Government Spending

Trump's Proposed Cuts to Farm Subsidies Don't Go Nearly Deep Enough

Instead of taking a little off the top, Trump needs to give farm subsidies a buzz cut.


Earlier this month, as part of his annual budget, President Donald Trump proposed significant cuts to federal crop insurance subsidies. 

The cuts, which were similar to ones included in a previous budget proposal, would carve 31 percent out of the annual budget for the subsidies. Estimates suggest the cuts would save more than $21 billion over 10 years.

While the cuts target the wealthiest farmers, they would also impact every recipient.

"This time, the White House said the wealthiest operators, with an adjusted gross income of more than $500,000 a year, should pay full price for crop insurance," Successful Farming reports. "And it said producers with an AGI of less than $500,000 annually should pay a larger share of the premium."

That's a good start. I call it a start because crop-insurance subsidies (and farm subsidies generally) should be eliminated entirely, at once, for every farmer, rich and poor alike. Still, Trump's call for cuts to the wasteful program—particularly in eliminating crop-insurance subsidies for the wealthiest farmers—is worth celebrating.

"Typically, subsidies have benefited wealthy, larger farmers who farm just a handful of crops and who should not—and, flatly, do not—need them to succeed," I detail in my bookBiting the Hands that Feed Us: How Fewer, Smarter Laws Would Make Our Food System More Sustainable.

In a subsequent column in 2018, I highlighted that Republicans in Congress had sought "passage of another bloated farm bill, [which] would attempt to eliminate an Obama-era change that had reined in taxpayer-funded farm subsidies paid to many of the wealthiest American farmers."

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office is one of many offices and groups that's long urged a reduction in crop-insurance subsidies. The nonprofit Environmental Working Group (EWG) is another.

"Crop insurance premiums are so heavily subsidized that participating farmers receive $2 in indemnities for every $1 they spend to share the cost of premiums," EWG noted in a 2018 fact sheet calling for reforms to crop-insurance subsidies.

Not surprisingly, supporters of crop-insurance subsidies are angry at Trump's proposal.

"This is what happens when ideologues decide to cut programs just for the sake of cutting," said Rep. Collin Peterson (D–Minn.), the powerful chairman of the House agriculture committee.  "We will make sure that the farm bill isn't cut during this year's budget process."

Tom Philpott of Mother Jones lamented the cuts to what he dubbed "a key support for corn and soybean farmers during extended periods of low prices, such as the one currently in effect."

Nearly every administration promises to make some cuts to farm subsidy programs. Yet the cost of farm subsidies almost always balloons.

Back in 2013, Sen. Debbie Stabenow (DMich.), who chaired the Senate Agriculture Committee, called the Farm Bill she championed "an opportunity to cut spending." How'd that work out? In 2015, one pundit wrote that the same Farm Bill "will prove to be the most expensive ever thanks to new subsidies Congress added on top of the already costly crop insurance program[], new research suggests."

Thirty-five years ago, the 1985 Farm Bill, signed by President Ronald Reagan, was then the most expensive to date.

"Since the Reagan administration took office in 1981, the cost of farm programs has soared, reaching more than $100 billion by the end of last year," the Chicago Tribune reported in 1988. "That's more than six times the cost of such programs in the four years of President Jimmy Carter`s administration."

Many farmers want and need crop insurance. And those that want or need it should have it. By all means.

Insurance isn't the problem; taxpayer subsidies are. In the same way that government car insurance subsidies would encourage more and riskier driving, crop insurance subsidies encourage overproduction of subsidized crops and discourage diversification and conservation. Cutting these subsidies, as Trump has proposed, is a worthwhile start.

NEXT: 'Specialization Is for Insects'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. No, no, no, you can’t just stop paying people to produce shit nobody needs and expect the free market through price signals to correctly match supply and demand, you’re going to need a 2,000 page bill detailing every last little bit of the correct amount of crops to be produced, how to produce them, how to distribute them and how to consume them. It’s like you don’t even understand the efficacy of central planning and why you can’t just let people decide for themselves how much of a given good at a given price they’re willing to produce and consume. And it’s especially bad with farmers, we all know how stupid farmers are that they don’t even know how to respond to incentives and disincentives.

    1. ITT, I take a total flyer and score a hit on Hihn and his shitty teeth ahaahahaha

      1. Grow up, fag.

        1. Brush your teeth Hihn, you have shit in them.

          1. Shut up, nigger.

            1. Or what Hihn? Youll cry about my giant dong some more?

              1. Your mom told me your dick is tiny last night.

                1. Yeah, she does that to make you feel like you’re not alone.

                2. It is strange. In this thread you argue for US to be subservient on trade to China and not retaliate… yet you keep trying to retaliate against Tulpa.

                  Do you not follow your own idealism?

                  1. The vigorous use of slurs while claiming to be issue focused kind of answers that for him.

                    1. I actually didn’t think it was Hihn at first, but his reactions became increasingly unhinged, just like Hihn.

                    2. I didn’t really either, but yeah, same.

                      Also, vigorously insisting Hihn does and doesn’t say certain things…

                    3. It is always amusing how quickly the “ma principles” sophist idealists break their own ideals.

                      I still think it is another Jeff unhinged sock rather than Hihn. He gets this angry all the time as well. And he fully supports cheap goods for him even if it comes under slave like conditions elsewhere. He has no real principles.

                    4. Yeah I actually think it’s Little Jeffy as well.

                    5. Does Hihn use the n word or call people “fags”?

                    6. Notice he isnt denying the Jeff comparisons.

                    7. Please refer to Chemjeff as ‘Pedo Jeffy’ exclusively. As it is true, and he hates it.

                    8. Yall realize psychoticjeff is just a younger version of hihn?
                      I certainly find it hilarious

                  2. Again, you falsely believe that when we place tariffs on China, we are only punishing China. It punishes Americans too. Duh. Several nations have UNILATERAL free trade, and it works for them. All the Austrian economists disagree with you, but those economic “geniuses” Donald Trump and Pat Buchanan are on your side. Lol.

                    1. There are no explicit free trade agreements anywhere dummy. Every agreement has slight barriers and only allows minimal free trade arrangements in small sub markets.

                      Trump has offered every country an actual free market agreement of ending all entry and exit conditions on markets between the US and the country, only to be turned down.

                      You keep proving your own ignorance throughout this thread.

                    2. Our having free trade should not be dependent on China or any other nation reciprocating, dumb fuck. We had fewer barriers before Trump, even if it wasn’t total free trade.

                    3. Trump has moved us in the wrong direction instead of lowering trade barriers or at least keeping the status quo.

                    4. Holy shit. Vince doesnt know how markets work.

                    5. Again, how is Trump RAISING tariffs consistent with supporting free trade? Idiot.

                    6. Did Trump have to raise tariffs? Yes or no, you dumb fucking fag.

                  3. JesseAz, China hurts its OWN PEOPLE with tariffs.

                    1. And now he is defending his own cheap goods on the backs of Chinese market actions.

                      Jeff actually supports negative market actions as long ad they benefit him.

                      And jeff… china also hits US business to the tune of 30 billion a year, estimates pushed under Obama’s administration so you cant claim trump lies.

                      But to you chinese IP theft, trademark infringement, etc has no negative effect here.

                      Because you’re an idiot.

                  4. WTF is Tulpa?

                    1. Lol. You know every position of Hihn’s but don’t know who Tulpa or Little Jeffy are?

                  5. I’m not even familiar with “Jeff.” I don’t know who he is. Sorry.

                    1. And now straight denials. Yeap. Sticking with Jeff.

                    2. I got it! Mike Liarson is back!

                    3. Lol.

                      Let me go ask quora if neutral mikey is back.

  2. The article can be summed up as “I want Trump to propose completely unrealistic goals that would never ever pass given the political climate of the last 90 years”.

    1. That’s been the summation of most of these. The few times they mention Trumps deregulation they then state how it isnt far enough. Reason seems to think small wins are more unbearable than the status quo at times.

      1. Do you support Trump’s subsidies for farmers that he thinks China is paying for when we’re actually paying for it? There’s no small victory there. Trump created those subsidies. You still think he’s a libertarian though, right? Lol.

        1. You have shit in your teeth Hihn

          1. I am pro-life, so I’m not Hihn. Troll harder, Jesse’s sock puppet.

            1. Ahahaha I called it, it’s Hihn lololol

              1. Doubling down on stupid, I see. Even if I was his sock puppet, you still haven’t refuted me. For the record, I have argued with Hihn on abortion. Nice try, moron.

                1. Could you at least brush your teeth, you have shit in them and your breath is rank Hihn.

                  1. Does your daddy know you’re using his account?

                    1. Ahahah look how upset Hihn is that I pointed out the shit in his teeth ahahahah

            2. Holy shit dumbfuck, I don’t sock. Never have. Try getting an actual argument.

              1. I did. I asked you if you support Trump’s socialist farm subsidies, ass clown.

                1. Was that the first N bomb or the second one Hihn?

                2. Oh, my bad. You apparently can’t read since I answered that already.

                  1. Not the subsidies in this article. The subsidies HE CREATED with his trade war.

          2. Now go ahead and mention something about Rachel Maddie, or make another ad hominem. Anything to avoid refuting what I said, dipshit.

            1. Nope, you didn’t get it, the shit in your teeth is still there Hihn lololl

              1. Idiot thinks he “won” by calling me “Hihn.” Lol.

                1. Ahahahahah how do you still have shit in your teeth Hihn lolol I totally fucking outed you. Ahahahahaha

            2. Your argument is a nothing argument. There is nothing to refute. You actually do what I claim reason does. Because Trump isn’t perfect in every aspect of idealistic libertarianism, you ignore the positive aspects of his presidency.

              Thank you for proving my original assertion.

              1. Even if congress had the votes to override Trump, he still should have vetoed the budget. No excuse, dipshit.

                Maybe he shouldn’t have cut taxes since it was obvious from the get go that spending would not be cut. Common sense says you cut spending FIRST. Fucking idiot. Trump should have vetoed the tax cut. So either way, Trump is a moron.

                1. “Even if congress had the votes to override Trump, he still should have vetoed the budget. No excuse, dipshit.”

                  Ahahahahah no wonder you want to fuck Amash you fetishize pointless virtue signaling Hihn ahahahahahah

                2. Yes, we get it. You care more about show votes as a form of protest than doing actual active things like reducing the regulatory state. Just last week he had 2 federal rule changes that made it so that Executive administrative agencies can’t fine before they inform, giving citizens a chance to fix it. He continues to reduce the size of the regulatory state and has orders to remove contradictory regulations. But to you this shit doesn’t matter because Trump didn’t make a show vote to veto a budget that passed with veto proof numbers.

                  You’re a fucking clown.

                3. Also, you are now a principled libertarian against tax cuts. Think about that you fucking idiot.

                  1. If you refuse to cut spending, you shouldn’t cut taxes. That is just common sense. I believe in cutting taxes IN ORINCIPLE, but I oppose deficits. Something has to give, Either cut spending, or raise taxes.

                    What you’re basically arguing is it’s better to support out of control deficits than to raise taxes. Think about that, you fucking idiot. The debt will have to,paid off one way or the other. Either we pay for it, or our grandchildren will.

                    1. Tax revenue went up dummy. You have no principles as you just admitted. Yet your entire argument relies on your supposed principles.

                      You literally just made the argument to keep increasing taxes until it is greater than spending. You want to make a citizens income subservient to the governments spending wishes. Now think about this in terms of communism dummy.

                    2. I prefer surpluses over deficits, and we need to run surpluses in order to pay off the national debt. Idiot.

                    3. You say tax revenue went up, yet spending went up even more. Duh.

          3. Fuck off, fag.

            1. Stay classy Hihn, but you still have shit in your teeth ahahahahaj

              1. Hihn called me an idiot for saying to “end Medicaid now,” and he took issue with my being pro-life. I’m not Hihn, moron. He mocked me and called me names just as much as you assholes are doing.

              2. Hihn also made up a story about how he had friends who were reading my statements and laughing at me. Dipshit.

          4. Nigger.

            1. You still have shit in your teeth Hihney.

        2. I support Retaliatory Tariffs against a bad actor that is openly abusing markets and has been for decades, especially when those tariffs have already brought said bad actor to the table to negotiations. Any temporary subsidies required to modify any local harm is fine.

          Are you of the belief markets were perfect prior to Trump?

          1. Nope. Then you are not a libertarian. Libertarians support unilateral free trade, you stupid fucking nigger. Retaliatory tariffs are based on the idiotic belief trade is zero sum. Wrong wrong wrong, idiot, We’ve lost manufacturing jobs since Trump started his trade war. You lose, nigger.

            1. Cry more Hihn.

            2. There wasn’t free trade prior to Trump you fucking idiot. the fact that you think so proves your ignorant sophistic beliefs.

              Did you even pass freshman sophistry? Or just audited the first week to try to make yourself feel smart?

              ” Libertarians support unilateral free trade,”

              We have never lived under these conditions. Until you realize that you will forever be a fucking idiot.

              1. Libertarians support unilateral free trade. Period.

                And if you want to talk about being realistic as opposed to being idealistic, the way things were before Trump started his trade war was better than it is now even if it wasn’t total free trade. And Trump should have supported the TPP. That wasn’t total free trade, but it was a realistic goal and much better than this shit show trade war we have now. Trump has FAILED to give us a measly 3% annual growth, and his fucking tariffs are partly to blame.


              2. The libertarian stance is to support either the status quo or something closer to free trade than we have now, not to go into full protectionist mode like dumb fuck Trump. What kind of fucking businessman supports tariffs? Virtually all businesspeople support lowering tariffs. Raising tariffs is an idea supported by trade unions. This tells me Trump is a God damn moron.

                1. You’re so fucking ignorant. Please tell is what taxes you want us to increase too.

                2. Economists agree with me, not you or Trump. You lose.

          2. Get the fuck off my libertarian site, Breitbart moron, I bet you support Trump’s farm subsidies too.

            1. “Get the fuck off my libertarian site”

              Nothing says libertarian more than asserting property rights over something you dont own Hihney lolololll

            2. Yeah, definitely the retarded love child of Jeff and Hihn.

              1. Still smarter than Trump or you, for that matter. Lol.

                1. Nobody else agrees with you.

                  1. All Austrian economists, including Ron Paul, agree with me. Dumb fuck. No economics expert supports Trump’s tariffs. Zero.

      2. Trump could veto a budget, dipshit.

        1. And you could brush your teeth so you don’t have shit in them anymore Hihn.

        2. He could. And how do you think everyone would respond if he did? Can you answer honestly?

          1. So that’s a no Hihn?

        3. Each budget and appropriations has been passed with votes to override a veto you ignorant fuck.

          God you freshman year sophists use some stupid arguments.

          1. Then he shouldn’t have signed the tax cut, moron. Everyone with half a brain knew spending wouldn’t be cut.

            1. Libertarians for higher taxes!

              Michael Hihn ladies and gentlemen.

              1. If you are not going to cut spending, then, yes, there should be higher taxes. Would you rather have a huge deficit? Idiot.

                1. So then he SHOULDN’T get rid of tariffs? Because he needs to pay for spending….

                2. “yes, there should be higher taxes.”

                  Libertarians for higher taxes!!!

                  Again. It’s like a thing for you.

                3. Hey ignorant retard….

                  Tax revenue still increased both last year and this year. Tax cuts aren’t the issue. If you give a heroin addict heroin, they will use it.

                  But please, continue with the Libertarians for Tax Cuts mantra you are pursuing.

                  1. Is that adjusted for inflation?

                    Revenue increases MORE if you raise taxes than if you cut them.

                4. Hey jackass, the deficit was going down every fucking year while Obamaxwas president. Then Trump cut taxes, and the deficit went up again. Hmmm, I wonder what caused the deficit to go up again.

            2. Everyone knew spending wouldn’t be cut. But Trump could cut spending. You got the TDS bad.

              1. Also, tariffs are taxes, which should be cut. But everyone knows spending won’t be cut, so they shouldn’t. He has literally argued both in this thread, today.

              2. So again, why didn’t Trump veto the tax cut or say “No tax cuts spending cuts get passed”? He could have used that as leverage, so why didn’t he?

                1. Because, as has been explained to you numerous times, Hihn, there were plenty of votes to override his veto. He had no leverage at all, and you’re an idiot arguing for both raising and lowering taxes.

                  1. There were not enough votes to override a veto on the TAX CUT, YOU FUCKING MORON.

                  2. Therefore Trump DID have leverage, you God damn moron.

                  3. If taxes need to be raised, it should be income taxes, not tariffs, you gigantic fucking retarded nigger ape.

                2. Vince Smith
                  February.29.2020 at 12:46 pm
                  So again, why didn’t Trump veto the tax cut or say “No tax cuts spending cuts get passed”?

                  Vince Smith
                  February.29.2020 at 12:02 pm
                  Then he shouldn’t have signed the tax cut, moron. Everyone with half a brain knew spending wouldn’t be cut.

                  Michael “TDS” Hihn everyone.

              3. Doesn’t it make sense to cut spending before cutting taxes so deficits don’t grow? Answer my question instead of looking for gotchas.

                1. Then why are you bitching about tariffs, which you say are taxes, which we need to pay for spending.

                  Stop making a fool of yourself.

                  1. Tariffs hurt the working class, you moron. They are regressive. Furthermore, Trump is spending those tariffs on giving farmers welfare, so it’s a wash, you idiot. The revenue from the tariffs isn’t lowering the deficit, you dumb fuck.

                    1. They’re taxes. You said they are needed to pay for spending, now you’re saying they’re not. Can’t you pick one?

                    2. Tariffs hurt the working class? Can you point to the signal in the inflationary data for the class? Or are you just repeating bald assertions again?

                    3. He is spending all of the tariffs revenue on a NEW government program: welfare to farmers, you sack of shit. Maybe if he spent the tariffs on funding already existing government programs, you’d have a point. But he isn’t. MORON. If Trump got rid of the farm subsidies and the tariffs, we’d be in less debt than we are now. Jesus Fucking Christ, how can you be this fucking stupid like Trump?

                    4. JesseAz, consumers pay the tariffs. The working class are consumers. Pretty clear cut.

                    5. Vince Smith
                      February.29.2020 at 2:29 pm
                      JesseAz, consumers pay the tariffs. The working class are consumers. Pretty clear cut.

                      Which is why jesse asked about the inflationary data…
                      You clearly have no clue what you’re talking about

                2. Vince, the ignorant Hihn/Jeff sock with more ignorant commentary.

                  Tax Revenue has increased both years the tax increases went up you fucking moron.

                  1. I have no idea what point you are trying to make. What tax increases?

              4. I thought Trump could veto the budgets. I didn’t know there were veto proof majorities. So then he shouldn’t have signed the tax cut.

                1. “I didn’t know there were veto proof majorities”


                  1. doesn’t know veto-proof majorities
                    doesn’t know what inflationary means
                    doesn’t know what revenue means

                2. You’ve really proven yourself to be one of the dumbest motherfuckers to ever come to these boards.



                    Either way, you lose. If vetoing the budgets wasn’t an option, then he should have vetoed the tax cut. So while I may be ignorant of a few facts, like the budget being veto,proof, my point is still valid.

                    The next Dem president is just going to raise taxes anyway and once again point and laugh at the GOP for being fiscally irresponsible. Trump played right into that. The GOP will forever be known as the party that only cares about deficits when they are out of power,

                    1. Oh, the all-caps ranting, it really is Hihn.

    2. “The article can be summed up as “I want Trump to propose completely unrealistic goals that would never ever pass given the political climate of the last 90 years”.”

      That can be said about libertarianism generally, but it’s even tougher in an election year.

      The impulse during an election year is for politicians to promise everybody whatever they want–and more of it than their opponents. I’d normally expect nothing better than that. Rand Paul, Ron Paul, Amash, or Trump can’t do anything for libertarians if they can’t get reelected, and sometimes they reasons libertarians can’t get elected is because we advocate doing things that people don’t like yet–like cutting off their crop insurance.

      Our job is to persuade the voters to see things our way. It often seems like we aren’t making any difference–right up until the moment we do. Suddenly gay marriage becomes a thing, segregation ends, recreational marijuana becomes legalized at the state level, and the federal government respects that, etc., etc.

      That’s why I have so much trouble with the way they advocate open borders around here. It’s hard to persuade people to change their minds on an open borders treaty with Mexico with an argument about why the voters’ opinions shouldn’t matter in the least. It isn’t even a coherent argument–and the elitist and authoritarian aspects just make that worse.

      1. Right but youre a known liar.

        1. Stop imitating Hihn or Kirkland just to piss off Ken. They’re insane progs, you aren’t.

      2. The reason modern libertarians can’t get elected is because they have based their ideas on purity and idealism. They are incapable of compromise. The irony is that the first time they seemingly did try to compromise, with liberals in 2016, they told religious folks to bake the cake. That is the ideal they sold out.

        The irony of idealistic libertarianism is that it requires authoritarian uniformity of thought and belief to implement. It requires the eradication of those who don’t want libertarian ideals to function.

        The Libertarian would be better focusing on small victories to prove that a general ethos of more freedom is helpful instead of yelling like religious zealots on puritanical beliefs.

        1. There isn’t anything libertarian about seizing the reigns of power through elections and inflicting our preferred policies on an unwilling population anyway.

          Our primary purpose was, is, and always will be to persuade the American people to want what we want.

          We want to have candidates who understand our positions in races so that those we persuade can vote for them, but once we persuade enough of the American people to want libertarian policies, the people in power who aren’t libertarian now will quickly become so–as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow.

          Until then, elections are a great opportunity to engage average people who normally aren’t thinking about politics–and that’s their primary benefit to libertarians. And it’s best to start with friends and family rather than winning presidential contests. If we can’t get our friends and family to lodge a protest vote for libertarian candidates, maybe we can at least persuade them to look at Democrat and Republican candidates in libertarian terms.

          Because Bernie Sanders is a socialist who supports introducing socialism by way of the Green New Deal and Medicare for All is a perfectly libertarian reason to vote against him, and persuading people to vote against socialism is more than a defense against this upcoming election. If we can convince people that socialism is bad, they’ll continue to vote against socialists long after Trump has left the White House.

          1. Right but you’re an known and proven liar.

          2. “Our primary purpose was, is, and always will be to persuade the American people to want what we want.”

            And as I stated, to do so requries the small victories leading to positive outcomes. It does not require perfect idealism in order to prove said effects.

            ” once we persuade enough of the American people to want libertarian policies, the people in power who aren’t libertarian now will quickly become so–as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow.”

            This is counter to the entire history of humanity. You can go view various child personality studies that prove there is a large subset of people who live more in response to negative fear of outcomes than positive ones. There will always be a large percentage of people who prefer the safety nets and nannyism of the state. This just can’t be undone as it is ingrained in a percentage of the population.

            This is why I stated earlier that idealistic libertarianism as mentioned here is unobtainable. It requires, as you posit in the quoted statement, for everyone to agree. That will never happen. SO instead of running for an unobtainable ideal state, start focusing on small victories instead.

            1. Agree with you on the small victories strategy, the baby steps, which Reason libertarians never seem to welcome. They’re barely into voting.

              Now, to answer this part: “You can go view various child personality studies that prove there is a large subset of people who live more in response to negative fear of outcomes than positive ones. There will always be a large percentage of people who prefer the safety nets and nannyism of the state. This just can’t be undone as it is ingrained in a percentage of the population.”

              I’ll say: Have more children! I’m not kidding. In Bryan Caplan’s “Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids”, he showed pretty conclusively that these kinds of inclinations are largely heritable, and that the most effective way for libertarianism to expand in the long run is for libertarians to have more kids. I’m working on it!

          3. “Our primary purpose was, is, and always will be to persuade the American people to want what we want.”

            Which libertarians appear to be really, really, really bad at…

        2. And now they’ve decided to compromise on free speech by defending the heckler’s veto and violence towards people you don’t agree with.

      3. Leave me out of the gay marriage thing, but we did achieve one fairly unambiguous improvement in family law: the elimination of being a spouse as a defense against a charge of rape.

  3. The Trumpkins who comment here actually have the gall to say that Trump is LIBERTARIANISH. Lol. These same morons support trade wars, a cardinal sin to true libertarians, and ignore the fact that Trump has added $3 trillion to the national debt in three years and that he supports the surveillance state and “stop and frisk.” Trump also gives welfare to farmers (FDR style socialism), including ones in Brazil. The tariffs don’t even cover the full cost of said subsidies.

    1. You still have shit in your teeth Hihn

      1. Repeating the same unoriginal drivel, I see. I don’t type anything similar to what Hihn does, so you are obviously a moron.

        1. I’m sorry did you say something, I was distracted by the shit you have in your teeth Hihn.

          1. You’re sure obsessed with fecal matter, faggot.

            1. Well, you have it in your teeth it’s hard to think of anything else except for the fact that you’re obviously Hihhn, Hihn ahahhjjjaj

              1. Hihn never says “fag,” retard. He’s also a pro-abortion cuck who hates Ron Paul.

                1. AHAHHA how are you still crying about being outed Hihn Ahahaha you should be brushing the shit out of your teeth lololo

                  1. Okay, I’m just going to ignore you now (like women have done your entire life). Lol..

                    1. Well, you were born so at least one woman didn’t ignore me Ahahahahah you have shit in your teeth Whihny ahahahahhah

    2. “These same morons support trade wars, a cardinal sin to true libertarians,”

      It takes a true retarded person, one so uneducated and shallow, to believe that accepting bad market actors without retaliation of any kind is liberty.

      Game Theory has been fully accepted for decades. You simply think liberty is subservience to those who violate your norms.

      Basically you’re an idiot.

      1. Wrong. Again, your belief is on the proven false notion that trade is zero sum. China could buy NOTHING from America, and we would still benefit from lowering trade barriers with them. The goal of trade is NOT to export more than you import. Moron.

        1. Cry more Hihn.

        2. And oddly I have never stated there is a zero sum outcome, have I.

          I just choose not to ignore reality and the negative market effects of China. You do.

          “The goal of trade is NOT to export more than you import. Moron.”

          Again, a claim that has not even been made in 250 posts here. You’re arguing with a strawman. That strawman is probably even winning the argument. Because you’re a raging idiot.

          1. He’s so dumb it’s funny.

            1. Yeah. It’s been pretty pathetic. But he is determined. Wish he showed that determination in life. You know he is one of life failures based on this thread.

            2. R Mac Then why do all economists agree with me if I’m so dumb? Face it. No one educated in economics agrees with your protectionist horseshit. Bwahahahahahaha!

          2. If exporting isn’t important, then there is no reason why we need to pressure China to lower its trade barriers. Checkmate, dipshit.

            All Austrian economists agree with me. Nobody except Trumpmorons agrees with you.

      2. Protectionism and retaliatory tariffs are discredited nineteenth century nonsense. Friedman, Sowell, Hayek, Von Mises, etc. all advocate unilateral free trade, and they know more than you or Trump. We have lost manufacturing jobs since the trade war started. There is zero evidence that Trump’s tariffs have accomplished shit except to slow our economy to under 3% annual growth. The trade deficit has gotten larger too.

        1. Yes like that cry Hihn

        2. ” all advocate unilateral free trade”

          Which is great. Except China doesn’t want unilateral free trade.

          We live in reality, not in your retarded simplistic head.

          1. You don’t even know what unilateral free trade means, you fucking idiot. It means we get rid of all trade barriers regardless of what other nations do to us. All those economists I mentioned say we should have a 0% tariff on China even if China has a fucking 2,000% tariff on us. What part of that don’t you get, dipshit? They know more than you or Trump, you fucking ignorant cocksucker.

      3. Please explain how you support Trump’s farm subsidies and how they are libertarian and how they are paid for by China and NOT American consumers. Lol.

        1. Yes Hihn let your tears flow.

      4. Repeat after me, dumb fuck: TRADE DEFICITS ARE MEANINGLESS.

        1. Tariffs are a tax. Trump has raised taxes on the middle class.

          1. So Trump SHOULD have cut taxes then?

            You seem to be too stupid to decide.

            1. He should have kept income taxes at the same rate but not raised tariffs. IDIOT.

              1. So we don’t need taxes to pay for spending? Make up your MHIHND.

                1. Why would we need to raise tariffs if the top income tax rate was still 39.6%? IDIOT.

        2. “Repeat after me”

          You like to eat shit.

          No really you said that.

        3. Who is arguing about trade deficits here, please quote me.

          You’re losing the argument to yourself. You are incapable of actual reading comprehension at even a middle school level.

          1. Trump says trade deficits matter. He is a fucking fat idiot.

  4. OMG! Major new Drumpf scandal!

    Remember this moment: Trump, in South Carolina, just called the coronavirus a “hoax.”

    He. Literally. Does. Not. Believe. This. Virus. Even. EXISTS.


    1. In all seriousness, bringing what he said to the attention of average voters isn’t likely to help the Democrats any.

      The Russia investigation was a hoax.
      The Ukraine call was a hoax.
      Going after Trump for the coronavirus is a hoax.

      Even IF IF IF Trump were guilty of some awful leadership failure on the coronavirus, is anybody listening to their cries of wolf anymore?

      You know what isn’t a hoax?

      Bernie Sanders’ support for the Green New Deal, Medicare for All, and student loan forgiveness.

      1. In all seriousness , you’re a boring liar.

      2. None of those three things are hoaxes, Ken. BTW, Trump’s trade war has caused America to LOSE manufacturing jobs, and Trump has added $3 trillion to the debt. Bernie being a fucking communist doesn’t change the fact Trump is a criminal moron who knows nothing about economics.

        1. Nope, you still have shit in your teeth Hihn.

        2. So you fully believe the bad market actions by China have had no effect.

          Basically you’ve proven yourself to be a fool.

          1. Trump started it. Farmers were fine before his trade war. Lol.

            1. TDS infected Hihn says “Orange Man Bad”

              1. Farmers weren’t in dire straits needing welfare before Trump raised tariffs. Idiot.

                1. So he should cut taxes then. Except you already said he shouldn’t.

                  1. Why do you keep confusing tariffs with income taxes?

                2. Orange Man Bad!

            2. Oooooooookay….

              *backs slowly away from the crazy person*

            3. trump started it?


              1. Yes. He started it. We had no problems before him. Farmers were doing fine. MORON.

              2. Farmers did not need welfare BEFORE TRUMP.

              3. If I’m retarded, then what the fuck is Trump?

    2. Trump is retarded, so it’s understandable.

      1. You think if he had shit in his teeth like you do Hihn, that he’d be smart enough to brush it out?

        1. Based on his style it is probably another Jeff sock. He thinks liberty is being subservient to China, like Jeff. He uses fag and retard, like Jeff. He resorts to sophist arguments from a freshman year class, like Jeff. Gonna go with a Jeff sock. We already know he has many. And his DOL sock got destroyed often yesterday which is when Jeff usually changes socks.

          1. Nah. I’m an original.

            1. Sure Hihn. You still have shit in your teeth.

  5. Pardon the interruption, but this may be the only thread we get today, and the U.S. just signed a peace agreement with the Taliban that includes a timetable for the United State to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan completely over a period of 14 months.

    “In practice, the agreement is designed to quickly reduce the number of American troops in Afghanistan from about 13,000 to 8,600—the level it was when Mr. Trump took office in 2017.

    Once the U.S. reaches that level, expected to happen over the next 135 days, a full U.S. troop withdrawal by June 2021 would be dependent on several conditions: whether they keep their pledge to crack down on insurgents trying to use the country to plan attacks against the U.S. and its allies if they agree to a permanent cease fire, and if they secure a political power-sharing deal with the Afghan government.”

    The Taliban was able to abide by the ceasefire agreement, meaning that they had both the will and the authority to do so.

    If President Trump had managed to withdraw all U.S. troops from Afghanistan before the election, that would have been great, but sometimes the forces that shape world events don’t conveniently confine themselves to timetables that mesh perfectly with the dates in our election cycle.

    I fully support withdrawing our troops from Afghanistan because doing so is in the best interests of the United States–regardless of whether the Taliban lives up to their end of the bargain.

    President Trump is a shrewd negotiator, but it should be noted that the major difference between Trump, on the one hand, and Bush and Obama, on the other, isn’t really Trump’s ability to negotiate deals where Bush and Obama could not. The big difference is Trump’s desire to negotiate a deal where Bush and Obama had none. Their neoconservative foreign policy ideology wouldn’t allow them to negotiate with people like the Taliban.

    Even worse, they lacked the political courage to face the American people, like Trump is doing, with a deal with the Taliban to withdraw from Afghanistan ahead of an election–and risk the chance that it may all blow up in his face before the election, giving his political opponents a chance to exploit another “Mission Accomplished” moment. IF IF IF things go badly, any Democrat who exploits Trump’s willingness to take that political risk for the benefit of the United States shouldn’t just be ashamed of themselves. Selling the best interests of the United States short, like that, for political gain will be excellent evidence that the candidate in question has no business being President of the United States.

    1. Right but you’re a proven, known liar and idiot.

        1. No interested Hihn, especially when you have so much shit in your teeth ahahahja

      1. How’s it like being Trump’s butt boy, faggot? You know he’s not going to fuck you, right?

        1. Maybe a waterpik will get the shit you have in your teeth Hihn.

    2. Memo to Rand Paul:

      The AUMF for Afghanistan has been used to justify so many otherwise unconstitutional injustices, it’s hard to count them. If and when the U.S. withdraws troops from Afghanistan completely, the argument for a legitimate purpose of the AUMF won’t have a leg to stand on. Can we please get a resolution to sunset the AUMF upon the full withdrawal of U.S. troops?


      All Americans who Care about our Constitutional Rights

      1. Memo to Ken “known liar and boring ass bloviator” Shultz

        You’re a known liar and boring as fuck.

        1. Your schtick is boring. If only this site had a block or mute feature.

          1. Then no one would ever see you cry about being told you have shit in your teeth Hihn ahahahahaah

    3. Trump is a fucking moron. Shrewd negotiator? Lol. NAFTA 2.0 is basically the same as the first. That’s not negotiating.

      1. Only you Hihn would drop a bunch of slurs, teeth full of shit, then try to be taken seriously lolololl

        Never change shit breath

  6. Trump supporting morons on this site like JesseAz think trade wars and farm subsidies are “libertarian.” Lmao.

    1. You still have shit in your teeth son.

  7. The same Trumper idiots hate Justin Amash, even though he is a bona fide libertarian, and complain that he’s gotten nothing done (as if it’s government’s job to “do stuff for us”). Big government statist DORKS.

    1. Could you please brush the shit out of your teeth Hihn, thanks in advance from everyone

    2. Repealing things is getting stuff done Hihn.

      1. Hihn is stupid, it’s why he eats shit and gets outed so easily

        1. I’m just glad he didn’t start bitching about plastic flutes.

          1. Ahahahahahhahhaah

      2. Amash votes to repeal pretty much everything, dumb fuck. He’s just one vote, though. Trump could actually veto budgets with all his power yet chooses not to.

        1. That last comment was for BruciFAG. Retarded site makes it almost impossible to know what comment is being replied to.

          1. It doesn’t matter, you’re an idiot with shit in his teeth Hihn, no one has ever cared what you think, and soon you’ll drop dead from old age.

          2. It’s not the site…

        2. Amash votes to repeal pretty much everything

          I thought we were talking about getting stuff done Hihn, not pointless virtue signaling.

          1. You just said voting to repeal is “getting stuff done.” Make up your mind, butt boy.

            1. No actually, you said that Hihn. I said it was

              “pointless virtue signaling”

              1. Ahahah Hihn is so stupid and flustered that now you have him lying ahahahahahaha

              2. You said “Repealing things is getting stuff done.” Stupid fag.

                1. Thank you for admitting you were wrong.

                  1. Ahahaha Hihn is so stupid that he doesn’t understand the difference between voting on something AND ACTUALLY WORKING WITH OTHERS TO GET IT DONE AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

                    1. You mean like how Trump successfully worked with Congress to repeal the ACA? Oh right. Please name the thing Amash could have gotten done but didn’t. I’ll wait, cunt.

                    2. No Hihn I mean like how your doctors voted to put you on meds and then made you take them ahahahahaahah

                    3. “voting is the same as doing” Vince “Obviously Hihn” Smith, this thread, today ahahahahahahahhah

                    4. Name one thing you think Amash should have worked on but didn’t. Give an example, you stupid.piece of shit.

                      When has Hihn ever used the word “fag”? I’m obviously not Hihn, so STFU. You’re just callimg me that to get out of actually having to defend Trumpidiot’s policies.



                    6. Answer the question, asshole. I’m not Hihn.

                    7. AHAHAHAHAHAH Vince “Obviously Hihn” Smith, the idiot who didn’t knwichecwas rssponding to a bot and ears shit, think VOTING IS THE SAME AS DOING AHAHHHAHAAHAHAH

                      Ahahahahah ineffectually demand more Hihn ahahahahahahah

                    8. The most hilarious part here is that Vince/Jeff thinks the only thing Amash could ever do is to cry and vote on. He doesn’t even think it is possible for Amash to work with others and cause change. Vince is literally applauding being one of life’s losers.

                      Sorry vince, hard work is sometimes required to incite change. Amash never did that. Stop hero worshiping him and grow up.

                  2. How did I admit being wrong? You said Repealing things is getting stuff done. Amash votes to repeal things. Therefore he gets stuff done. Seriously you can’t be this fucking retarded.

                    1. “Amash votes to repeal things. Therefore he gets stuff done.”

                      AhAhahahaahhahaahahha Hihn goes full retard ahahahhaahahahah

                      Yeah all those votes sure accomplished things ahahahahahahaha

                    2. How’s it like being Trump’s Amash’s butt boy? You know he’s not going to fuck you, right?

                    3. Name one thing Amash “should have gotten done but didn’t.” I’m still waiting, asshole.


                    5. Amash should have worked with other Senators to draft bills such as for block grants that were acceptable for both sides, but not necessarily perfect. Again, we are back for you, and Amash, being such retarded purists that you won’t work to a small victory because you don’t get everything you want. You are the veruca salt of libertarians.

                    6. You should go back and re-read this Vince. Very, very, sloooowlyyy.

                      Because then you might realize how dumb you sound.

                    7. JesseAz Can you give an example of Amash defeating a bill because, while an improvement, it didn’t go as far as he had wanted?

                    8. Yep, definitely Pedo Jeffy.

              3. Hihn is a pro abortion cuck fag who hates Ron Paul and Justin Amash for being pro life, BruciFAG. You’re making an ass our of yourself in assuming everyone who dislikes Trump must be Hihn. Lol. Easier to call me “Hihn” than defend Trump, though.

                1. OK Hihn. Shit. Teeth. You.

                2. BruciFAG

                  Good one Hihn.

                  1. Hihn never says “fag,” you sock puppet moron.


        3. How many of those votes has he actually gotten to pass? Oh that’s right, he doesn’t actually work towards anything, he just says no without putting any effort into making an actual difference.

          No wonder you worship him. You are as worthless as he has been.

        4. And you again think Trump can veto a veto proof vote. Fucking hilarious how stupid you are. You really do care more about a show vote than actual action to change things. You’re applauding being a loser.

          1. If the political reality is that spending couldn’t have been cut, then Trump should have vetoed the tax cut, idiot. Either way, Trump fucked up.

            1. Libertarians for higher taxes!!!

              Except tariffs which are also taxes!!! Because!!!

    3. Jeff believe the height of liberty is naming two post offices in 10 years.

      1. Repeat after me, dumb fuck: TRUMP SHOULD HAVE VETOED THE TAX CUT.

        1. Repeating it won’t make it less retarded Hihney.

          1. The deficit wouldn’t be over $1 trillion then. How is that “retarded”? God you are fucking stupid.

      2. Trump could have even used that tax cut that Republicans wanted as a bargaining chip. He could have said, “No tax cut unless you work with me on the budget.” So no, he’s not a good negotiator, and he has added $3 trillion to the debt in three years.

        1. And then, as has been explained and which you admitted you didn’t know, they would have passed it anyway. It’s fun pointing out how dumb you are Hihney.

          1. Then they wouldn’t have gotten the tax cut, idiot. Democrats would have been needed to override a veto.

            Are you actually arguing that the tax cut passed with a veto proof majority? Lol. Hardly any Democrats voted for it, you fucking moron.

          2. The Senate passed the tax cut 51-48, you dumb fucking idiot. You think that’s veto proof? Lol. MORON.

  8. I agree with all Trump decisions. And i hope some day Trump brought happiness to USA.
    It was true, “make Love and Wedding, not war!”

    1. You agree with trade wars? Then get the fuck outta here. This ain’t BreitFART, sonny.


        1. I’m not Hihn, and I didn’t know it was a bot, asshole.

          1. Well yeah, we knew you didn’t know it was a bot, you’re an idiot Hihn.

            I mean, that’s literally my post, you’re an idiot who doesn’t know it’s a bot. Thanks for admitting it though, you’re usually much less willing to admit how fucking stupid you are.

            1. I’m not Hihn, and I didn’t know it’s a bot because I’m not a regular, asshole. You still haven’t defended Trump’s deficit spending or trade wars, idiot. Trump is a God damn moron who can’t even spell basic words right and thinks climate change and the corona virus are hoaxes.

              1. Hihn, you got fooled by a bot, and you eat shit. No one cares why you think.

                Cry more now Hihn.

              2. “I didn’t know it’s a bot because I’m not a regular”


                1. You know Hihnsanity is coming when he starts talking to the bots, lol.

                  1. He isnt a regular you see lolololl

                    1. Yet he knows where Hihn stands on every issue?!

                    2. Weird huh?

          2. “and I didn’t know it was a bot”

            That’s why we’re laughing at you

            1. Whatever. I fell for a bot. That means I have nothing of value to say, I guess.

              1. Hey you can learn!

                Also, you’re Hihn.

              2. You have plenty to say apparently, just not anything of value.

                1. Economists agree with me, dipshit. BWAHAHAHAHA!

      2. Definitely either Jeff or Sarcasmic since they both use the Breitbart “burn” as an argument.

        1. Jeff likes to lie about how long he’s been here, too.

          1. He sure does lololo

            1. So am I Hihn or Jeff? Make up your mind.

              1. Well you’re definitely a TDS infected, bitter, angry, asshole.

                1. Hihn thinks it’s only possible to have one sockpuppet or something, which explains why he fell for a bot.

              2. Why not both? It’s not like there’s a limit on screen names.

                That’s always your go to Hihn, and only an idiot would think it made sense. You did it loudly and dumbly when I outed your other screen names too.

              3. What’s great about this Jeff/Hihn/Vince, is that it doesn’t even matter if you are one of the two. Because both are just used as insults for idiotic, sophist, argumentative people such as yourself.

                The fact that you are in such a rage about it states you know how ignorant their arguments are. You are being held to that same standard.

                1. That’s exactly right.

                2. I’m only in a rage about being called “Hihn.”

                  1. So you admit you’re Pedo Jeffy.

                    1. Nope. Don’t even know who he is. Is he a libertarian?

  9. What’s with these comments about brushing teeth? Brushing is for queers. Real men don’t brush, bathe, or wear deodorant.

    1. You still have shit in your teeth Hihn.

      1. I see how this site works. The Trumpmorons just gang up on every anti-Trump person, call him “Hihn,” and insult him. Fucking pathetic. I’d rather argue the issues, like how Trump is a fucking moron for engaging in a trade war.

        1. Wow how are you still crying about being outed as Hihn, guy who knows shit only a regular would know but then lies about not being a regular because he’s embarrassed that a bot fooled him

          1. What shit do I know that only a regular would?



              1. Encyclopedic? Lol. One doesn’t have to visit this site that often at all to know who everyone is, moron.

                1. Ahahahahah




                  1. Considering that I’m not Hihn, you haven’t owned shit.

                    1. That’s what an owned Hihn would say lololol

                  2. Would Hihn even deny being Hihn? The few times I’ve seen him here, he didn’t deny his identity. You are obsessed with Hign when I would rather just debate issues like trade and budgets.

                    1. Yes Hihn, you constantly deny being Hihn.

                      Now don’t you have some quotes to find?

                2. Except the bots. Who post in more threads than Hihn does. But keep lying. It’s a good look for you.

                  1. Lol he’s not a regular you see…

                  2. How does that prove I’m Hihn, you retard?

                    1. Oh, you proved that Hihn.

              2. I visit this site every once in a while. The same people comment all the time. It doesn’t take an encyclopedic brain to know who the regulars are, who worships Trump, and so on. I’ve seen Hihn enough times to know his schtick as well. Fuck off.


                2. “I’ve seen Hihn enough times to know his schtick as well WHAT WORDS HE NEVER USES


                  1. The thing is I know that I’m not Hihn, regardless of what you believe, so you lose. You’re obsessed with him. You have a crush on him? Awwwwww.

                    1. Oh yeah, I’d fuck you so hard Hihn.

                    2. So you’re a fag.

              3. AAHAHAHAHAHHA




        2. You actually don’t see how this site works as you admitted to not even figuring out the comment system above.

          1. Well then that proves I’m not a regular.

            1. No, it proves you’re an idiot Hihn.

        3. “I’d rather argue the issues, like how Trump is a fucking moron”

          You know this makes you look like an ass, right?

          1. He IS a fucking moron AND an ass. Tough shit if you don’t like it. And I mentioned budgets and trade.

            1. He’s such a moron, I bet he wishes he was more like you, instead of being a rich president married to a supermodel.

              He’s a total failure!

              1. Sad!

              2. He was born rich. Bloomberg was born with a lot less money than Trump and now has a lot more money than Trump.

                1. You’re Bloomberg? Makes, sense he’s an idiot too.

                  1. So an idiot has more money than Trump? Yet you think Trump having money proves he’s a genius. Lulz.

              3. Neither being president nor being married to a porn actress/prostitute proves Trump is smart. Nice try. If I was born as rich as Trump, I’d probably have more money than he does. Epic FAIL on your part.

                1. “Epic FAIL”

                  Oh God, that’s Hihns signature right there lololol

                  1. A lot of people use that line. MORON.

                    1. Dammit Jeff stop posting like Hihn!

      2. You talk about Amash doing nothing. If Trump had any fucking negotiating skills, he would continue vetoing budgets until congress had enough votes to override him. That way he’d get congress to meet him halfway on the budget. Rand Paul or Amash would do that if either was president. Instead, the fat idiot just signs whatever lands on his desk. He has added $3 trillion to the national debt in three years in a decent economy where there is no excuse for running up that kind of debt.

        1. You still have shit in your teeth Hihn.

          And you got fooled by a bot then lied about not being a regular.

          1. I’m not a regular. I comment here every few months.

            1. And yet yiu miraculously know what words people NEVER use Hihn ahahaahahaha

              1. Hihn supports gays and never uses anti-gay slurs. That much is obvious from the few times I’ve seen him post. I am pro-gay too, but I have no problem calling assholes lime you “fags.”


                  I WIN HIHN, IT’S OVER AHAHAHHAHA

                2. “never”

                  “few times”

                  Haahahahah MAKE UP YOUR MHIHND AAHAHAHAHAHAHJA

                  1. Never and few times what? I don’t see where I contradicted myself.

                    1. Which is why you’re being mocked dumbass lolololol

        2. Hihn must humiliate you every time for you to be so fucking obsessed with him. He lives rent free in your head and the heads of all the other Trumpmorons who comment here.

          There is actually record of me arguing with Hihn a couple of years ago about Ron Paul and abortion, so I’m not Hihn. Jackass.


        3. “If Trump had any fucking negotiating skills, he would continue vetoing budgets until congress had enough votes to override him.”


          God you’re a fucking moron.

          1. Prove it, dumb fuck.

            1. It’s public record bruh.

              You… Don’t know that?

              1. Then he should have vetoed the tax cut. You lose either way, fucktard. BTW, Hihn would probably have known it was veto proof, as he has a political background with the LP. Again that proves I’m not Hihn. You lose.

                1. Libertarians for needless spending on pointless votes and higher taxes!!!!

                  Keep losing to me HIHNEY!

                  1. Why do you support more debt?

        4. “If Trump had any fucking negotiating skills, he would continue vetoing budgets until congress had enough votes to override him.”

          Uh, what? They already have enough votes to override him. That’s the whole fucking point. You don’t know how this works, do you?

          1. Then he should have vetoed the tax cut, retard. You lose.

            1. Libertarians for needless spending on pointless votes and higher taxes!!

              Keep losing Hihney!!!

  10. TrumpMORONS on this site think Trump’s trade war is good. Like Trump, they are morons who think trade is a zero sum game, that we have to export more than we import, or we lose. You cannot be a libertarian and support anything other than UNILATERAL free trade. Period. If you support protectionism, then get the fuck off this site and go to BreitFART. This site is for libertarians, you stupid Trump dipshits.

    1. Hi Hihn, you got fooled by a bot then lied about why.

      1. I’m not Hihn, and you just keep resorting to the same nonsense because you are too stupid to discuss issues like trade or budgets. Face it. You GOT nothing. If you had something, you’d be trying to refute my takedowns of Trump. You won’t even make an attempt. Pathetic.

        1. I mean, how does an adult human get fooled by a bot unless they’re an idiot like you Hihn?

          1. I’m not Hihn, and I’m not tech savvy enough to detect bots. Excuuuuuuse me.

            1. That’s what I said, you’re an idiot Hihn.

              Do I need to get the bot to explain it to you?

              1. I’m not Hihn. If you have disdain for idiots, then why the fuck do you worship Trump, dildo?

                1. Wrid, I thought I was making fun of you for being an idiot Hihn, I don’t see any Trump worship…

                  Could you quote it Hihn? Between piles of the shit you’re eating I mean.

                  1. If you’re not a Trump butt boy, then you shouldn’t have a problem with me. Idiot.

                    1. Right, because you’re the height of class and decorum Hihn lolol

                      Still waiting on them quotes Hihney.

                    2. You should try to learn some self awareness. You came flying in here like a raving asshole, then assume anyone pointing out that you’re a raving asshole is defending Trump.

                      It’s quite a leap, even for a raving asshole like you.

                    3. Trump is a racing asshole. I am just fighting fire with fire. I see you guys insulting people all the time. I’m not any more of an asshole than you, R Mac.

                    4. And I’m not Hihn, God damnit!

                    5. Ahahahha cry more Hihn, you can’t even decide whether you want to cut or raise taxes lololo

                    6. “I’m not any more of an asshole than you”

                      R Mac dumped a bunch of racial and homphobic slurs?

                      Oh wait, that was you. So yeah, you are worse. Much worse. And the thing is, you know it Hihn. You’re just making excuses now.

    2. How much does china pay you to post here?

      1. Nothing. I guess you didn’t know Trump makes shit in China, you hypocritical dumb fucking fag moron.

        1. Awww you’re upset Hihney!!! You gonna cry? More I mean?

  11. The fact is, America has actually LOST manufacturing jobs since Trump’s epic fail trade war began. Furthermore, trade deficits are not bad at all. Trade deficits are often the sign of a good economy. It means people CHOOSE to buy imports. So yeah, Trump is a fucking clueless moron on trade, yet the same dipshits claim he’s a “libertarian president.” Lmao.

    1. Hi Hihn, your medication appears to be wearing off, and also, you’re too stupid to know a bot was a bot.

      1. Do you call every anti-Trump chatter “Hihn”? It’s sad that’s all you have.

        I didn’t know it was a bot. So sue me. Still doesn’t refute anything I’ve said about Trump.

        1. No, I just call you Hihn, Hihn.

          Because you’re Hihn.

          1. Prove I’m Hihn, or shut the fuck up.

            1. You did that for me Hihn.

              “or shut the fuck up.”

              Or what? You’ll cry more Hihn?

              1. How the fuck did I prove to you I’m someone I’m not?

                You still won’t even attempt to refute anything I’ve said about Trump. You are a fucking piss poor debater.


                  CRY MORE HIHN!

                  1. I’m not Hign. Since your entire argument is that I’m Hihn, you therefore lose the debate.

                    I’d rather talk about the issues.

                    1. Argument?

                      No dumbass this is why a bot fooled you, I’m MOCKING YOU Hihney.

                    2. I’d rather talk about the issues.

                      You mean like losing your mind and firing off slurs because people mock you?

                    3. Yeah, I’m losing my mind because some asshole keeps calling me “Hihn” when I’m not, yet I have no way to prove I’m not Hihn.

                    4. You sure did figure out how to prove you are though Hihney.

                    5. Vince Smith
                      February.29.2020 at 11:32 am
                      Yeah, I’m losing my mind

                      Thanks for admitting it but the N bombs proved it.

                    6. Orange Man Bad is not talking about the issues dumbass.

                    7. I have not simply said “orange man bad,” idiot.

                    8. Oh yes you have, you’re just too fucking dumb to see it Hihn

          2. Does Hihn use the same words I do? Any language expert could tell you we’re not the same person, so you must be a fucking moron.

            1. Well, no offense, but I’m not going to take the word of an idiot who got fooled by a bot on what language experts can and can’t do, Hihh.

              Now cry more Hihn.

              1. Yet you take the word of Trump, who’s a fucking idiot who can’t even spell.

                1. Did I? Should be easy to quote then Hihney.

                  1. You are only attacking me because I insulted your fat orange God.

                    1. So no quotes then Hihn?

                      Yeah, I win again.

                    2. To the TDS infected brain, you either think Trump is a big dumb poopy head, or you want to suck his cock. There’s no in between.

            2. Lol, remember that time you insulted everyone by pretending you’re a language expert that knew the grade level of their writing Hihn?

              Now this is the second time someone’s talked about language experts, Hihn.

              Both times by you. Hihn.

              1. You’re saying he’s Hihn? Because he is.
                Hihn I mean.

              2. No, I don’t remember that because I’m not Hihn. My point is that the same person is going to use the same kind of language in all his accounts. A language expert would be able to tell we are two different people. We don’t even have the same views on issues. I don’t use his catchphrases. We are obviously not the same.

                1. I don’t use the same language in all my accounts Hihn. Just ask sarcasmic.

                  So, like all your points, it is stupid and wrong. Hihn.

                2. A language expert would be able to tell we are two different people. We don’t even have the same views on issues. I don’t use his catchphrases. We are obviously not the same.

                  Which you know despite not being a regular Hihn.

                  There’s a hugely funny fact you don’t know either, but this simply isn’t the time for that reveal.

                  1. You’re alone every Friday night. Lol.

    2. First, you seem to actually believe there is no natural variation in market. Second, the jobs decreased slightly from the growth that has happened since 2016.

      The drop has been minor no signal has been apparent for a cause. But I’m sure your Vox article told you otherwise.

      1. Yeah, it told him “Orange Man Bad” which is why it’s all he knows.

        1. The trade war has failed because manufacturers rely on imports too. Duh. Making the cost of production more expensive for them kills jobs. Duh.

      2. So the trade war has failed.

  12. Prove I’m Hihn, dipshit.

    1. You did that for me HIHNEY.

      1. Prove that I’m Hihn, you fucking retarded pile of dog shit.

        1. It’s like you don’t realize you’re doing it for me.

          1. Why do you think I am Hihn? You think he’s the only guy here who dislikes Trump? So every person here who hates Trump must be Hihn?

            1. It’s because you’re Hihn, Hihn.

              1. Because?

                1. You’re Hihn. Read motherfucker.

                  1. You’re so stupid. Must be a nigger, right?

                    1. Yes actually. A gay one.

                      And now, with that said, you still have shit N your teeth Hihhn.

                      But I appreciate your desire to debate the issues.

              2. Nigger.

                1. With extra black on top.

                  Now, you were saying about the issues Hihn?

                2. Lol. Hihn or not, you’re just as crazy, angry, and bitter.

          2. Yeah, you’re a nigger.

            1. Yes I am, the blackest kind, deepest darkest Africa.

              Now, you were going to post a quote I believe Hihn?

              1. Nigger nigger nigger.

                1. All day long and twice through February.

                  Love your laser focus on the issues Hihney.

                  1. I already brought up the issues, but you refuse to debate, cuck boy.

  13. I counted 17 out of 232 comments that weren’t by sock puppet trolls.

    It’s funny because the reason these two trolls, especially, get upset is because people pay so little attention to them that we don’t even know what their positions are on anything–because we don’t care.

    It looks like this is the thread where they both finally found someone who cares enough to respond to their posts–each other. A 93% sock puppet troll rate would be absurd, but now that they’ve finally found each other to engage with, I’m not sure they’re technically trolls anymore. Now they’re just more like static. We still don’t pay attention to anything they write. It’s just more noticeable because there’s so much more of it.

    1. Right but youre still a proven liar.

      1. The reason people don’t know what your positions are is because they don’t bother reading your posts, and the reason you fill threads up with garbage is because you desperately want our attention.

        I’m trying to think of a less creepy explanation and I’m coming up blank.

        1. Right but you’re still a proven liar and your excuse for it was stupidly transparent.

          1. “they don’t bother reading your posts,”

            Well you certainly didn’t, it is why you had to lie and then make a stupid transparent excuse.

            So, at least you’ve admitted that much.

            1. Yeah, you could post here every day for years, and no one would know what you think about anything–because they don’t read what you post. We know that’s true because you have posted here every day for years, and no one keeps track of what you think about anything–because they don’t read what you post.

              1. +1000

        2. Ken Shultz
          February.29.2020 at 12:56 pm
          The reason people don’t know what your positions are

          By the way, this is Ken admitting he fucked up, and knows it, but he doesn’t have the sack to just come out and admit it. He’s come to terms with the fact that he intentionally misattributed a position to me in a weak attempt at retaliation, and then, when called on it, needed SOME reason to excuse his behavior. First it was “I, was asking a question” but he knows that he wasn’t and the text shows that too. Now, it’s MY fault he lied about my position, because troll.

          Which is straight up pathetic. Just man up you cunt.

          1. You’re admitting that you’ve been throwing a temper tantrum for a month because I pay so little attention to you that I have no idea what you think–and the realization that I pay no attention to you made you throw a temper tantrum for a month.

            I’ve had girlfriends who were less upset when I wasn’t paying any attention to them. Why are you so obsessed with making me pay attention to you–you already know I’m not a homosexual, right? Do yourself a favor and seek professional help.

            1. He’s also a dumb fucking fag.

          2. I don’t agree with Ken. Nobody knows what your positions are because you never state them. You just call people “Hihn.” Dumbfuck.

        3. It’s Smeagol. An ugly, evil, hateful, treacherous, disgusting, loathsome little piece of shit, but at times you can feel a little pity for it because you catch a glimpse of what it used to be and you realize that it’s been broken and driven insane by the power of something so much greater than itself and it’s not really its fault that it’s such a monster. But then you realize that, like a rabid dog, even if it’s not its fault it’s such a broken and insane little worm, it’s still dangerous and it needs to be gotten rid of. A mercy killing, really.

    2. I certainly didn’t bother counting – but this thread is like cleaning up after Linda Blair

      1. We call that a “JFree”

    3. So true. Read a couple comments, scroll, scroll, scroll to a new comment thread.

      1. Just say no to drunken shitposting

  14. This time, the White House said the wealthiest operators, with an adjusted gross income of more than $500,000 a year, should pay full price for crop insurance

    The crop insurance payments when made don’t really end up with farm-operators. They end up with the farmland owner. Who are often the same person but also often aren’t. ‘Farmland’ is now an alternative asset class for hedge funds and pension funds. So it can get the fast portfolio money that the Fed/banks create. Over 50% of the land used to grow the crop-insured grains is rented – not operator-owned. Close to 70% for full-time farms (almost regardless of size since the really small farmer-owned farms don’t really grow the big commodity grains). The ‘yeoman farmer’ who owns/farms all his own land is mostly semi-retired or part-time.

    Best of all possible worlds for the crony class. They get most of the actual subsidies while the operators take all the flak. And the entire discussion about crop-insurance diverts attention from what this actually is – which is a land-price subsidy not a farming subsidy.

    Said land-price subsidy is also a big reason why farming is now a REALLY old occupation, why farming areas are still depopulating, and why ‘the future’ is worse. Takes a ton of money upfront to buy a middle-class income stream there now. More even than a college degree. Course that’s not ‘inflation’ either.

    1. I’ve been working on starting a small ranch, and it’s amazing how impossibly expensive it has become. And a lot of that is attributable to these insurance schemes and subsidies.

      I know some young folks who have taken to finding very old farmers/ranchers who have no kids, or whose kids want nothing to do with the business, and getting these older people to basically adopt them because anything else means a lifetime of working before you can get enough capital to start a reasonable ranching/farming business.

      1. As an example, if you want a middle class income off of cattle ranching (and assuming you hire no help) you would need to sell at least 50-60 cows a year, which means having an operation that produces 60-70 cows each year. If you sell to feed lots, you will need to sell more than that. You’ll need at least 80 cows, at ~$1,300 per cow-calf pair (if you’re lucky) and you’ll need 3.5-4.5 acres per cow-calf pair. That’s a startup investment of over a million dollars with no payoff for probably 2 years since it takes that long for a cow to be ready to slaughter. Good luck getting your bank to finance that business venture. And good luck making the payments. After that point, you might start making $75-100,000/year gross. But you’ve still got property taxes, fuel, winter feed, veterinarian bills and other costs that will quickly eat into your cash-flow.

        1. Which is why you designate the back 40 as a “kale farm” and get the government to pay you not to grow kale.

        2. That sort of analysis is exactly why a kid in farm country will leave if they aren’t connected or in line to inherit. The bank will only make that loan if they can ensure the value of the collateral goes up every year. Which means they are really lending based on a speculation about land price. Which isn’t at all what the kid/operator wants. The kid has a far better chance and lower debt-load of netting a middle-class income by moving to the city even if they get screwed on the rent there too.

          Yet while farm country sees the downside of that exodus and the inability to reverse it – and city mouse sees the downside of the high housing costs there and difficulty of getting ahead – it’s nearly impossible now to explain the underlying connection. And enough economic interest at stake to make sure it remains unexplainable and confusing.

      2. I live in corn country and have no interest in farming. I woudn’t mind owning some to put a house on and then leasing the rest for someone else to farm for me.

        Farmland goes for 10-15k an acre around here. I honestly have no idea how anyone could grow enough on it to pay the mortgage, let alone earn a living.

        Even for those who own their land outright I kinda wonder how they can really make a living.

        1. I grew up on a small farm my parents had started sharecropping out to a neighboring farmer because there just wasn’t enough money in it and then eventually we sold the land. Even back 45 years ago we could see that small farms just weren’t viable and farmers were going to have to get big or get gone. Last time I checked, in the old neighborhood where there had been 10 or 12 farms when I was a kid, it was only 3 of them now. Used to be you could make a living on 5 or 600 acres – you need a couple thousand now. That old crap about the family farmer being the salt of the earth, up before dawn feeding the cows and milking the chickens before heading out to plow the back 40 on his trusty old 4020 before his wife rings the dinner bell for fried chicken and cornbread and apple pie is nonsense – farming is a business and farmers can’t afford to be sentimental about the fact that they’re running a multi-million dollar factory.

          And there’s always the old joke about the farmer that wins the lottery and when he’s asked what he’s going to do now that he’s rich replies that farming’s all he knows so he reckons he’ll just keep farming until the money’s all gone. It’s a tough business – a lot of farmers would be better off going and getting real jobs and quit screwing up the business for the rest of them.

  15. Remember the good old days when we had articles written about libertarian issues from a libertarian perspective and a comments section where we’d discuss libertarian ideas raised by those articles? All while posting jokes from temporary handles that made the joke…

    Back then we had a few dozen people juggling sock puppets… Ah… good times!

    Now we have 2 or 3 people juggling a few dozen sock puppets, very few articles written about libertarian issues from a libertarian perspective… and good luck getting a decent discussion about such libertarian ideas as might be raised by the article.

    This thread is an embarrassment. We are all dumber for having experienced it. (and in the olden days I could have posted that as “Billy Madison’s Principal” for added joke effect)

    1. It used to be that the idea of getting rid of farm subsidies was such a no-brainer that you wouldn’t expect to get any sort of discussion going off of it – what’s there to discuss that we haven’t been discussing for the last 40 years? Might as well discuss balancing the budget and paying down the national debt – a purely theoretical debate because we all know damn well they all see the cliff up ahead and they’re all saying somebody really needs to do something but nothing’s going to be done until the car sails over the cliff.

      1. A fair point… but I was mostly commenting on the crappy thread above. What a waste of electrons.

    2. to;dr; Yeah.

      1. Fucking stupid fucking autocorrect turns “to” FUCK tee fucking ell! “tl” I did it. Fought the machine for five minutes.

        Wonko was right. The world is insane.

        1. It is but somehow here we are living pretty decent lives.

          1. In spite of the efforts of raging assholes like you.

    3. Remember the good old days when we had articles written about libertarian issues from a libertarian perspective and a comments section where we’d discuss libertarian ideas raised by those articles?

      Way back when, libertarians had spines. Talks about cutting the Farm Bill were advanced at the very least with cutting SNAP and insurance equally or proportionally. Cries of “What about feeding the poor people?” were met with frank discussions of federal spending, pet causes, and fucks given.

      Then, we started having discussions about cutting the Farm Bill and writers had to be reminded that the overwhelming majority of the Farm Bill was SNAP spending. “Fuck you, cut spending.” had all but vanished.

      Now, we don’t even talk about the Farm Bill or SNAP. We talk about cutting crop insurance because fuck farmers.

  16. I’d say Farmers in general aren’t a fan of farm subsidies only Democrats are who are mostly centralized in large cities.

    The last (Obama implemented) farm subsidy renewal had 13-farm-state Republicans vote against it. (0-Democrats).

    Keep cutting President Trump!!! And many thanks for being one of the best “limit-government” presidents in the last 100+ years.

    Pay absolutely no attention to the whining of Democrat Rep. Collin Peterson (D–Minn.)

    And that’s coming from a farmer who’s entire state would probably vote the same intention. (Why

  17. agriculture in India organic farming and more information.

  18. The political problem is that in country after country, the liberal party becomes in large measure the farmer’s party, and then to sustain its gains must swallow everything else that party goes for, so among others it has to keep the favor of the farmer. In the USA it was at first the Democrats who were the liberals and farmers, now it’s the Republicans who are the liberals and farmers.

    There’s a lot of hysteresis in the process. Long after most of the farmers were slave users, the bulk of the Democrats was still controlled by slave rather than “free soil” interests. So it’s going to take a very long time now for the Republicans to get off the farm subsidy gravy train. For now, no matter how much a minority interest this becomes, it’s what the GOP has to do to keep the red states red — and keep them from turning Red!

  19. FDR’s disastrous New Deal still costing taxpayers. At least these cuts are a move in the right direction.

  20. Ctrl+f, ‘SNAP’


    Tells me pretty much everything I need to know about this hot garbage take from a shithole of a magazine.

  21. The same Trump who kept finding new money to send to farmers because his trade war was hurting their bottom-lines is going to cut farm subsidies?

    That’s a bit hard to believe. Call me when he signs it.

    1. We will; but you sound like one of those people that would blast the effort into a dark closet and continue penny-pinching and blaming Trump for doing the best in a long time.

      Do you at least acknowledge the constant cuts he proposes on every yearly budget? Or the 2-for-1 oppressive regulation cuts? Or working to cancel the subsidizing/shipping of foreign trade? Or cutting the very cost-making machine by cutting tax? Or etc… etc… etc???

      1. Are you kidding?
        EE would have to admit to his raging case or TDS and the resulting idiocy!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.