During the Great Depression, Democrats paid farmers to destroy livestock and crops when Americans were hungry

Short history lesson for college-age Americans.  Covers a lot of ground, but you need to know all of it:

During the Great Depression (1930-1939) tens of thousands of businesses closed, putting millions of people out of work.  With no income, people couldn't buy the usual amount of food.

As demand (in the economic sense) dropped, but the supply of food initially unchanged, the laws of supply and demand forced market prices for both livestock and crops down drastically.  So farm income dropped, because no one could afford to buy food.  So tens of thousands of farmers lost their farms (bank foreclosure).

Enter the Democrat president and would-be dictator, former governor of New York Franklin D. Roosevelt.  FDR was as connected as Bill and Hilliary today.  He was such a megalomaniac that when the Supreme Court ruled one of his pet laws was unconstitutional, he unilaterally "packed the court," adding a dozen Democrat "justices" so Dems could get whatever they wanted.  (This was later ruled unconstitutional.)

So back to farmers:  As noted, due to the stock market crash and ensuing Great Depression, millions of Americans lost their jobs and their families were--not dying but couldn't afford food to keep from being hungry.  So can you guess what the Democrats' "solution" was?

As a part of his New Deal FDR had his supporters in congress pass a LAW called the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA), which paid farmers to kill millions of hogs and cows, and plow under over 10 million acres of cotton.  The theory was that destroying animals and food and cotton already produced would reduce supply (duh), which would cause prices to INcrease.

This is worth repeating because it's the only time in history that Democrats have ever admitted that the twin "laws of supply and demand" are real.  I don't know of a single instance OTHER than this where a Democrat policy recognized those laws.  

Why did they recognize those this time?  Because it gave them more power and control, while making it appear that they were taking action to "save the country."  But in fact those policies hurt Americans and delayed the recovery.

The Dem policy--explicitly detailed in the "Ag Adjustment Act"--was widely criticized at the time.  Farmers (and all Americans) had a hard time understanding how, having worked hard to raise animals or crops to feed people--at a time when millions were hungry--"their" government would order those animals and crops destroyed and buried.  

Of course AS IS TRUE TODAY, the opinions of farmers and voters didn't make any difference to the ruling politicians.  The only people who mattered were FDR and his Democrat supporters in the corrupt congress.  So using the AAA, gruberment agents in the Department of Agriculture offered to pay farmers to destroy millions of cattle and pigs, and burn or plow under millions of tons of crops.  Since the gruberment was offering to pay more to destroy the livestock and crops than farmers could get at market, naturally the took the deal--though many had tears in their eyes, since they were good people who saw the evil in what they were being paid to do.

Ultimately, recovery depended on people re-starting businesses and hiring workers.  Yes, that's a long, slow process, which was NOT helped by destroying animals and crops.  Better if the government had paid farmers a few cents per pound for what they could sell at market prices.  

Yes, that's a subsidy, and free-market purists reject those.  But because farming and ranching are so highly skilled, and take a long time to build up capital and expertise, that's the ONE area governments can't afford to let the free market destroy.  The social costs are far too high.

Let me re-state that, because I don't want some dumb sonofabitch 50 years from now to mis-state my position:  If you have a product that's been made obsolete by a new technology, the government should NOT be allowed to subsidize the obsolete product.  Of course that happens all the time, as the obsoleted industry uses bribes ("campaign contributions") to get corrupt asshole congresswhores to slyly insert subsidies into bills at the last minute.

Literally, the assholes slip handwritten terms into the official, printed draft version of bills at midnight.  You don't think this is true, and certainly not legal, but it is true.  It's one of the reasons our nation has been doomed: corruption in congress and the presidency.

Similarly, the gruberment should never be allowed to spend billions of dollars to subsidize a new technology, like "electric vehicles."  The morons in congress have no idea whether EVs are a rational solution to ANYTHING, but they'll support whatever their moronic party tells em to.

Batteries with a life of just five years, that cost $25,000 to replace?  They don't know and don't care.  

Batteries that depend on a metal controlled by China?  They don't know or care.

Fact that there's not even *remotely* enough electric generating capacity to support changing even ten percent of vehicles to  EVs?  They don't know or care.  

They'll vote with the party, because if they don't, the party won't give them money for re-election.  Which is the ONLY thing these greedy sons of bitches care about.

Okay, I've digressed far too much.  Just wanted you college-age Americans to know how Democrat "god" FDR got his corrupt lackeys in congress to pass a law that resulted in gruberment paying farmers to destroy millions of cattle and pigs and millions of tons of crops, at a time when millions of Americans were hungry.  Cuz you sure as hell will NEVER hear about this in your corrupt Dem-ruled schools.

It's like it never happened.  And in another 20 years Americans who should have known better will INSIST that it did NOT happen--that this is all a "right-wing scare story."

It's scary all right.  It's also true. 

Source: book, but on a leftist website pushing something else.