This is just one of many stories about how crazy the US dairy industry is. Did you know that we produce so much milk that we practically don't know what to do with it all? If you've ever heard the...
This is just one of many stories about how crazy the US dairy industry is. Did you know that we produce so much milk that we practically don't know what to do with it all? If you've ever heard the term "government cheese", it's a reference to how we used to take all the excess milk, turn it into cheese, and give it to poor people because we have always produced far more milk than there is actual demand for it. The reason why butter, cheese and yogurt is so relatively cheap is that it's basically made from waste product that would not be able to be sold otherwise, and likewise you will find milk components like whey in products you wouldn't even think to look for them in.
It's not that we make so much food we don't know what to do with it all, it's that the government has maintained a strong policy of always having more food on hand than we need. If the world...
It's not that we make so much food we don't know what to do with it all, it's that the government has maintained a strong policy of always having more food on hand than we need. If the world changes and we need that food, we can stop exporting or stop some of the lower-value uses, and still have enough to feed everyone. Food security is national security.
We know what to do with it. We are not for the most part just throwing out milk. But in any case the governments involvement with food industries goes far beyond reducing scarcity and goes into...
We know what to do with it. We are not for the most part just throwing out milk. But in any case the governments involvement with food industries goes far beyond reducing scarcity and goes into controlling and manipulating the market to the benefit of the producers. Why do you think that the FDA tells you to have a glass of milk with every meal? The famous “Got Milk” campaign was paid through a government program.
We don't actually need dairy, at least from a nutritional perspective. If the US would run out of dairy suddenly, it would cause issues with the market, but everyone would adapt to it. So calling availability of dairy a national security issue is a very untrue statement.
Source? I only see evidence of it being funded by milk processors, both the milk board in California and MilkPEP. I don't see anything about it being government paid.
The famous “Got Milk” campaign was paid through a government program.
Source? I only see evidence of it being funded by milk processors, both the milk board in California and MilkPEP. I don't see anything about it being government paid.
It is technically paid by the milk industry in that it is a fund that is paid by them, but the existence of it is mandated by the government. Lookup checkoff funds.
It is technically paid by the milk industry in that it is a fund that is paid by them, but the existence of it is mandated by the government. Lookup checkoff funds.
I did, but like you said funding comes from the industry. There's USDA oversight, to, for example, stop the Egg Board from spending to oppose a ballot measure instead of on "Incredible Edible Egg"...
I did, but like you said funding comes from the industry. There's USDA oversight, to, for example, stop the Egg Board from spending to oppose a ballot measure instead of on "Incredible Edible Egg" ads. But the board is, as far as I can tell, made up of the producers.
Your wording implies that it's government funding by stating it as being paid for by a government program. They seem to have pretty broad control of advertising, and it's more about the lack of consumer ability to choose which pork/egg/milk produces they buy from and also keeps producer A from accusing producer B of making poison eggs.
Just saying the feds weren't marketing Got Milk, and tax dollars weren't spent on it and I think that was unclear in your post.
But it is government funds. Checkoff funds are a form of tax. Producers who do not want to contribute do not have the choice to opt-out. It's similar to how when you guy gasolene the taxes from it...
But it is government funds. Checkoff funds are a form of tax. Producers who do not want to contribute do not have the choice to opt-out.
It's similar to how when you guy gasolene the taxes from it are used to maintain roads. You wouldn't say that those projects aren't funded by the government, would you?
Yeah I get the producers consider themselves taxed but as far as I can tell they have to pay into a fund, not to the government itself. When I pay gas tax that money goes to the government who...
Yeah I get the producers consider themselves taxed but as far as I can tell they have to pay into a fund, not to the government itself.
When I pay gas tax that money goes to the government who pays people to fix the roads. (Ymmv depending on your state infrastructure spending).
Just cause some of them don't like it, doesn't make it a tax or make it government funded.
To be clear I'm not saying whether they should or shouldn't exist, they're just not actual taxes and the money is not government controlled.
That's not a legal dictionary, so using it to address legal distinctions is unhelpful Even using it, "Public purpose" would not generally include "get people to buy milk" unless the government was...
That's not a legal dictionary, so using it to address legal distinctions is unhelpful
Even using it, "Public purpose" would not generally include "get people to buy milk" unless the government was printing "drink milk for the war effort" propaganda or similar.
It can feel like a tax and not be one. They can call it "effectively a tax". And the money still isn't government funding whatever it is called. Once again, this isn't about whether they're good or right or a violation of free speech, I thought I had just misunderstood your wording but now I do just think you're insisting on something incorrect.
I'm open to learning that the facts I understand - it does not go to the government, and it is not legally a tax - are incorrect but given those facts this is the only conclusion I have.
You're really splitting hairs here. It's not "effectively a tax", it is a tax. It is legally required for them to pay, so it is "legally" a tax. if you want a definition from a legal dictionary,...
You're really splitting hairs here. It's not "effectively a tax", it is a tax. It is legally required for them to pay, so it is "legally" a tax.
if you want a definition from a legal dictionary, try this one.
As it so happens, Mirriam-Webster is also a legal dictionary. Here is their definition. You'll note that it has that exact same definition.
Editing to add: If you think I'm wrong or sending the wrong message, by all means, correct the record as you see fit. But you're not going to change my mind if we cannot even agree on what a tax is.
I do think you're wrong because the government isn't collecting the money and government money isn't being spent. Plain and simple. And yeah, the "for public purposes" or "for the use and service...
I do think you're wrong because the government isn't collecting the money and government money isn't being spent. Plain and simple.
It seems like you might be laying hard on technicalities on this definition, so I did a little bit more research. It appears that the organization for the Checkoff program is the Dairy Program,...
It seems like you might be laying hard on technicalities on this definition, so I did a little bit more research. It appears that the organization for the Checkoff program is the Dairy Program, which is part of the USDA. So yes, it is the government collecting the money. And since the money is used primarily for outreach to the public, I would say that meets the requirement of "for public purposes". And since the program is explicitly made for this purpose, that means that it is being used "for the use and service of the state". From the USDA page on the Dairy Program: "The mission of the Dairy Program is to facilitate the efficient marketing of milk and dairy products."
(Side note: the Dairy Program is a part of the greater Agricultural Marketing Service, which covers other agricultural products as well.)
While I was looking into this, I found that I was actually not completely correct in regards to my initial story. The Got Milk campaign started at a time when contributing to checkoff funds was optional. It has been mandatory since 2011. But apparently there was a big scandal in 2017 because the AMS was not publicly disclosing where their funds were going to.
Boy, if the government was mandating money goes directly to a private marketing fund, that would be even worse, ethically. Though as things are, it appears that the money largely going to a trade organization called Dairy Management Inc. I could look into this more, but it's a bit too tangential for my tastes.
It does look like the Dairy program is managed differently than the American Egg Board which has a CEO for example. thanks for doing the digging. Many of them have very unclear Wikipedia pages and...
It does look like the Dairy program is managed differently than the American Egg Board which has a CEO for example. thanks for doing the digging. Many of them have very unclear Wikipedia pages and there's only so much digging i was able to figure out.
And no, I think the technicalities do matter. I still don't categorize it as a tax but it is being paid to the government in the dairy program's case, and then distributed to Dairy Management Inc, (a 501c) in whole or in part. But there's definitely a layer of government between there.
That's why I asked for the info in the first place! Appreciate the correction
I think that extends to US farming in general, right? I'm struggling to immediately find any long-term data on how much corn has been subsidized due this dominating news story: apparently some aid...
I think that extends to US farming in general, right? I'm struggling to immediately find any long-term data on how much corn has been subsidized due this dominating news story: apparently some aid was released this month to give farmers $42 per acre of corn (and differing amounts for other crops) for a total of $10bil.
I just vaguely remember something about these subsidies being part of why different ethanol blends of fuel were trialed at one point.
Corn is far more insidious than milk. Dairy is (in moderation as in all things) beneficial for anyone not lactose intolerant. The subsidised proliferation of corn and the ensuing use as...
Corn is far more insidious than milk. Dairy is (in moderation as in all things) beneficial for anyone not lactose intolerant. The subsidised proliferation of corn and the ensuing use as high-fructose-corn-syrup could only be beaten in terms of government decision causing death by nuclear war.
Anyone not used to US food can usually tell when processed food is from the US instantly by that distinctive HFCS taste.
This is just one of many stories about how crazy the US dairy industry is. Did you know that we produce so much milk that we practically don't know what to do with it all? If you've ever heard the term "government cheese", it's a reference to how we used to take all the excess milk, turn it into cheese, and give it to poor people because we have always produced far more milk than there is actual demand for it. The reason why butter, cheese and yogurt is so relatively cheap is that it's basically made from waste product that would not be able to be sold otherwise, and likewise you will find milk components like whey in products you wouldn't even think to look for them in.
this is the comedy video they mentioned, if anyone's interested. Don't take any of it's health claims seriously. I've kind of lost track of how long ago the paleo trend started.
It's not that we make so much food we don't know what to do with it all, it's that the government has maintained a strong policy of always having more food on hand than we need. If the world changes and we need that food, we can stop exporting or stop some of the lower-value uses, and still have enough to feed everyone. Food security is national security.
We know what to do with it. We are not for the most part just throwing out milk. But in any case the governments involvement with food industries goes far beyond reducing scarcity and goes into controlling and manipulating the market to the benefit of the producers. Why do you think that the FDA tells you to have a glass of milk with every meal? The famous “Got Milk” campaign was paid through a government program.
We don't actually need dairy, at least from a nutritional perspective. If the US would run out of dairy suddenly, it would cause issues with the market, but everyone would adapt to it. So calling availability of dairy a national security issue is a very untrue statement.
Source? I only see evidence of it being funded by milk processors, both the milk board in California and MilkPEP. I don't see anything about it being government paid.
It is technically paid by the milk industry in that it is a fund that is paid by them, but the existence of it is mandated by the government. Lookup checkoff funds.
I did, but like you said funding comes from the industry. There's USDA oversight, to, for example, stop the Egg Board from spending to oppose a ballot measure instead of on "Incredible Edible Egg" ads. But the board is, as far as I can tell, made up of the producers.
Your wording implies that it's government funding by stating it as being paid for by a government program. They seem to have pretty broad control of advertising, and it's more about the lack of consumer ability to choose which pork/egg/milk produces they buy from and also keeps producer A from accusing producer B of making poison eggs.
Just saying the feds weren't marketing Got Milk, and tax dollars weren't spent on it and I think that was unclear in your post.
But it is government funds. Checkoff funds are a form of tax. Producers who do not want to contribute do not have the choice to opt-out.
It's similar to how when you guy gasolene the taxes from it are used to maintain roads. You wouldn't say that those projects aren't funded by the government, would you?
Yeah I get the producers consider themselves taxed but as far as I can tell they have to pay into a fund, not to the government itself.
When I pay gas tax that money goes to the government who pays people to fix the roads. (Ymmv depending on your state infrastructure spending).
Just cause some of them don't like it, doesn't make it a tax or make it government funded.
To be clear I'm not saying whether they should or shouldn't exist, they're just not actual taxes and the money is not government controlled.
What's happening is the dictionary definition of what a tax is.
The first definition of the word tax in Mirriam-Webster is thus:
It can feel like a tax and not be one. They can call it "effectively a tax". And the money still isn't government funding whatever it is called. Once again, this isn't about whether they're good or right or a violation of free speech, I thought I had just misunderstood your wording but now I do just think you're insisting on something incorrect.
I'm open to learning that the facts I understand - it does not go to the government, and it is not legally a tax - are incorrect but given those facts this is the only conclusion I have.
You're really splitting hairs here. It's not "effectively a tax", it is a tax. It is legally required for them to pay, so it is "legally" a tax.
if you want a definition from a legal dictionary, try this one.
As it so happens, Mirriam-Webster is also a legal dictionary. Here is their definition. You'll note that it has that exact same definition.
Editing to add: If you think I'm wrong or sending the wrong message, by all means, correct the record as you see fit. But you're not going to change my mind if we cannot even agree on what a tax is.
I do think you're wrong because the government isn't collecting the money and government money isn't being spent. Plain and simple.
And yeah, the "for public purposes" or "for the use and service of the state" is a required part of that. Otherwise anything is a tax, even a bribe.
And even if it was a "tax" by definition, it still wouldn't be government funded.
It seems like you might be laying hard on technicalities on this definition, so I did a little bit more research. It appears that the organization for the Checkoff program is the Dairy Program, which is part of the USDA. So yes, it is the government collecting the money. And since the money is used primarily for outreach to the public, I would say that meets the requirement of "for public purposes". And since the program is explicitly made for this purpose, that means that it is being used "for the use and service of the state". From the USDA page on the Dairy Program: "The mission of the Dairy Program is to facilitate the efficient marketing of milk and dairy products."
(Side note: the Dairy Program is a part of the greater Agricultural Marketing Service, which covers other agricultural products as well.)
While I was looking into this, I found that I was actually not completely correct in regards to my initial story. The Got Milk campaign started at a time when contributing to checkoff funds was optional. It has been mandatory since 2011. But apparently there was a big scandal in 2017 because the AMS was not publicly disclosing where their funds were going to.
Boy, if the government was mandating money goes directly to a private marketing fund, that would be even worse, ethically. Though as things are, it appears that the money largely going to a trade organization called Dairy Management Inc. I could look into this more, but it's a bit too tangential for my tastes.
It does look like the Dairy program is managed differently than the American Egg Board which has a CEO for example. thanks for doing the digging. Many of them have very unclear Wikipedia pages and there's only so much digging i was able to figure out.
And no, I think the technicalities do matter. I still don't categorize it as a tax but it is being paid to the government in the dairy program's case, and then distributed to Dairy Management Inc, (a 501c) in whole or in part. But there's definitely a layer of government between there.
That's why I asked for the info in the first place! Appreciate the correction
I think that extends to US farming in general, right? I'm struggling to immediately find any long-term data on how much corn has been subsidized due this dominating news story: apparently some aid was released this month to give farmers $42 per acre of corn (and differing amounts for other crops) for a total of $10bil.
I just vaguely remember something about these subsidies being part of why different ethanol blends of fuel were trialed at one point.
Corn is far more insidious than milk. Dairy is (in moderation as in all things) beneficial for anyone not lactose intolerant. The subsidised proliferation of corn and the ensuing use as high-fructose-corn-syrup could only be beaten in terms of government decision causing death by nuclear war.
Anyone not used to US food can usually tell when processed food is from the US instantly by that distinctive HFCS taste.