Obama hates family farms

[saxitoxin]

Okay. So, just to clarify, your position is that each of the following -

Benjamin Harrison
Grover Cleveland
William McKinley
Theodore Roosevelt
William H. Taft
Woodrow Wilson
Warren G. Harding
Calvin Coolidge
Herbert Hoover
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Harry S. Truman
Dwight D. Eisenhower
John F. Kennedy
Lyndon B. Johnson
Richard M. Nixon
Gerald R. Ford
Jimmy Carter
Ronald Reagan
George H. W. Bush
Bill Clinton
George W. Bush
Barack Obama

- appointed officials who repeatedly violated the constitution?

Yes. Just because something is done hundreds of thousands of times doesn't make it Constitutional.

Should a President who is appointing dozens or hundreds of people he knows are violating the constitution, and continues to do it, be impeached and removed from office? If not, what is the threshold at which a President should be deposed?

I do not know that answer.

What's your opinion?

[oVo]

Family farms have been in trouble since before Obama was even born
and the bulbous corporate farm system is already too big to fail.

I can only wonder what the actual statistics of child farm workers is
and would rather see legislation/regulations that assist and protect
family farms nationwide.

TARP and the bailouts of Wall Street, the Auto Industry and America's
eight largest banks is total bullshit use of tax dollars when compared
to the treatment of farmers and other businesses in recent decades.

Monsanto's corporate domination of seed patents is another situation
that all farms have to accommodate.

[Timminz]

If it is assumed that child labour laws should only apply to certain industries, should it also be assumed that worker's safety laws, or slavery laws should also only apply to certain industries?

[saxitoxin]

the bailouts of ... the Auto Industry ... is total bullshit use of tax dollars

Is it correct to say you disagree with Obama campaign chairman Ted Strickland, you believe Obama made the wrong decision and you agree with "prominent Republicans and Mitt Romney" on that issue?

“Although the polls and the pundits and prominent Republicans like Mitt Romney advised against it the President made the right decision to step in, and we all know how that story has unfolded,” said Mr. Strickland, who was governor at the time.

http://www.toledoblade.com/Politics/201 ... Obama.html

[oVo]

If it is assumed that child labour laws should only apply to certain industries, should it also be assumed that worker's safety laws, or slavery laws should also only apply to certain industries?

Assume nothing when people are involved on either side of the equation.

[thegreekdog]

This is great! By making labor more expensive for the smaller farms, more of them will be unable to compete. Then the larger businesses in the agricultural sector can buy them up! Anyone who opposes this is in support of child labor! EVIL!! EVILL!!! Isn't it so amusing how our morality has been flipped?

Crony capitalism is like this fantastic magic show, where bureaucrats make sure that the workers are protected, and that the children are saved from the evil capitalists. Never mind that some businesses (small farms) will go under, unemployment will slightly increase, real income for these families will significantly decrease, etc.

But the large agribusinesses earn a bigger margin than family farms due to economies of scale, so this shift will cause an overall increase in GDP, which is good for everyone, since it is an increase in average income.

Yay economics!

Not to mention that agricultural products manufactured on the big farms are cheaper for consumers. And don't we all want cheaper products (at the expense of everything else)?

[Timminz]

This is great! By making labor more expensive for the smaller farms, more of them will be unable to compete. Then the larger businesses in the agricultural sector can buy them up! Anyone who opposes this is in support of child labor! EVIL!! EVILL!!! Isn't it so amusing how our morality has been flipped?

Crony capitalism is like this fantastic magic show, where bureaucrats make sure that the workers are protected, and that the children are saved from the evil capitalists. Never mind that some businesses (small farms) will go under, unemployment will slightly increase, real income for these families will significantly decrease, etc.

But the large agribusinesses earn a bigger margin than family farms due to economies of scale, so this shift will cause an overall increase in GDP, which is good for everyone, since it is an increase in average income.

Yay economics!

Not to mention that agricultural products manufactured on the big farms are cheaper for consumers. And don't we all want cheaper products (at the expense of everything else)?

More money AND cheaper products!!! Sign me up.

If child labour laws should only apply to certain industries, should worker's safety laws, or slavery laws also only apply to certain industries?

Assume nothing when people are involved on either side of the equation.

Sorry. I shouldn't have been so flowery. Just pretend I originally wrote the better version.

[saxitoxin]

This is great! By making labor more expensive for the smaller farms, more of them will be unable to compete. Then the larger businesses in the agricultural sector can buy them up! Anyone who opposes this is in support of child labor! EVIL!! EVILL!!! Isn't it so amusing how our morality has been flipped?

Crony capitalism is like this fantastic magic show, where bureaucrats make sure that the workers are protected, and that the children are saved from the evil capitalists. Never mind that some businesses (small farms) will go under, unemployment will slightly increase, real income for these families will significantly decrease, etc.

But the large agribusinesses earn a bigger margin than family farms due to economies of scale, so this shift will cause an overall increase in GDP, which is good for everyone, since it is an increase in average income.

Yay economics!

Not to mention that agricultural products manufactured on the big farms are cheaper for consumers. And don't we all want cheaper products (at the expense of everything else)?

More money AND cheaper products!!! Sign me up.

You can sign yourself up, you lazy sunnavabitch. Here: http://walmartcanada.ca/Pages/Careers/1 ... 84?lang=en

[saxitoxin]

Okay. So, just to clarify, your position is that each of the following -

Benjamin Harrison
Grover Cleveland
William McKinley
Theodore Roosevelt
William H. Taft
Woodrow Wilson
Warren G. Harding
Calvin Coolidge
Herbert Hoover
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Harry S. Truman
Dwight D. Eisenhower
John F. Kennedy
Lyndon B. Johnson
Richard M. Nixon
Gerald R. Ford
Jimmy Carter
Ronald Reagan
George H. W. Bush
Bill Clinton
George W. Bush
Barack Obama

- appointed officials who repeatedly violated the constitution?

Yes. Just because something is done hundreds of thousands of times doesn't make it Constitutional.

Should a President who is appointing dozens or hundreds of people he knows are violating the constitution, and continues to do it, be impeached and removed from office? If not, what is the threshold at which a President should be deposed?

I do not know that answer.

What if Congress authorized the executive branch to make a specific regulation?

For instance, could Congress pass a law that said "Mount Rushmore will be open to the public unless the National Park Service shall otherwise determine necessary?"

Would that be a constitutional law or an unconstitutional law? If Mount Rushmore needed some restoration work that required it be closed a few days would Congress need to convene, debate and vote to close it on those specific days or could they just pass a law authorizing the NPS to establish the park hours at their discretion?

[BigBallinStalin]

This is great! By making labor more expensive for the smaller farms, more of them will be unable to compete. Then the larger businesses in the agricultural sector can buy them up! Anyone who opposes this is in support of child labor! EVIL!! EVILL!!! Isn't it so amusing how our morality has been flipped?

Crony capitalism is like this fantastic magic show, where bureaucrats make sure that the workers are protected, and that the children are saved from the evil capitalists. Never mind that some businesses (small farms) will go under, unemployment will slightly increase, real income for these families will significantly decrease, etc.

But the large agribusinesses earn a bigger margin than family farms due to economies of scale, so this shift will cause an overall increase in GDP, which is good for everyone, since it is an increase in average income.

Yay economics!

GDP is only an "objective" measurement, thus can't be used for interpersonal comparisons of utility, which is perceived subjectively. Therefore, it doesn't follow that overall increases in GDP are "good for everyone" because an increase in GDP doesn't reflect a net positive increase in everyone's values. Valuation is subjective, and changes in the valuations of millions of individuals aren't reflected in GDP measurements.

All GDP says is "the price of all final goods produced and consumed for this year within this political boundary are $_____." Increases in GDP don't mean "everyone benefits." Ceteris paribus, the government could spend $1 trillion on military and state police, thus causing an increase in GDP. Has everyone benefited? Is this good for everyone? We can't know from GDP, nor can we know what would have happened had the government not spent this money, or (had the government not cracked down on the employment of young people--in regard to the OP).


Why is GDP misleading at times? (lagniappe!)
(sorry couldn't help myself, I was on a roll, so I kept typing)

show

Yay Austrian Economics!

[BigBallinStalin]

This is great! By making labor more expensive for the smaller farms, more of them will be unable to compete. Then the larger businesses in the agricultural sector can buy them up! Anyone who opposes this is in support of child labor! EVIL!! EVILL!!! Isn't it so amusing how our morality has been flipped?

Crony capitalism is like this fantastic magic show, where bureaucrats make sure that the workers are protected, and that the children are saved from the evil capitalists. Never mind that some businesses (small farms) will go under, unemployment will slightly increase, real income for these families will significantly decrease, etc.

But the large agribusinesses earn a bigger margin than family farms due to economies of scale, so this shift will cause an overall increase in GDP, which is good for everyone, since it is an increase in average income.

Yay economics!

Not to mention that agricultural products manufactured on the big farms are cheaper for consumers. And don't we all want cheaper products (at the expense of everything else)?

Why Timminz is WRONG: (In your face, Timminz!!!!)
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=169761&start=30#p3710099

Regarding your point, yes, the consumer welfare of only those consumers who purchase products by large agribusinesses might get an increase in their real income due to the assumed lower prices from the expansion of those big agribusinesses.

Nevertheless, a firm can only expand so much until its internal transaction costs become higher than external transaction costs. In other words, an expansion of a firm doesn't always lead to lower prices and increased input. It depends on the firm's inner transaction costs and whether or not it would be cheaper to outsource these transactions--or if the market with its smaller firms could produce at a lower internal transaction cost, thus a lower price, thereby out-competing the larger firm.

You're assuming constant returns to scale (i.e. increased inputs will always lead to increased outputs). This isn't always the case because of diminishing marginal utility. In other words, if you have a room with 5 computers and 5 tax assistants, it doesn't follow that if you double the computers, tax assistants, and room size, you'll get double the output. It depends on the means of doubling and the following internal transaction costs. You probably need to a hire a manager because without him your workload would probably increase, thus hampering your productivity, thereby decreasing your marginal revenue product. and yada yada yada. In short, it just depends.


However, the consumers who purchase from local farms would face higher prices, thus realize a decrease in their real income--as the large businesses took over the local farms on the margin. What about those consumers and their decreased welfare?

[BigBallinStalin]

Why don't they remove the subsidies given to the large agribusinesses and decrease the import tariffs and quotas on foreign sugar and corn?


This would save the taxpayers >$60 billion (IIRC), the consumers of foreign sugar, corn, etc., would realize an increase in their real income (due to the lower prices), and would have more income to dedicate to other goods--foreign and domestic. This also helps other countries and their people, which undermines some of the need of top-down planning by the IMF and World Bank.

[Phatscotty]

Ron Paul's comments

“The Department of Labor’s plan to issue new regulations applying child labor laws to family farms is an outrageous assault on America’s farmers. My parents were dairy farmers who required me and my brothers to help out on the farm. I certainly benefited from this experience, and, as a Representative of a congressional district containing a large number of farmers, I have had the opportunity to meet many farmers who learned about their profession by doing chores on their parents’ farms. Working on a family farm also provides a tremendous opportunity to form a strong work ethic that these children will carry through the rest of their lives.

“Thanks to the Obama Administration, future generations of children will be deprived of these experiences.

“Now that the federal government is planning to, for all intents and purposes, outlaw chores on the farm, I wonder when the Department of Labor will forbid parents from requiring children to make their beds, clean their rooms, or set the table for dinner. The founding fathers would be outraged to see the federal government attempting to prevent children from helping their parents on their farms. If the American people select me as their next President, I will put an end to these regulations on my first day in office.

“Under my ‘Plan to Restore America,’ I will use my constitutional authority as President to impose a moratorium on any new federal regulations. My Plan also reduces spending by $1 trillion in the first year of my presidency and balances the budget by my third year, while providing much-needed tax relief to the American people. This will put more money back in the pockets of hard-working Americans, like those who provide vital goods by running family farms.

“Out of all the candidates seeking the presidential nomination of a major party, I am the only one with a record of consistently opposing all unconstitutional, job-destroying regulations. I urge all Americans who wish to free their businesses and their families from the grip of the regulatory state to join my campaign to Restore America Now.”

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/04/26/r ... ily-farms/

[saxitoxin]

You know what this thread is really missing? Ron Paul's take on the situa - oh wait! Nevermind!

Ron Paul's comments

“The Department of Labor’s plan to issue new regulations applying child labor laws to family farms is an outrageous assault on America’s farmers. My parents were dairy farmers who required me and my brothers to help out on the farm. I certainly benefited from this experience, and, as a Representative of a congressional district containing a large number of farmers, I have had the opportunity to meet many farmers who learned about their profession by doing chores on their parents’ farms. Working on a family farm also provides a tremendous opportunity to form a strong work ethic that these children will carry through the rest of their lives.

“Thanks to the Obama Administration, future generations of children will be deprived of these experiences.

“Now that the federal government is planning to, for all intents and purposes, outlaw chores on the farm, I wonder when the Department of Labor will forbid parents from requiring children to make their beds, clean their rooms, or set the table for dinner. The founding fathers would be outraged to see the federal government attempting to prevent children from helping their parents on their farms. If the American people select me as their next President, I will put an end to these regulations on my first day in office.

“Under my ‘Plan to Restore America,’ I will use my constitutional authority as President to impose a moratorium on any new federal regulations. My Plan also reduces spending by $1 trillion in the first year of my presidency and balances the budget by my third year, while providing much-needed tax relief to the American people. This will put more money back in the pockets of hard-working Americans, like those who provide vital goods by running family farms.

“Out of all the candidates seeking the presidential nomination of a major party, I am the only one with a record of consistently opposing all unconstitutional, job-destroying regulations. I urge all Americans who wish to free their businesses and their families from the grip of the regulatory state to join my campaign to Restore America Now.”

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/04/26/r ... ily-farms/

[Timminz]

Why don't they remove the subsidies given to the large agribusinesses and decrease the import tariffs and quotas on foreign sugar and corn?


This would save the taxpayers >$60 billion (IIRC), the consumers of foreign sugar, corn, etc., would realize an increase in their real income (due to the lower prices), and would have more income to dedicate to other goods--foreign and domestic. This also helps other countries and their people, which undermines some of the need of top-down planning by the IMF and World Bank.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

[saxitoxin]

Why don't they remove the subsidies given to the large agribusinesses and decrease the import tariffs and quotas on foreign sugar and corn?

This would save the taxpayers >$60 billion (IIRC), the consumers of foreign sugar, corn, etc., would realize an increase in their real income (due to the lower prices), and would have more income to dedicate to other goods--foreign and domestic. This also helps other countries and their people, which undermines some of the need of top-down planning by the IMF and World Bank.

But the subsidies are tied to US farmers not selling their product for cheap. The US has enough arable land, cheap labor from Mexico and advanced farming technology that it could flood the world food market if didn't have an incentive to avoid producing at capacity. The resulting plummet in food prices would destroy domestic agriculture in many other countries. What will you tell a Frenchman who now has to eat baguettes baked from U.S. wheat?

[Night Strike]

What if Congress authorized the executive branch to make a specific regulation?

For instance, could Congress pass a law that said "Mount Rushmore will be open to the public unless the National Park Service shall otherwise determine necessary?"

Would that be a constitutional law or an unconstitutional law? If Mount Rushmore needed some restoration work that required it be closed a few days would Congress need to convene, debate and vote to close it on those specific days or could they just pass a law authorizing the NPS to establish the park hours at their discretion?

Hours of Operation is not a regulation. And even if it is, it isn't one that is enacting requirements and punishments on people. The regulations I'm referring to are ones like those mentioned in the OP: where an administrative department states that "you must do this or you will be fined". If Congress doesn't pass that law, then citizens can't be punished by it.

[saxitoxin]

What if Congress authorized the executive branch to make a specific regulation?

For instance, could Congress pass a law that said "Mount Rushmore will be open to the public unless the National Park Service shall otherwise determine necessary?"

Would that be a constitutional law or an unconstitutional law? If Mount Rushmore needed some restoration work that required it be closed a few days would Congress need to convene, debate and vote to close it on those specific days or could they just pass a law authorizing the NPS to establish the park hours at their discretion?

Hours of Operation is not a regulation. And even if it is, it isn't one that is enacting requirements and punishments on people. The regulations I'm referring to are ones like those mentioned in the OP: where an administrative department states that "you must do this or you will be fined". If Congress doesn't pass that law, then citizens can't be punished by it.

You didn't answer the question: what if Congress authorized the executive branch to make a specific regulation? Is the ensuing regulation unconstitutional?

For instance, after tornadoes destroyed 3 counties in Oklahoma on March 30, 2007, the IRS extended the filing deadline (the deadline at which people must file their tax returns or be fined) by a month for residents of those counties under standing authority they had from Congress for establishing and amending regulations to carry-out the provisions of the tax code.

Did the Bush administration violate the constitution by making that regulation without all 535 members of Congress first flying back to DC, debating and voting on the matter, even though they'd given the IRS the authority to make that regulation in advance?

[Night Strike]

What if Congress authorized the executive branch to make a specific regulation?

For instance, could Congress pass a law that said "Mount Rushmore will be open to the public unless the National Park Service shall otherwise determine necessary?"

Would that be a constitutional law or an unconstitutional law? If Mount Rushmore needed some restoration work that required it be closed a few days would Congress need to convene, debate and vote to close it on those specific days or could they just pass a law authorizing the NPS to establish the park hours at their discretion?

Hours of Operation is not a regulation. And even if it is, it isn't one that is enacting requirements and punishments on people. The regulations I'm referring to are ones like those mentioned in the OP: where an administrative department states that "you must do this or you will be fined". If Congress doesn't pass that law, then citizens can't be punished by it.

You didn't answer the question: what if Congress authorized the executive branch to make a specific regulation? Is the ensuing regulation unconstitutional?

Congress cannot cede it's lawmaking powers to another branch.

[saxitoxin]

What if Congress authorized the executive branch to make a specific regulation?

For instance, could Congress pass a law that said "Mount Rushmore will be open to the public unless the National Park Service shall otherwise determine necessary?"

Would that be a constitutional law or an unconstitutional law? If Mount Rushmore needed some restoration work that required it be closed a few days would Congress need to convene, debate and vote to close it on those specific days or could they just pass a law authorizing the NPS to establish the park hours at their discretion?

Hours of Operation is not a regulation. And even if it is, it isn't one that is enacting requirements and punishments on people. The regulations I'm referring to are ones like those mentioned in the OP: where an administrative department states that "you must do this or you will be fined". If Congress doesn't pass that law, then citizens can't be punished by it.

You didn't answer the question: what if Congress authorized the executive branch to make a specific regulation? Is the ensuing regulation unconstitutional?

Congress cannot cede it's lawmaking powers to another branch.

Okay. So the Bush (and Reagan for the western PA tornadoes of 1985) Administrations callously flaunted the constitution by granting an income tax extension to people in areas hit by tornadoes.

In your opinion, should George Bush (and Ronald Reagan) have been impeached or deposed through some other mechanism for usurping the constitution?

[Night Strike]

Saxitoxin, your entire premise in all these scenarios is that "Administrative departments and regulations are good and in the norm". It's a false premise. The IRS didn't even exist until the Civil War (and income taxes were unconstitutional until the 16th amendment). The IRS is supposed to be a collection agency, not a rule-making agency. And the same goes for other administrative departments. I don't know all the exact details about extending deadlines, etc., but I do know it is wrong for the executive branch to be passing laws and not Congress. Something like 10,000 new regulations have been added just since Obama took office, and most if not all of them were never approved by Congress.

[saxitoxin]

Saxitoxin, your entire premise in all these scenarios is that "Administrative departments and regulations are good and in the norm". It's a false premise. The IRS didn't even exist until the Civil War (and income taxes were unconstitutional until the 16th amendment). The IRS is supposed to be a collection agency, not a rule-making agency. And the same goes for other administrative departments. I don't know all the exact details about extending deadlines, etc., but I do know it is wrong for the executive branch to be passing laws and not Congress. Something like 10,000 new regulations have been added just since Obama took office, and most if not all of them were never approved by Congress.

I don't have any premise. I've just wanted to know if Obama has done anything that was constitutional, but represented bad policy, or if everything he has done was unconstitutional. I'm not very familiar with this farm regulation but it doesn't seem like a good idea to me and I think it's probably bad policy. I don't think it's unconstitutional, though I realize it's become a good communications platform some politicians have recently used to define the Obama regime's policies as unconstitutional rather than simply bad policy, as it creates a greater sense of urgency among supporters.

Sadly, this marketing tactic creates a Chicken Little effect so when the regime really does do things that are unconstitutional (like the execution without trial of Anwar al-Awlaki) it just becomes part of the background noise.

Your premise - that all regulations (a rule or procedure established by the executive to provide for a method of carrying-out a law enacted by Congress) are unconstitutional means the entire history of the United States has been unconstitutional back to the first time George Washington set postal rates. I've never heard this theory seriously advanced by anyone so it fascinates me in the same way I was fascinated with David Wynn Miller's legal theory that only nouns have legal authority and adjectives are unenforceable.

[Phatscotty]

If I wanted America to fail.....

[thegreekdog]

When Congress creates a law, they often create an organization to enforce the law; that organization is under the auspices of the executive branch. That organization is permitted to create regulations, but the regulations are subject to comment from the general public (and by general public I mean interested parties and lobbyists).

Regulations are required to be consistent with the laws. So, you have two limitations on regulations: (1) they must be consistent with the law and not exceed the law and (2) commentary from the general public.

Furthermore, the purpose of regulations and the purpose of departments operating under the auspices of the executive branch is to enforce the law. That's what those entities are doing.

Do regulatory bodies have too much power? Yes.
Are regulatory bodies not accountable? Yes.
Do people not know what regulatory bodies are doing? Yes.
Are they expensive? Yes.
Should they be cut? Yes.

Are they unconstitutional? No.

[Timminz]

This is great! By making labor more expensive for the smaller farms, more of them will be unable to compete. Then the larger businesses in the agricultural sector can buy them up! Anyone who opposes this is in support of child labor! EVIL!! EVILL!!! Isn't it so amusing how our morality has been flipped?

Crony capitalism is like this fantastic magic show, where bureaucrats make sure that the workers are protected, and that the children are saved from the evil capitalists. Never mind that some businesses (small farms) will go under, unemployment will slightly increase, real income for these families will significantly decrease, etc.

But the large agribusinesses earn a bigger margin than family farms due to economies of scale, so this shift will cause an overall increase in GDP, which is good for everyone, since it is an increase in average income.

Yay economics!

GDP is only an "objective" measurement, thus can't be used for interpersonal comparisons of utility, which is perceived subjectively. Therefore, it doesn't follow that overall increases in GDP are "good for everyone" because an increase in GDP doesn't reflect a net positive increase in everyone's values. Valuation is subjective, and changes in the valuations of millions of individuals aren't reflected in GDP measurements.

All GDP says is "the price of all final goods produced and consumed for this year within this political boundary are $_____." Increases in GDP don't mean "everyone benefits." Ceteris paribus, the government could spend $1 trillion on military and state police, thus causing an increase in GDP. Has everyone benefited? Is this good for everyone? We can't know from GDP, nor can we know what would have happened had the government not spent this money, or (had the government not cracked down on the employment of young people--in regard to the OP).


Why is GDP misleading at times? (lagniappe!)
(sorry couldn't help myself, I was on a roll, so I kept typing)

show

Yay Austrian Economics!

Sometimes I have trouble telling whether I've successfully trolled you, or if I've just given you the set-up you were hoping for. Either way, I'm usually satisfied with the reply.