Flood of water, or of money?

[PLC1]

Death Looms for a Flood-Control Project

The project’s opponents and supporters agree it would destroy or degrade at least 67,000 acres of wetlands, four times the size of Manhattan. The area affected, an E.P.A. official wrote to the corps earlier this year, represents “some of the richest wetland and aquatic resources in the nation — a breeding and spawning ground for fish and a haven for migratory fowl.”

But what is really behind the project? Well, take a look at the buried nugget in the whole pile of dirt:

They believe the $220 million flood control project could increase their crop yield on marginal land. That, in turn, would increase their federal subsidies.

So, the real flood they want controlled is the flood of tax dollars from Washington.

Let's destroy a wetland in order to preserve our subsidies from Uncle Sugar, who just loves to give away money.

Or, maybe it's time to do away with the giveaway programs and actually try to balance the federal budget? No, no, we can't do that!

The rest of the article is at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/09/us/09yazoo.html?th&emc=th

 

[Dr.Who]

So, the real flood they want controlled is the flood of tax dollars from Washington.

You have demonstrated what a reason for the project is. But you have not shown us any evidence that it is the reason. You have not even showed us that this was important enough a reason to even play a part in the decision making process.

This is the same logic that opponents of the war in Iraq use when they say that we went in for oil.

 

[PLC1]

You have demonstrated what a reason for the project is. But you have not shown us any evidence that it is the reason. You have not even showed us that this was important enough a reason to even play a part in the decision making process.

This is the same logic that opponents of the war in Iraq use when they say that we went in for oil.

You must have a whole lot more trust in government than I do.

It might not be the only reason, but it certainly is the main reason.

And, it has nothing to do with Iraq.

 

[Bunz]

You have demonstrated what a reason for the project is. But you have not shown us any evidence that it is the reason. You have not even showed us that this was important enough a reason to even play a part in the decision making process.

This is the same logic that opponents of the war in Iraq use when they say that we went in for oil.

There are often several factors that are considered in any decision...this is universal.

Just like oil was not the only reason we went to Iraq, but it certainly was a considerable contributing factor.

 

[Dr.Who]

You must have a whole lot more trust in government than I do.

It might not be the only reason, but it certainly is the main reason.

And, it has nothing to do with Iraq.

I trust them to be bad stewards of our money.
I trust them to be a large innefficient beaurcracy.
I trust them to do things on occasion that while well intentioned are horrible.
I trust them to do things on occasion that are not even well intentioned.
Etc.

However, I like to have evidence to decide which category an action falls into. What are your reasons for thinking that this wsa the main reason for the legislation as opposed to an ancillary reason.

 

[PLC1]

I trust them to be bad stewards of our money.
I trust them to be a large innefficient beaurcracy.
I trust them to do things on occasion that while well intentioned are horrible.
I trust them to do things on occasion that are not even well intentioned.
Etc.

However, I like to have evidence to decide which category an action falls into. What are your reasons for thinking that this wsa the main reason for the legislation as opposed to an ancillary reason.

OK, fair enough.

Here is some information about crop subsidies:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/14/MN2STTMCE.DTL

(12-14) 04:00 PDT Washington - -- An effort to limit government payments to the largest farms failed in the Senate Thursday, quashing the best chance consumer and environmental groups had to promote healthier diets and better environmental stewardship of the nation's nearly 1 billion acres of farmland in the $288 billion farm bill now steamrolling to passage.

$288 billion in government money being given to large growers is just about certain to bring about abuses, as the proponents of that bill well know. Why pass it?

Then, there's this part of the original post:

But increasing farmland increases the opportunity for federal price supports. Some of the nation’s biggest recipients of the supports are in the lower Delta.

Are they farming the land, or the government?

And, here is a first hand look at the delta, the way it was before the government started spending billions on "flood control" and subsidizing marginal farmland created by draining the wetlands:

http://www.nwf.org/nationalwildlife/article.cfm?articleId=186&issueId=22

None of that actually proves that the main reason for this ill advised and expensive project is to increase farm subsidies, of course. Such proof would take a lot longer than I'm willing to spend on it, but the overwelming preponderence of the evidence indicates that the disire for government money, rather than the need for flood control, is behind the project.

And, furthermore, what other motivation could there be for creating marginal cropland while destroying an entire ecosystem in the process and spending billions of our tax dollars doing it?

 

[Dr.Who]

None of that actually proves that the main reason for this ill advised and expensive project is to increase farm subsidies, of course. Such proof would take a lot longer than I'm willing to spend on it, but the overwelming preponderence of the evidence indicates that the disire for government money, rather than the need for flood control, is behind the project.

I agree that the gov should not be in the business of propping up anybody. I also agree that in this instance the time to find the facts is probably not worth it.

In looking at the facts that you have found I see that the amount spent on farm subsidies is probably small in comparson to other gov expenses. So do you want to know if this bill is for creating more farm land or for flood control? Follow the money. Is the money being used for flood control or for farm subsidies. We probably would just need to read the bill.

And, furthermore, what other motivation could there be for creating marginal cropland while destroying an entire ecosystem in the process and spending billions of our tax dollars doing it?

The reason could be flood control. Congress is infamous for taking legitimate bills and tacking on unimportant ammendments that we like to call pork

So is this a flood bill with pork or is this a farm subsidy bill disguised as a flood control bill.

And do we even need the flood control this bill would address?

 

[Dr.Who]

OK, fair enough.

...

Are they farming the land, or the government?

...

None of that actually proves that the main reason...

P.S. I like your honest style in which you really seem to be interested in finding the truth through debate rather than in winning.

 

[PLC1]

I agree that the gov should not be in the business of propping up anybody. I also agree that in this instance the time to find the facts is probably not worth it.

Short of being able to know just who has donated what to whose campaign, we probably can do no more than speculate, but this whole project smells of government money and corruption.

In looking at the facts that you have found I see that the amount spent on farm subsidies is probably small in comparson to other gov expenses. So do you want to know if this bill is for creating more farm land or for flood control? Follow the money. Is the money being used for flood control or for farm subsidies. We probably would just need to read the bill.

It may be a small amount of money in comparison to a few other things, but $288 billion amounts to $2,880 each for a hundred million taxpayers. It is more than half of the projected deficit. It is certainly a significant amount of money.

The reason could be flood control. Congress is infamous for taking legitimate bills and tacking on unimportant ammendments that we like to call pork

So is this a flood bill with pork or is this a farm subsidy bill disguised as a flood control bill.

And do we even need the flood control this bill would address?

Do we need it badly enough to spend the money it will cost on that project rather than, for example,

working on the interstate highway system?
paying down the debt?
tax relief?


And, has anyone even added up the environmental costs?

 

[Dr.Who]

Do we need it badly enough to spend the money it will cost on that project rather than, for example,

working on the interstate highway system?
paying down the debt?
tax relief?

All your points I have not copied are well taken.

So do we need to spend this money? Excellent question. I suspect not. Which is true of just about every bill that congress makes. They work best when they are fighting each other and not passing any bills. Gotta love the founding fathers.

And, has anyone even added up the environmental costs?

Every bill is evaluated for environment costs as required by law. I don't know the results.

 

[PLC1]

P.S. I like your honest style in which you really seem to be interested in finding the truth through debate rather than in winning.

Thanks.

I've been on this board for a while, and on another for even longer. I've noticed that there are always a few who seem to think they have to be always right, and yet, they are almost always wrong. They then beat their chests and hoot about having shredded the opponent's arguments, when it is their own that fly in the wind like confetti.

I've learned a lot through the time I've spent here. Some of the things I've learned might actually be true.

And, I've confirmed the suspicion that following the money trail will lead to the kernel of truth over half of the time at least.