Sympathy for Farmers?

Y'all know I don't consider myself smart enough to grasp the ins and outs of political debate.  Sometimes I can cobble arguments for all sides.

Should have gone to law school. 

But, an opinion piece this morning spoke to me, and I feel like submitting some highlights, not to be agreed with or flamed, but to hear out the guy [I'll name him 'Joe'] who eloquently stated, "no sympathy from me."   Note the title of this thread, and try to stay to the topic, not flame certain other posters just to flame.  Thanks.

Famers in my Red state are in distress.  Crops in the field?  Bankruptcy looming?  Bank loans they may not be able to pay?

Why?  Because, in Joe's view, they voted against their own interests.  They voted for "the Elephant in the room" as Joe called it.  Following are summations of Joe's points.

Red-leaning farmers railed against illegals, voted for the candidate promising mass deportations, failing to realize they voted for their workforce to be depleted.

Railed against government spending on food assistance.  Who and where do they think their customers are? Why would they hate their own customers?  The food used for assistance comes from their farms!  Where does the money come from to make their farming viable?  From government spending.  They hate to think of the USDA feeding people around the world, but that's their markets for their harvests.  You and I are as well.

"For over 120 years [Joe's claim] the export market is what made every American farm a wonder of the world."

They voted for the trade war that is now driving them into bankruptcy.  China was buying 25% of a major crop of this state, soybeans.  Now China is buying them from Brazil.  A market gone.  Will it come back?

Those farmers borrowed from banks to plant their crops.  When they can't repay, because there is nobody to pick the crops, and no crops to sell to the USDA, the bank takes the farm.  Corporations will buy the farm from the bank.  Labor will be needed to work the farms.  Will the farmer be willing to work for the corporation [in the field he used to own] for chump change?  That CEO who lives in a gated community?  Can we spell "socialism"?

They voted for billionaires to have more money, more yachts.  They voted against their own interests, for the Elephant in the room. 

Who will have sympathy?

Candy

Who is Joe?  What is the source of the article?  Does he really exist?  If so what is his party affiliation?

The tax cut was not for billionaires (more billionaires are democrats)only. If not passed it would have been the largest tax increase in history. All the tax rates in ALL the brackets would have gone up. There would be no senior deduction, taxes on tips. The std deduction would have gone down. 

Have you seen a shortage of food in the stores?  Do you see a shortage of help in the stores?  If you need a contractor are you being told nobody is available?

Stupid Tom always scrambles to defend his orange master's idiot blunders.

It doesn't matter what Joes party is. It's only MAGAs that choose their preferred reality according to party affiliation--unless that reality is hitting them directly in the nuts, as it sounds like is happening to Joe--who, on a statistical basis probably votes Republican.

There's no shortage of food--yet. That's because we used to produce a massive overabundance of it, and then sold it to other countries. Now, what we have is scarcer and higher priced. Thanks to Trump and the ignorant scum who voted for him.

Yes indeed, the single strongest demographic for Trump in 2020 and 2024 was red state rural communities. In some such counties, the Pig vote exceeded 90%.

And despite Trump's lifelong role as a pathological liar, he's doing many of the things he said he would. Hunt down and deport all brown people. Impose crushing tariffs that would drive prices skyward. Cripple programs like the USDA by putting a teenager who calls himself "Big Balls' (I wish I was kidding) in charge of personnel and funding. Antagonize ALL FIFTEEN of our largest trading partners. So Joe can't legitimately claim to be surprised. He got exactly what he voted for. Just as it said on the tin, as the Brits would say.

The thing is, when you kill a farm, it stays dead. An abandoned farm reverts to nature very quickly. All the structures that need constant maintenance start falling apart. One bad year can do it. Two or three in a row definitely will. And Trump's term is four years. So will Joe be back after he busts out? No. He'll be cleaning toilets for some rich Trumper in the city, earning minimum wage.

And he'll richly deserve that fate.

Oh, and Candy, I wanted to mention in passing why HORRIBUL GUMMINT SPENDIN' on food assistance programs is actually wise economic policy. It's a simple concept called the economic multiplier effect. A product is manufactured or grown, and sold for $X, which adds wealth for both the buyer and the seller. The buyer and the seller then engage in additional transactions. The effect "multiplies." Wealth is created where there was none.

In the case of SNAP," the process is put in motion when poor people are given money to buy food. That money comes from the taxpayers, but it stays in the economy and WORKS. Unlike the billionaire tax money that they now can put in the basement vault.

MAGAs don't comprehend this, and Trump least of all. He truly thinks that everything (EVERYTHING) is a zero-sum game. In order for me to win, you must lose. He and MAGA truly do not fathom that there can be two winners in a transaction. One of our more frequent idiots doesn't comprehend that government spending can produce a net gain for the economy, even (especially!) if it's "just" some kind of "giveaway" to the supposedly undeserving.

You've probably heard of the proposed programs where poor people are simply given $1000 a month, no strings attached. Many economists have said that this benefitted the local economy far more than the amount of the expenditure.

That's a fundamental truth that MAGA can never, never grasp. Compassion and generosity can be good business as well as good ethics. They think it's either-or.

  As I said, it was an opinion piece in my state daily newspaper, one which is nationally known for the least amount of one-sidedness.  Publishes Editorials and Opinion Pieces from both sides.  One way I learn about both sides of issues.  News items aren't sensationalized with hyperbolic headlines, etc.

I didn't identify the author here in KS, calling him "Joe" in my summation of his points.  But it is almost irrelevant since it clearly states HIS side.  Joe (again the author of the opinion piece, not a farmer, not a politician) may have voted Democrat or Republican, but he doesn't say.  

His point, his belief that farmers supported Trump's platform because of his promise for mass deportations of immigrants and/or illegals, which, again Joe believes, are/were the folks who work the farm harvesting the crops which the farmers sell to USDA and other buyers.  Now they would be without workers to pick the crops; prices would skyrocket, services would become available. 

Not seeing the forrest for the trees, voting in a candidate who promised what the farmers THOUGHT at the time was of most importance to them "run the illegals out of the country", while illegals were what kept his crops harvested so their farms could prosper.  Farming being important to this state.  With nobody to pick the crops, crops will rot in the field, can't be sold to anybody, and so on.  

To answer some of Tom's questions:  No, I haven't noticed a shortage of produce in the stores.  Yes, prices (all items, not just produce) have increased drastically.  Yes, some restaurants have had to close or reduce hours due to worker shortage.  I haven't had to find a contractor lately.  

MY personal take on Joe's piece is that folks can be short sighted in how they decide to vote, then get blind sided because of something else that comes about as a result, maybe something of much more importance to them as individuals or as a group.

Thanks for reading, though, Kevin and Tom.

I think that article is way out of touch.  Going bankrupt in 6 months is a strech.  High intrest rates would be a big factor. the last several years. So would high fuel prices. Also high inflation for seed, fertilizer, and feed for livestock and insurance.  It is pretty easy to cherry pick things that hurt farmers.  What about trying to regulate cow farts

Thanks for your thoughts, Brent.   As you say time will tell.   

Candy

I agree.  The farmer with 150 acres isn't going to make it...nor should they.  They can't compete with the much more efficient farms.

So an opinion piece with no facts