noble Member
kong1967

AvatarDinoDoc They aren’t being subsidized to protect them against competition. They are being subsidized to compensate for the damage being caused by the tariffs that are being used as leverage against China.

We can argue about the tariffs being a good tactic or not, but if we’re going to use them we can’t cut off our nose to spite our face. It makes absolutely no sense to impose tariffs and let our farmers crash. The tariffs are the offense and the subsidies are the defense.

DinoDoc
Member
Active Member
DinoDoc

The surest way to end a stupid policy is to force people to suffer the full consequences of it. I’d rather the government drop the Tariff Man schtick and use the 16 billion on something productive. Failing that, I’d like for people to face the actual results of the policy rather than shield them from it.

kong1967
Member
Noble Member
kong1967

AvatarDinoDoc Stupid policy….so what’s the alternative that could get China to comply with international law and to heed the rulings of the WTO? Why don’t you talk about the damage China does to our economy and the billions being lost?

Why would you want farmers to take the blunt end of the damage when they aren’t the target and are unduly suffering? The reason is because you want Trump to be voted out and forced to drop the tariffs, which would put China back in the driver’s seat which costs us untold billions.

David Jenson
Member
Trusted Member
David Jenson

kong1967kong1967

What I meant was the tariffs and trade wars are the actual protectionism while the subsidies are crony capitalism. I’ve never been a fan of trade wars and tariffs though. I’ve been holding my breath though all of this hoping that these trade wars don’t cause a depression as well as actually helping Trump get the trade deals he wants. Now that industry is directly being effected by the tariffs the government has dole out the Cash to keep everyone afloat. With over twenty trillion in government operational debt and over two hundred trillion in unfunded liabilities subsidizing farmers is the last thing the government should have to be doing. No offense to anyone who is for the Presidents trade wars but on this particular issue I just feel like the government has gotten our country is lost in the forrest with no idea where the exit is.

kong1967
Member
Noble Member
kong1967

@david-jenson I don’t view it as protectionism because we aren’t trying to gain unfair advantage for our own businesses that can’t compete. We’re trying to reel China in so there’s a fair market to compete in.

It doesn’t make any sense for government to attack and leave our farming industry prone. It would be like firing a gun that may kill the enemy but will also spew buckshot in your face in the process. You’d put on faceguard.

I notice no one that’s against this has anything to say about how much damage China does to our economy and American businesses. It’s one thing if they compete fairly, but quite another when they violate international law and ignore the WTO.

Sentinel
Member
Noble Member
Sentinel

Hmmm…

IBJr.
Member
Active Member
IBJr.

He’s already infringed upon the 2nd Amendment, and he should be impeached for it. If he does this, this is just another reason for impeachment.

bigsir74
Member
Noble Member
bigsir74

I read something about soybeans,was the Second Amendment issue somewhere in there?

kong1967
Member
Noble Member
kong1967

IBJr.IBJr. That’s a new one on me. Giving subsidies to an industry that is being harmed by a government tactic is now an impeachable offense.

IBJr.
Member
Active Member
IBJr.

Maybe you should read the Constitution. It quite clearly describes what taxpayer money can be spent on, and if you do something other than that, you’re violating that Constitution, and breaking the law. That is an impeachable offense. One of the biggest reasons I’m done with Republican types is that you say you’re so pro Constitution, until it’s broken by one of your own, then the lawlessness can be logically explained, or it’s just something to be ignored.

kong1967
Member
Noble Member
kong1967

IBJr.IBJr. Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution, Congress is granted the power to lay and collect taxes in order “to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and General Welfare of the United States.”

That’s a rather broad specification. It does NOT give exact specifics on what Congress can appropriate money for. I normally don’t agree with subsidies either, but this is not a subsidy to protect our farmers from competition.

Show me where in the Constitution that says Congress doesn’t have the power to do this. Put up or shut up.

IBJr.
Member
Active Member
IBJr.

No, it isn’t broad. Read the rest of the Constitution, and it does say what they can spend money, precisely, what under what circumstances taxpayer funds can be withdrawn from the Treasury. You’re arguing a strawman. Nobody said Congress had no ability to tax, however, there are specific things that can be taxed. And while you put up or shut up, since that how you want to talk to people, show me where subsidies (forcing everyone to pay for someone else) are constitutional. Here’s an article on what Congress can spend on: https://wordpress.com/post/virusx.wordpress.com/7204

If you don’t like it, that’s tough. Take it up with him.

kong1967
Member
Noble Member
kong1967

IBJr.IBJr. So tell me, did you like Ronald Reagan? He signed a farm bill. Would you have impeached him and about every President in history? What about Ted Cruz? He voted for the farm bill last year.

Funny how you bring it up for Trump. This has nothing to do with subsidies and everything to do with your TDS and determination to call on anything to impeach him for.

IBJr.
Member
Active Member
IBJr.

No, I didn’t like the president that flooded the country with illegal aliens, playing paddy cake with liberals. No, I don’t worship the man that took tax money to pay for other peoples’ business, and yet kept every unconstitutional agency and tax in place. Yes, I think that violating the Constitution is grounds for impeachment. No, I don’t like Ted Cruz, or any other Republican. Funny how you bring it up for Trump. This has nothing to do with subsidies and everything to do with your TDS and determination to call on anything to impeach him for. No, you suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome, howling like a child that’s getting a booster shot, the second someone says anything critical about your golden calf. And if he is calling for subsidies, then he obviously does have something to do with it. Apparently, you also suffer from cognitive dissidence, on top of… Read more »

kong1967
Member
Noble Member
kong1967

IBJr.IBJr. My point was that you’re saying Trump should be impeached for something all of Congress and all of the Presidents since….Roosevelt maybe….have done.

You don’t like Republicans and I can’t imagine you liking Democrats. You can sit and complain about government and bring up impeachment all you want, but I’d suggest you wake up and realize we do not have the government you wish we had. Screaming that subsidies are unconstitutional may sound good but it has no basis in reality or practice.

IBJr.
Member
Active Member
IBJr.

You point was that you were trying to be an ass, and accuse me of things that you can’t speak of, because you don’t know a thing about me, what I know, or what I believe. I’m not going to sit here and give you a dissertation of every thing all past presidents have done that’s unconstitutional, because the subject is the current president. Do I think any other president should’ve been impeached, for doing what he’s doing? Obviously. You don’t like Republicans and I can’t imagine you liking Democrats. Really? Was the fact that I’ve said that, repeatedly, over the course of several months your first clue on that? You can sit and complain about government and bring up impeachment all you want, but I’d suggest you wake up and realize we do not have the government you wish we had. And maybe you should sit down and realize… Read more »

kong1967
Member
Noble Member
kong1967

IBJr.IBJr. First off, I don’t know anything about you or what you’ve said for the last few months. I couldn’t really care less either.

I’m merely telling you that you’re talking impeachment over something that all of Congress and all the Presidents have done for many years. I never said anything about it being right or a good thing, but rather that you’re living in fantasy land and putting up a false pretense for impeachment.

If you want a serious argument about impeachment you should try doing it on a realistic basis…not fantasy.

IBJr.
Member
Active Member
IBJr.

First off, I don’t know anything about you or what you’ve said for the last few months. I couldn’t really care less either. Funny, because you’ve replied, several times. I’m merely telling you that you’re talking impeachment over something that all of Congress and all the Presidents have done for many years. And I’ve addressed that strawman. I never said anything about it being right or a good thing, but rather that you’re living in fantasy land and putting up a false pretense for impeachment. Addressed in the last response. If you want a serious argument about impeachment you should try doing it on a realistic basis…not fantasy. Hence, you Republicans being part of the problem. You don’t want to save the country; you want to manage the decline. The law clearly states that abuses of power are impeachable. Abuses of power include overreach. If anyone is living in a… Read more »

kong1967
Member
Noble Member
kong1967

IBJr.IBJr. So I’ve responded to a few of your comments….and? I should know everything about you and your ideology after that? LOLOLOLOLOLOL

No, I’m not saying we should accept the ways of Congress and how they subsidize things. Sure, we can fight back and push for change. If you’d pay attention what I’m saying is that you’re using a stupid argument for impeachment BECAUSE IT HAS NO BASIS IN LOGIC BECAUSE IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN DUDE!! GET IT? You can’t suddenly impeach a President for something that has been standard practice for eons. DUH!!

IBJr.
Member
Active Member
IBJr.

ZOMFG. You’ve degenerated to the level of a Daily Kos contributor. Go back to living your dream of decline management. Just because other people broke the law and got away with it, it’s legal now. Got it. Now go find someone else to bother, for the umpteenth time.

kong1967
Member
Noble Member
kong1967

IBJr.IBJr. Oh please. You’ve done nothing but throw insults at me from your very first comment. Don’t act like all of a sudden you don’t understand why some came back at you.

IBJr.
Member
Active Member
IBJr.

No, what I don’t understand is why you have so little a life, that you can’t find anything else to do.

kong1967
Member
Noble Member
kong1967

IBJr.IBJr. And yet here you are going tit for tat. Think before you speak dumbass.

IBJr.
Member
Active Member
IBJr.

Bye, Felicia. If you want to keep at it, I’ll let you have the last word. You seem to have a deep seated need for it.

David Jenson
Member
Trusted Member
David Jenson

IBJr.IBJr.

Are you one of those internet trolls who pretend to be so conservative that you’ll attack the president “from the right”?

Dr. Strangelove
Member
Famed Member
Dr. Strangelove

@David Jenson It’s off-topic, but he’s right, the bump stock ban was an unconstitutional attack on the second amendment. Tromp has also said, (in reference to the red flag laws) “First we take the guns, then due process.” This should make even those who are not 2A advocates nervous.

kong1967
Member
Noble Member
kong1967

Dr. StrangeloveDr. Strangelove It should be noted that in context he was referring only to dangerous individuals, not gun owners in general. It was in response to Pence who said…..

“Allow due process so no one’s rights are trampled, but the ability to go to court, obtain an order and then collect not only the firearms but any weapons.”

I have reservations about taking the guns before they go to court because that is definitely a violation of someone’s rights without due process. Then there’s the problem of it being abused. I dunno, but it’s all about prevention.

IBJr.
Member
Active Member
IBJr.

Thanks, Doctor Strangelove, but people are going to see what they want to see. When you have Trump Derangement Syndrome, you mindlessly attack anyone that doesn’t bend the knee to Trump, or you mindlessly attack anyone that so much as says that Trump has a nice tie. Jenson is one of those types. I’m done with Republican types, because get up in arms when a Democrat breaks the law, and violates the Constitution, but when one of them does it, it’s alright, it should be ignored, or there’s a logical explanation that makes it for the greater good.

Don Sutherland
Member
Active Member
Don Sutherland

Rather than giving assistance to compensate farmers from the costs of the trade war the Trump Administration launched, the Administration should end the trade war.

kong1967
Member
Noble Member
kong1967

AvatarDon Sutherland This is actually the first comment I’ve come across that uses common sense. You acknowledge that it’s not the farmers’ fault. Others are calling it socialism as if the farmers did something wrong.

I don’t know if I agree or disagree with you on this. China is really hurting us with all their cheating and they need to be dealt with. I don’t know of any other way to do it. But there are consequences on our own end and we may not be victorious in the end. It’s a tough nut to crack.

Don Sutherland
Member
Active Member
Don Sutherland

Ending the trade war would allow for the negotiations to become focused on areas where legitimate issues exist e.g., intellectual property-related matters. It would also ease the growing negative sentiment that undermines potential negotiating progress.

Real issues exist. A trade war is not the most effective way to try to address them. If anything, a trade war can create barriers to progress in the negotiations, as it can undermine good will that facilitates productive negotiations and inflame public tensions, which produces rigidity.

kong1967
Member
Noble Member
kong1967

AvatarDon Sutherland I don’t agree with that at all. What leverage do we have if we remove the tariffs? If we can’t get China to comply with international law under pressure they sure aren’t going to do it if we back off.

China will not comply through negotiations alone. I’d like to know what the more effective way to deal with them would be.

BTW, China has no good will. If they did they wouldn’t be violating international law and ignoring rulings against them by the WTO.

Don Sutherland
Member
Active Member
Don Sutherland

Restrictions on access to certain technologies would make more sense than tariffs. Access to such technologies would depend on sufficient intellectual property protections. That’s a targeted approach rather than a blunt one that entails lots of collateral economic damage. Such mechanisms were fairly effective during the Cold War, even as the goals differed.

kong1967
Member
Noble Member
kong1967

AvatarDon Sutherland China steals what they want, and I seriously doubt that would be enough. Maybe there are other solutions but they involve Congress. How long have we been waiting on them to fix the no-brainer problems at the border? Relying on them to fix the problem is probably a bad idea. This has been going on for at least a decade and where have they been? Crickets.

Regardless of what actions we take China is going to retaliate and it’s going to hurt in the pocket book.

Dr. Strangelove
Member
Famed Member
Dr. Strangelove

AvatarDon Sutherland What about the preexisting tariffs that China had placed on our products?

Don Sutherland
Member
Active Member
Don Sutherland

Probably the most feasible route would entail the U.S. providing a new negotiating position that would entail both countries immediately lifting the tariffs they imposed in the tit-for-tat trade war and shifting the focus of talks to the legitimate issues that exist e.g., protection of intellectual property, etc.

kong1967
Member
Noble Member
kong1967

AvatarDon Sutherland We were in a negotiating position and then China fiddled with it in the end. They don’t like the enforcement parts of it. More or less it would be a joke of a deal because China wouldn’t enforce it.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

And then ease the regulatory/tax burden on the agricultural sector.

And all the other sectors.

DinoDoc
Member
Active Member
DinoDoc

Aren’t we supposed to be against socialism?

DinoDoc
Member
Active Member
DinoDoc

I mean I guess it’s fair that the government compensate people adversely impacted by a situation the government created but I would rather they not do they thing they are having to compensate people for in the first place.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

DD, the world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t bail out farmers.

I’m so not joking.

Unless you criticize me, then I’ll insist the joke went over your head because I am only allowed so many characters to type my expla

bigsir74
Member
Noble Member
bigsir74

How can you say that ,you get your share of up votes and one of the best writers on the site and I am serious about that,now cheer up.

Sonofagip
Member
Active Member
Sonofagip

AvatarDinoDoc “Conservatives” holding their noses, voting for Trump because he’s less bad than Hillary, and only supporting him when he’s conservative has obviously failed.

kong1967
Member
Noble Member
kong1967

AvatarDinoDoc It’s not socialism. They are being crushed by the tactic the U.S. government is utilizing to deal with China. Would you rather farmers go out of business and food prices sky rocket and there’s no food on the table?

Thor77
Member
Trusted Member
Thor77

So here’s how it works.

Levy tariffs against China which is paid by our importers who pass on the costs to the customer. Ordinary man gets screwed.

Bailout farmers with taxpayer money as they suffer because China retaliates. Ordinary man gets screwed because it adds to the debt.

Well, atleast he is consistent when it comes to screwing the ordinary guy.

Landscaper
Member
Noble Member
Landscaper

Despite the hotly debated discussion about tariffs being justified or foolish, I’m against bailouts.
I didn’t like it when Obama bailed out the auto industry and I’m against Trump doing it for farmers.

Thor77
Member
Trusted Member
Thor77

Too bad no elected officials share your feelings strongly enough to say it. Republicans are also the party of big government

98problems
Member
Member
98problems

I hate bailouts too — but the auto bailout was way worse; government didn’t cause the auto industry to fail, their own horrible business acumen did. Bad businesses should be allowed to fail, more successful ones will come along and better meet our needs. This one doesn’t bother me as much, because the farmers are being targeted by overseas communists wanting to especially hurt Trump’s base — the farmers have been doing everything right in terms of running their businesses; but Joe Farmer can’t possibly win a fight against one of the world’s largest foreign governments.

Dr. Strangelove
Member
Famed Member
Dr. Strangelove

LandscaperLandscaper Bailouts? I thought that he nationalized General Motors and shut down a bunch of their dealers who voted Republican, regardless of their profitability?

Landscaper
Member
Noble Member
Landscaper

Obama sure as hell did close dealerships and put a lot of people out of work !

JohnGaltFLA
Member
Active Member
JohnGaltFLA

Translation: If you are a crappy businessman, the government will bail you out if you live in Iowa or Ohio.

New West
Member
Noble Member
New West

They got 12B just last year…what was the excuse then???…..STOP giving people money…The fraud alone and the government screwups and corruption has to stop. We will get no where as long as Crony capitalists own politicians….

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

$16 billion here. $19 billion there. $12 billion over in this direction. Who cares right? We can just print more!

Back to Top of Comments