5 ms·

They should kill it. It makes no sense that the EPA can't do it's basic job but this shakedown exists. Conservatives haven't had to live with the consequences

They should kill it. It makes no sense that the EPA can't do it's basic job but this shakedown exists. Conservatives haven't had to live with the consequences of their decisions. They still get their farming subsidies. Their phone and Internet subsidized. Flood insurance. Countless other programs overwhelmingly help red states. We used to have an agreement in this country. That everyone was going to be better off. Now the conservative story is all about hurting the right people. So let's do it. Every state for themselves. Blue states can help other blue states if they want to. Same with red states. Cut off the basic function of the federal government. I'm tired of my tax dollars helping people who don't want what's best for me and my family while I go out there and advocate for them.

LetMePostMore 2y ago
[flagged]
- mywittyname 2y ago
  This is a two-way street. Without money flowing in from other states, then who's going to buy that Kansas wheat? Increased competition for staple crops internationally is part of the reason why the USA began having a trade deficit for agriculture products in 2020, which has ballooned since. Plus, without those subsidies the whole food economy would shift. Maybe those blue states import more from Mexico/Canada/Asia/Europe. Maybe they produce even more crops locally. Most states used to grow enough food locally to sustain their populations. There's nothing stopping them from achieving self-sufficiency again. Especially with modern farming techniques.
  - LetMePostMore 2y ago
    I'd rather have wheat and no money, than money and no wheat. I suppose the people who would buy Kansas wheat would be anyone who wants wheat. The US currently considers food security a vital part of national security. The blue states in this scenario can outsource their food production if they want, and hope there's never any conflict which stops those shipments.
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      > I'd rather have wheat and no money, than money and no wheat. This has largely been a settled argument for about 10k years, as we transitioned to agriculture. Most people prefer buying wheat to growing it.
      - LetMePostMore 2y ago
        Yes, and it is hard to buy wheat when the price skyrockets due to interstate conflict. It's even harder to buy wheat when no one will sell to you.
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        > Yes, and it is hard to buy wheat when the price skyrockets due to interstate conflict. Even harder to grow it in meaningful quantities on a subsistence farming basis. > It's even harder to buy wheat when no one will sell to you. Which, unless your plan is to blockade the blue states, Canada and Brazil will happily do.
        LetMePostMore 2y ago
        There's a big reason why the US subsidizes domestic food production, and you'd be throwing that all out by relying on other countries for food. Good luck, let's hope Brazil and the US always see eye to eye on everything.
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        > There's a big reason why the US subsidizes domestic food production… Yes, and your proposed plan - the subsidized states refusing to sell the food to the subsidising ones - removes that reason entirely. Blue states would see inflation. Red states would see an economic collapse.
        LetMePostMore 2y ago
- giantrobot 2y ago
  "I have a brilliant plan, I'll take all this food I have grown and throw it in the trash! I'll show those pesky Blues who is the real boss! I will destroy my livlihood to own those damn libs! Now where is my crop subsidy and stimmy check?"
  - LetMePostMore 2y ago
    The world is more than America, FYI. Also, the red states could sell the food to blue states, but just at a much higher margin than they currently do. Also also, I'm not the one who invented this ridiculous scenario of every state for themselves, that was OP.
    - fzeroracer 2y ago
      > Also also, I'm not the one who invented this ridiculous scenario of every state for themselves, that was OP. It's not strictly an invention of the OP. The current administration is fully advocating for ripping away funding and benefits to blue states. In a world where the federal government is ensuring that the tax dollars these states pay do not benefit said state at all, there is no rational reason for said state to continue contributing to the union as opposed to clawing back those tax dollars and investing directly in their own state.
    - Ylpertnodi 2y ago
      >The world is more than America, FYI. And of that, I cannot think of any countries that would encourage 'buy american' at the moment. I certainly don't.
    - giantrobot 2y ago
      > Also, the red states could sell the food to blue states, but just at a much higher margin than they currently do. The farms and just about everything else in "red" states are subsidized by the "blue" states. Their farms are not sustainable nor really competitive without those subsidies. They're completely financially ruined without subsidies and their largest customers. They're not going to be able to replace the "blue" states ports and neither Canada or Mexico are likely going to be interested in transporting their wares without hefty tariffs. It's almost like the country works because various groups work together under common legal frameworks despite ideological differences and uncompromising culture ware is short sided idiocy.
- kamarg 2y ago
  This is short sighted. Where will all those red state farmers go to sell their food if it doesn't go to the large population centers which are mostly located in blue states? It won't be to USAID, China, or any of the other places that it used to go to who are rapidly going from allies to economic adversaries. So now the farmers have no income to buy anything else they need to live or even repay their loans. Given our allies have figured out that they should target their economic pain at red states, it is likely far easier for blue states to find a new food supplier than it is for red states to create entirely new markets for existing American crops.
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  >Good luck getting food to your blue states, since 8/10 of the top food producing states in the US are red states. 7/10, not 8/10: #1 (California) is solid blue (Dem trifecta,2 Dem Senators, Dem US House majority, Dem 2024 Pres vote) #5 (Illinois) is solid blue (Dem trifecta,2 Dem Senators, Dem US House majority, Dem 2024 Pres vote) #6 (Minnesota) is quite blue (Dem state senate, tied state house, dem governor, 2 dem senators, tied US house delegation, Dem 2024 Pres vote)

LetMePostMore 2y ago

[flagged]

mywittyname 2y ago
This is a two-way street. Without money flowing in from other states, then who's going to buy that Kansas wheat? Increased competition for staple crops internationally is part of the reason why the USA began having a trade deficit for agriculture products in 2020, which has ballooned since. Plus, without those subsidies the whole food economy would shift. Maybe those blue states import more from Mexico/Canada/Asia/Europe. Maybe they produce even more crops locally. Most states used to grow enough food locally to sustain their populations. There's nothing stopping them from achieving self-sufficiency again. Especially with modern farming techniques.
- LetMePostMore 2y ago
  I'd rather have wheat and no money, than money and no wheat. I suppose the people who would buy Kansas wheat would be anyone who wants wheat. The US currently considers food security a vital part of national security. The blue states in this scenario can outsource their food production if they want, and hope there's never any conflict which stops those shipments.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    > I'd rather have wheat and no money, than money and no wheat. This has largely been a settled argument for about 10k years, as we transitioned to agriculture. Most people prefer buying wheat to growing it.
    - LetMePostMore 2y ago
      Yes, and it is hard to buy wheat when the price skyrockets due to interstate conflict. It's even harder to buy wheat when no one will sell to you.
      - ceejayoz 2y ago
        > Yes, and it is hard to buy wheat when the price skyrockets due to interstate conflict. Even harder to grow it in meaningful quantities on a subsistence farming basis. > It's even harder to buy wheat when no one will sell to you. Which, unless your plan is to blockade the blue states, Canada and Brazil will happily do.
        LetMePostMore 2y ago
        There's a big reason why the US subsidizes domestic food production, and you'd be throwing that all out by relying on other countries for food. Good luck, let's hope Brazil and the US always see eye to eye on everything.
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        > There's a big reason why the US subsidizes domestic food production… Yes, and your proposed plan - the subsidized states refusing to sell the food to the subsidising ones - removes that reason entirely. Blue states would see inflation. Red states would see an economic collapse.
        LetMePostMore 2y ago
giantrobot 2y ago
"I have a brilliant plan, I'll take all this food I have grown and throw it in the trash! I'll show those pesky Blues who is the real boss! I will destroy my livlihood to own those damn libs! Now where is my crop subsidy and stimmy check?"
- LetMePostMore 2y ago
  The world is more than America, FYI. Also, the red states could sell the food to blue states, but just at a much higher margin than they currently do. Also also, I'm not the one who invented this ridiculous scenario of every state for themselves, that was OP.
  - fzeroracer 2y ago
    > Also also, I'm not the one who invented this ridiculous scenario of every state for themselves, that was OP. It's not strictly an invention of the OP. The current administration is fully advocating for ripping away funding and benefits to blue states. In a world where the federal government is ensuring that the tax dollars these states pay do not benefit said state at all, there is no rational reason for said state to continue contributing to the union as opposed to clawing back those tax dollars and investing directly in their own state.
  - Ylpertnodi 2y ago
    >The world is more than America, FYI. And of that, I cannot think of any countries that would encourage 'buy american' at the moment. I certainly don't.
  - giantrobot 2y ago
    > Also, the red states could sell the food to blue states, but just at a much higher margin than they currently do. The farms and just about everything else in "red" states are subsidized by the "blue" states. Their farms are not sustainable nor really competitive without those subsidies. They're completely financially ruined without subsidies and their largest customers. They're not going to be able to replace the "blue" states ports and neither Canada or Mexico are likely going to be interested in transporting their wares without hefty tariffs. It's almost like the country works because various groups work together under common legal frameworks despite ideological differences and uncompromising culture ware is short sided idiocy.
kamarg 2y ago
This is short sighted. Where will all those red state farmers go to sell their food if it doesn't go to the large population centers which are mostly located in blue states? It won't be to USAID, China, or any of the other places that it used to go to who are rapidly going from allies to economic adversaries. So now the farmers have no income to buy anything else they need to live or even repay their loans. Given our allies have figured out that they should target their economic pain at red states, it is likely far easier for blue states to find a new food supplier than it is for red states to create entirely new markets for existing American crops.
dragonwriter 2y ago
>Good luck getting food to your blue states, since 8/10 of the top food producing states in the US are red states. 7/10, not 8/10: #1 (California) is solid blue (Dem trifecta,2 Dem Senators, Dem US House majority, Dem 2024 Pres vote) #5 (Illinois) is solid blue (Dem trifecta,2 Dem Senators, Dem US House majority, Dem 2024 Pres vote) #6 (Minnesota) is quite blue (Dem state senate, tied state house, dem governor, 2 dem senators, tied US house delegation, Dem 2024 Pres vote)