Obama?

[dmlfarmer]

On a number of threads posters have been critical of Obama. I am just wondering why you think he has been a bad president and what he could/should have done.

After all, since 2010 14 million jobs have been created in the USA. Officially US unemployment is under 5% (although Trump disputes this and economists claim higher levels if you include under-employment and part time worker) However US UI claims is at a 42 year low (so a higher percentage of people are working than has occurred over the last 4 decades) Last year Canadian unemployment was 6.8% and is likely much higher now. Predicted growth of the US economy is 2.7% and under Harper the predicted growth for 2016 had he formed the government was only 1.6%
In spite of tougher banking laws, the top 5 banks in the US earned 138.5 billion dollars in 2015, double what the top 5 European banks made. And before you use the increase in debt as an excuse, be aware that the percentage increase in debt under Obama was less than half the percentage increase under Reagan. On a percentage basis, even Bush increased debt more than Obama.

So why do you think Obama is a bad president?

[tubs]

oh where to start trillions of extra the US was the most powerfull country before he took office, have the population is on foodstamps and those same people get a freecell phone why would they go to work

[cottonpicken]

Are you from space he doubled the god damn debt. Look at the anullizatiton rate. When the **** are people going to wake up wholly christ the news media needs a kick in the heAd look at th god damn numbers. It's complete insanity

[Oliver88]

The unemployment rate is for people looking for work.
Food stamp numbers are insanely high.

Obama caters to his enviro-kook donors. Example: Keystone XL

Libya was a disaster.

His lack of leadership/lame duck presidency has lead to the evil but more intelligent Putin being a powerful leader.

[ajl]

Relative to everyone else the US is doing quite well economically. Mind you all other countries performance has kept the bar low. Most US detractors are that out of envy. Obama's biggest failings include the increase in debt load, Obamacare, and increasing the racial divide in the US.

[samhill]

I'd like to see Bin laden's body>

[MBgrower]

Attempting ti change the usa into socialist europe, that will be his legacy.

[chuckChuck]

Most Americans think of Canadians as socialists with universal healthcare.

The USA has some pretty good "socialist" subsidies to agriculture that are widely supported by farmers. Apparently in the "greatest" country in the world farmers can't make a living without taxpayers support.

Canadian farmers love their "socialist" subsidies as well. Just try to take away their AgriInvest matching deposits.

[farmaholic]

Nice to see you finally have it narrowed down to the only true hand-out.

[seabass]

U have to make it to match it. Great program for a rainy day. Dont pay in Chuck if u dont like it.

[foragefarmer]

Seabass

On the "Trump" thread you were complaining far to many "sucking the Government tit". It's all good when you get tax payers money deposited in your Agrilnvest account though.

[chuckChuck]

AGRICULTURE
Taxpayers oblivious to the cost of farm subsidies

BARRIE McKENNA

OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail

Published Sunday, Jul. 07, 2013 7:00PM EDT

Last updated Monday, Jul. 08, 2013 9:53AM EDT

Ideological consistency is a rare commodity in politics.

Consider the federal Conservatives. They preach government austerity, then hand out $50,000-plus bonuses to deputy ministers. They talk about openness but practise secrecy. And they tout Senate reform while tolerating entitlement.

It also turns out the Conservatives haven’t been particularly fiscally conservative when it comes to doling out farm subsidies.

There is a “statistically significant positive relationship” between Conservative power and subsidies to farmers dating back three decades in Canada, according to a new paper by University of Guelph economist John Cranfield and graduate students Tor Tolhurst and Shuang Li.

The study – Are Governments of the Right Leviathan for Agriculture? – is slated to be presented next month at the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association annual meeting in Washington, D.C.

The researchers tracked the number of Conservative-held seats and annual subsidies to farmers from 1986 to 2010, using figures on direct and indirect government support compiled by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. They also controlled for such factors as farm prices, trade deals and the government’s fiscal position.

Over that period, subsidies in Canada have ranged between more than $8-billion (U.S.) to slightly less than $6-billion. Government support totalled $6.9-billion in 2011.

The main beneficiaries of government support are Canadian dairy, poultry and egg producers, who set their own prices and are protected from most foreign competition by prohibitively high tariffs. There are also numerous “risk management” programs aimed at shielding farmers from such setbacks as disease, bad weather and high feed costs.

Canada isn’t a particularly big spender compared with most other developed countries. Subsidies and indirect transfers accounted for 14 per cent of gross farm receipts in 2011, compared with the 19-per-cent average among OECD countries. Government support makes up more than half of what farmers pocket in at least four countries – Japan, South Korea, Norway and Switzerland.

The politics of farm subsidies have long puzzled economists. Agriculture accounts for an ever-shrinking share of economic output in most developed countries. But subsidies continue to flow at very high levels.

In Canada, for example, agriculture accounts for less than 2 per cent of gross domestic product and roughly 9 per cent of exports.

The number of farmers also continues to dwindle. There were 12,529 dairy farms in 2012, a fraction of the more than 100,000 that existed when the supply management system was established in the early 1970s. Every year, another roughly 200 farms disappear as the industry consolidates in fewer hands.

The Guelph researchers suggest one explanation for the paradox of a shrinking farm population and enduring political clout. Farmers are socially conservative, but fiscally liberal when it comes to their own interests.

“At the margin, transfers gain more votes than they lose,” the authors conclude, making the political calculation a no-brainer.

Another paper being presented at the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association meeting comes to a similar conclusion, examining why members of the U.S. Congress consistently back protectionist agricultural policies.

Duke University economist Marc Bellemare and political scientist Nicholas Carnes investigated agriculture-related votes from 1999 to 2009 to determine what factors drive the behaviour of politicians.

“The one explanation that almost always explains support for agricultural protection is the electoral pressure a legislator faces, i.e., the proportion of her constituents who are farm owners or farm managers,” the authors concluded.

In the end, the study determined that pressure at the polls is more important than lobbying and other influences. The result is that farmers wield out-sized influence, even in relatively small numbers.

In Canada, for example, there are only 13 ridings with more than 300 dairy farms – ridings with an average of 80,000 registered voters.

And yet the government remains firmly committed to supply management. In 2005, all 308 MPs in the House of Commons voted to back the protective regime in future trade negotiations.

Prof. Bellemare and Prof. Carnes point out that farmers are politically powerful because the vast majority of other voters are oblivious to what protecting farmers actually costs them.

Canadians and Americans alike are largely unaware of what their own governments spend on farmers, and what it costs them at the grocery store.

If they knew, the political love affair with farmers might fade.

[chuckChuck]

"Farmers are socially conservative, but fiscally liberal when it comes to their own interests."

This quote is from above. The article is out of date but little has changed. You just got a love all the agriville comments about handouts! But many Conservative farmers fail to remember they are recipients too!

Vote right live left as the old saying goes.