195

A Ukrainian soldier in Washington, DC told Insider he's using his break from the front lines of the war against Russia to educate US lawmakers.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] money_loo@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The infamous "government cheese" was given to the needy in the US not because poor people have a dire need for cheese, but because the government wanted to give a lot of money to wealthy dairy farmers.

Jimmy Carter gave struggling dairy farmers money to encourage dairy production at a time when the costs of these products were rising like crazy.

~~The government bought a bunch to spur production and decrease costs for the average family. It was literally meant to help poor people the most.~~

*I must correct myself, the dairy farmers were struggling because previous government interventions had tanked the cost of dairy so low that farms weren’t turning a profit. So the government bought up supply to increase prices to a more sustainable baseline for everyone. I apologize for my mistake and will post links below so people can read some sources and decide for themselves.

They also never intended to give the cheese away at all. They were hoping to eventually sell it in some capacity.

It was only later in the early 80s under Reagan that they decided to give the cheese away, once again, to poor people and the elderly specifically.

And they only did that after a public spectacle was made when Agriculture Secretary John R. Block showed up at a White House event with a five-pound block of greening, moldy cheese and showed it to the press. “We’ve got 60 million of these that the government owns,” he said. “It’s moldy, it’s deteriorating … we can’t find a market for it, we can’t sell it, and we’re looking to try to give some of it away.”

At one point they had so much cheese it was recommended they just dump it all into the ocean because it would be the cheapest thing to do.

But yeah, it was given away mostly because we had a lot of it and we needed to get rid of it somehow.

https://www.npr.org/2021/05/21/999144678/big-government-cheese-classic

https://www.history.com/news/government-cheese-dairy-farmers-reagan

[-] cyd@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Jimmy Carter gave struggling dairy farmers money to encourage dairy production at a time when the costs of these products were rising like crazy. The government bought a bunch to spur production and decrease costs for the average family.

This makes little sense. If the government makes big purchases of a product, the increase in demand raises, not lowers, prices. Also, if people aren't interested in eating that much cheese that the government has trouble giving it away, "spurring production" is an insane objective. It only makes sense if, as OP said, the whole point was a giveaway to farmers.

[-] money_loo@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I’m no economist, I apologize, it went like this:

During the 1970s, as Americans sat in long gas lines and watched the economy tank, they faced another crisis: an unprecedented shortage of dairy products. In 1973, dairy prices shot up 30 percent as the price of other foods inflated. When the government tried to intervene, prices fell so low that the dairy industry balked. Then, in 1977, under President Jimmy Carter, the government set a new subsidy policy that poured $2 billion into the dairy industry in just four years.

Suddenly, dairy farmers who had been hurting were flush with cash—and producing as much milk as they could in order to take advantage of government support. The government purchased the milk dairy farmers couldn’t sell and began to process it into cheese, butter and dehydrated milk powder.

So they were struggling due to inflation, and the government was buying their products to prop them up for the time.

[-] cyd@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

If the policy was simply meant to address a shortage of dairy products in the market, the government should not have ended up with mountains of cheese that had to be given away.

[-] money_loo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

You’re correct, I updated the post with better info. Thank you for keeping it accurate.

this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2023
195 points (94.9% liked)

politics

19097 readers
4804 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS