# Farmers and taxpayer money



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Why is the government paying farmers to plant and overproduce corn? Why no conservative outcry over this government handout? Seems the biggest recipients of government money in this county is NOT the welfare queens down in East St. Louis, but the farmers up here being PAID to grow corn. 
Does the government ruin everything it touches, or am I just imagining things?
One could argue the farmers are providing a service, but why does the government have to redistribute wealth to ensure the corn grows? Are farmers incapable of making a living? We've had so many years of 'bigger is better' USDA government farm policies that overproduction has forced many farmers into bankruptcy, by lowering the price of commodities. 
Should this continue?


----------



## Ray (Dec 5, 2002)

I've read where the gov. is discussing purchasing as much corn as they can to keep it from fuel production because of the food shortage predictions being made across the world this year. 
As per your question, many congressmen purchase large land plots in these areas and actually allow the subsistance payments to pay for the land they buy. In many cases it pays for everything before the programs are closed. and by then they own a couple thousand acres that the gov. paid for. Maybe not this exact example but the same idea. Yet there are so few that know about the programs that only them and a couple friends make out on them. This has been discovered several times, by different politicians. By letting certain land lie idle and unplanted, in different states. So its usually politicians and their close friends that benefit, not the average farmer, or rancher, best wishes, ray


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

I agree we probably don't know all about it - or really much about it.

Also, it isn't hard to believe that some politician and their 'friends' get the goodies. 

The fact is, though, that there are subsidies for farmers, I'm not sure how much the 'average' (whatever that is) gets, but they do get some.

I remember when there was such a stink because Sam Donaldson was getting a good size check in subsidies for his family ranch. 

The question of 'why' can probably be answered the same way all 'whys' of Washington can be answered - politicians make money from it - either by getting contributions from others who make money or from using the plan themselves.

My theory, big agribusiness gets plenty of subsidies and goodies and they give plenty to politicians.


----------



## sticky_burr (Dec 10, 2010)

well 200% there should be caps ie if you MAKE 1 mil a year you dont need help if you make say 500k maybe you only need 50% help? crop insurence should not be 100% "help" it should be a emergency stop gap say 80% .. like 20% is never covered allong with a need qualifer

that all being said it should be devided . if i can plant a alternative crop and produce simular yeilds as soybean why do i get nothing and high input soybeans do?


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

This is one of those threads where folks haven't kept up with the news. Corn and most of the grain crop production was DOWN last year, and the reserves are down, too.

Crop insurance isn't 100%. You get your production costs back, maybe.

Expect price increases in the spring on grain related products.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

> overproduce corn?


LOL
Have you looked at the crop report lately?
Been down to the mill to buy any corn this week?



> We've had so many years of 'bigger is better' USDA government farm policies that overproduction has forced many farmers into bankruptcy, by lowering the price of commodities.
> Should this continue?


You really are behind the times aren't you and can't seem to be coherent....first the govt is paying farmers to make corn then they are going out of business?
Which is it? are they getting rich off the taxpayer or not?
commodities haven't been "cheap"
for a few years now, I haven't paid 100 a ton for corn since 06.......


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

sticky_burr said:


> well 200% there should be caps ie if you MAKE 1 mil a year you dont need help if you make say 500k maybe you only need 50% help? crop insurence should not be 100% "help" it should be a emergency stop gap say 80% .. like 20% is never covered allong with a need qualifer
> 
> that all being said it should be devided . if i can plant a alternative crop and produce simular yeilds as soybean why do i get nothing and high input soybeans do?


soybeans are not high input unless you are trying to grow them somewhere you shouldn't. Beans are usually a second choice if input prices are up.....

And I'm sure you can insure any crop you care to

and how do you know if a mil is enough to cover costs? Do you have any idea what it takes to make thousands of acres of grain? do you have any idea what it takes the average IA farmer to make a bushel of 185 bushel corn?


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

I used to have a link to an online database showing farm subsidies. You could search it using several criteria, including the owners' name. 

I looked up the big farmers around me ... most had gotten more government money in a couple years than the average welfare recipient will collect in a lifetime! 

They were all staunch Republicans, of course. 

I also recall a year where disaster assistance payments were made; I believe it was due to a severe storm early in the spring. The funny thing was, the crops recovered and the harvest that year was above-average ... but farmers still cashed in on the "disaster."


----------



## wwubben (Oct 13, 2004)

You will not hear conservatives railing against this program.The majority of this money goes to conservatives.You can not pay for a farm with subsidies.The farm program was good when Roosevelt first brought it out.The politicians have had about 70 years to monkey around with it.I am a liberal farmer and I would like to see the government program abolished.Huge checks go to people who have never seen their farms.I would like to see government programs to help young beginning farmers.Those of us who are established don"t need a government program.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

> most had gotten more government money in a couple years than the average welfare recipient will collect in a lifetime!


What kind of comparison is that?


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

> he crops recovered and the harvest that year was above-average


Did they recover or where they replanted?


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

It's no different than any other government program - in my opinion. It isn't there to help the country as a whole or the people. It's there to take money from one group and give to another. Usually the 'another' just happens to be a group that contributes to campaigns or retirement accounts.

The fact is, money knows no political leaning. It is an idealogy, a party, all it's own. The big guys, as one said, 'butter our bread on both sides'.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

sammyd said:


> LOL
> Have you looked at the crop report lately?
> Been down to the mill to buy any corn this week?
> 
> ...


 I didnt imply any farmers were getting rich from subsidies. I am merely asking if paying farmers taxpayer money is a good thing for our nation. And the prices we pay for grain commodities are still near historic lows in real, inflation adjusted dollars. Sure, in the past few years there has been the ethanol spike, which again is due largely to government subsidies.
http://www.farmdoc.illinois.edu/manage/uspricehistory/USPrice.asp


http://inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Corn/corn_inflation_chart.htm


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

35 years ago I went to an agricultural college.

In the traditional economic model, if the prices drop then producers go out of business, scarcity makes the price go up, and people go into the business once again.

While this is happening the supply of that item might be a problem, and that is the rub. We are talking about food supply here!

So, the government stepped in to stabilize things a bit with subsidies, to make sure that there is food available for the consumers to buy. Yes, that also makes it easier on the farmers but farmers are a small part of the population but everybody needs to eat.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Why is the government paying farmers to plant and overproduce corn?


How about showing some evidence that this is true, and if it is, the details of the program?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> You will not hear conservatives railing against this program.The majority of this money goes to conservatives


Always lots of accusations but never any proof

Tell us how you devine the political leanings of farmers


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

sammyd said:


> soybeans are not high input unless you are trying to grow them somewhere you shouldn't. Beans are usually a second choice if input prices are up.....
> 
> And I'm sure you can insure any crop you care to
> 
> and how do you know if a mil is enough to cover costs? Do you have any idea what it takes to make thousands of acres of grain? *do you have any idea what it takes the average IA farmer to make a bushel of 185 bushel corn?*




Lots of Roundup, lots of diesel fuel, GMO corn, and all for what? To produce a cheap feed for cattle? (when God made cattle to eat grass, not acidic corn) To produce a second-rate motor fuel that takes almost as much energy to produce as we get out of it? Believe me, I've worked on grain farms my whole life. I've seen the negative effects this type of 'big ag' has on the land. Every year tons and tons my neighbors eroded topsoil washes onto my land. Every year his chemical overspray drifts onto my land And the government is helping this along.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Always lots of accusations but never any proof
> 
> Tell us how you devine the political leanings of farmers


 I've talked to enough grain farmers here to know where many of them stand on the issues. Believe me, they are almost all conservative voters. And its pretty easy to see the leanings of the ones I dont talk to, just look at the yard signs come election time.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Terri said:


> 35 years ago I went to an agricultural college.
> 
> In the traditional economic model, if the prices drop then producers go out of business, scarcity makes the price go up, and people go into the business once again.
> 
> ...


I'm up front, I believe agriculture aid is just another form of using taxpayer dollars to pay off campaign debts.

The concept of helping farmers to continue to produce so we won't starve is not hard to understand - I think we all get that. As most things with our government - the devil is in the details.

That doesn't mean I would not like to understand more about it.

The government doesn't just step in when times are bad for farmers, as in low production - disasters. They step in when there is overproduction, or at least that's what they say. It seems there are no 'normal' years for food producers - every year they need - and get help. Why is that? Wouldn't you think, if it is just a business - they would manage to get it together every once in a while. Of course, I think they do - 

I don't know how it worked in other areas, just know around here. The government bought out the milk production of dairies some time ago. They paid the farmers for 5 years milk production with the rule they must stop milking and their cows were to be sold for meat only.

Some did that, some managed to keep the dairies going - evidently against the agreement, and dairy farmers from Holland immigrated here and bought the closed dairies and went right into production.

I never understood how that did the consumers any good, or helped to keep the milk supply 'stabilized'.

Also, when our government makes trade deals for grain, especially, to be sold overseas, and that keeps the price of food up here, that doesn't help the consumer.

When they subsidize ethanol production, that doesn't help with the food supply.

I really liked it better when the government bought up the surplus, and processed it. It was not a good idea - but it was a better idea. That way in bad years, food was there. I prefer commodities to food stamps for those getting government assistance. 

No, I understand what it was designed to do, what it should do - what I don't understand is what it actually does and why it is done that way.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I've talked to enough grain farmers here to know where many of them stand on the issues.


Still hearsay, still no data



> Lots of Roundup, lots of diesel fuel


Not using Roundup means you need *more tillage*, which burns more fuel.
Harvest takes the same amoount no matter what variety of corn is grown


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Trixie said:


> The fact is, though, that there are subsidies for farmers, I'm not sure how much the 'average' (whatever that is) gets, but they do get some.


From 1995-2009 the largest and wealthiest top 10 percent of farm program recipients received 74 percent of all farm subsidies with an average total payment over 15 years of $445,127 per recipient. 

Congressional District Distribution of Farm Bill Dollars Subsidy Payments 1995-2004:
<$300 million ... 344 districts, 15% of all payments.
$300 million - $800 million ... 44 districts, 15% of all payments.
$800 million - 1.66 billion ... 25 districts, 20% of all payments.
Over 1.66 billion ... 22 districts, *50% of all payments*.

84% of commodity spending is directed to just 5 crops.

Source: _Foodfight_, Daniel Imhoff.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> From 1995-2009 the *largest and wealthiest *top 10 percent of farm program recipients received 74 percent of all farm subsidies with an average total payment over 15 years of $445,127 per recipient.


Imagine that.

A program *based on acreage *pays more to *bigger* farms

Who would have thought it? 

Are you also surprised some districts get more, since sime districts are in the FARM BELT?


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

Willow, reuben and trixie, you got it right.


----------



## EDDIE BUCK (Jul 17, 2005)

You can follow this back to your state and county and farmer.

http://farm.ewg.org/region?fips=00000&regname=UnitedStatesFarmSubsidySummary


----------



## Guest (Jan 13, 2011)

willow_girl said:


> They were all staunch Republicans, of course.
> "


I know that database, and I checked around real good, nowhere on it does it give the political inclinations of the "farmers". Don't you think your statement is clearly inflammatory rhetoric with absolutely no basis in facts?? The one in this county that receives the most money is a democrat state senator. the second most is a democrat county commissioner.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

That looks very interesting - I'm going to do some more reading there.

Thanks.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Still hearsay, still no data
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Data? You want data on how farmers vote?? LMAO Standing next to someone in the voting booth is frowned upon. And the actual subsidy amounts are printed in our local paper every year.
And I stand by my statement of knowing the political leanings of my neighbors based on knowing them, talking with them, and seeing the yard signs. All of those things together leads me to my conclusion. Sorry, I cant go into the voting booth with anyone other than myself, so I cant tell you exactly which candidate they vote for. But you'd have to be blind not to see the signs. Largely GOP. But thats not truly important anyway. We're talking about taxpayer money being REDISTRIBUTED.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

EDDIE BUCK said:


> You can follow this back to your state and county and farmer.
> 
> http://farm.ewg.org/region?fips=00000&regname=UnitedStatesFarmSubsidySummary


 Interesting numbers there. Amazing that tobacco has recieved 5 times the govt. money that has been given to apple growers.


----------



## jefferson (Nov 11, 2004)

I got a couple acres off the south pasture. I think I will fence it off and cut it in half. One half will be in corn and I can get a subsidy for growing. The other will lay fallow and I can get a subsidy for not growing. I got to win both ways.


----------



## Stephen in SOKY (Jun 6, 2006)

The tobacco money comes from an assessment on manufacturers and imports. If you're a small farmer in particular this one helps transitioning you to an alternative crop like market gardening, flowers, small scale & retail direct from the farm. IIRC, here in KY it has been used extensively in developing produce auctions and farmer's markets. It was designed to compensate us when they took our bases and Federal price supports from us. I've never directly availed myself of any funds available, even though I qualify. However, I have benefitted from the new produce auctions. But I did have my bases taken from me.

http://www.apfo.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=toba&topic=landing

ETA: In other words if you want to convert your tobacco ground into an apple orchard, or your tobacco barn into an apple processing facility, you may want to stop by your local FSA office and avail yourself of some of the tobacco manufcturers & importers corporate profit. Folks around here refer to it as their PM money (Phillip Morris Tobacco).


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Imagine that.
> 
> A program *based on acreage *pays more to *bigger* farms
> 
> ...


How about the fact that there is _supposed _to be a cap on subsidy payments???


----------



## Guest (Jan 13, 2011)

What is the cap supposed to be?


----------



## wwubben (Oct 13, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Always lots of accusations but never any proof
> 
> Tell us how you devine the political leanings of farmers


I am active in the democratic party and have held many posts here in Iowa.I know what party people belong to or if they are independents.I get a list of this for every election.The large majority of farmers and small businessmen are republicans.The large majority of farm bureau members nationwide are republicans.This is common knowledge.


----------



## wwubben (Oct 13, 2004)

zong said:


> What is the cap supposed to be?


The caps are very easy to work around,they are meaningless.Some of these people get a million dollars.Most big boys get hundreds of thousands.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

greg273 said:


> Why is the government paying farmers to plant and overproduce corn? Why no conservative outcry over this government handout? Seems the biggest recipients of government money in this county is NOT the welfare queens down in East St. Louis, but the farmers up here being PAID to grow corn.
> Does the government ruin everything it touches, or am I just imagining things?
> One could argue the farmers are providing a service, but why does the government have to redistribute wealth to ensure the corn grows? Are farmers incapable of making a living? We've had so many years of 'bigger is better' USDA government farm policies that overproduction has forced many farmers into bankruptcy, by lowering the price of commodities.
> Should this continue?


Good question!
But then you think conservatives don't say anything, when I have said things about this type of thing for years..
Why did they (the government) pay my uncle not to farm his 100 acres and paid him to sell his 60 head of milk cows?

Why did we pay Ted Turner not to farm the land he owns along with a lot of basketball players etc?

This is a waste!

But I guess liberals must like this type of government handouts, since they love welfare and stealing form those of us who work....


----------



## Guest (Jan 13, 2011)

The guy here, he's a lawyer, inherited a farm and got $119,000 last year. to not grow. Like he was going to take off his suit, put on his overalls, and get to plowing. LOL. There is some big rice producing company was getting a huge amount.
ETA: Riceland Foods inc and Producers Rice Mill inc, both with the same zip code, got to be the same company. 868 million dollars between 1995 and 2009.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

wwubben said:


> *You will not hear conservatives railing against this program.The majority of this money goes to conservatives*.You can not pay for a farm with subsidies.The farm program was good when Roosevelt first brought it out.The politicians have had about 70 years to monkey around with it.I am a liberal farmer and I would like to see the government program abolished.Huge checks go to people who have never seen their farms.I would like to see government programs to help young beginning farmers.Those of us who are established don"t need a government program.


That is so much CARP!

I won't say anymore about the lies above..


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> How about the fact that there is supposed to be a cap on subsidy payments???



The cap is $275,000.

You've shown nothing to prove any one FARM is getting more than that.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I am active in the democratic party and have held many posts here in Iowa.I know what party people belong to or if they are independents.I get a list of this for every election.*The large majority of farmers and small businessmen are republicans*.The large majority of farm bureau members nationwide are republicans.This is common knowledge.


Still more hearsay, still no data


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Still more hearsay, still no data


 Of course theres no data if you dont LOOK FOR ANY.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Jan 9, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Still more hearsay, still no data


FYI, that's not hearsay. Hearsay would be if he said someone else told him such and such. He's giving you his first-hand account of knowledge, which you can of course choose to believe or not. The fact he states may be wrong but that doesn't make it hearsay.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Of course theres no data if you dont LOOK FOR ANY.


I'm not the one making the claims.

If you can't *back your own statements*, why should I waste my time looking for proof?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Any grain farmers here who can shed some light on this? I have 5 acres I'm hoping to clear this winter in order to start pasturing some cattle and sheep, maybe raise an acre of corn for silage or just shelled feedcorn. But heck, if the government is gonna pay me NOT to do that, maybe I should just step up to the trough and get my share of the handouts.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Dwayne Barry said:


> FYI, that's not hearsay. Hearsay would be if he said someone else told him such and such. He's giving you his first-hand account of knowledge, which you can of course choose to believe or not. The fact he states may be wrong but that doesn't make it hearsay.


It's hearsay in the sense that he's SAYING it without offering any data to verify


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Dwayne Barry said:


> FYI, that's not hearsay. Hearsay would be if he said someone else told him such and such. He's giving you his first-hand account of knowledge, which you can of course choose to believe or not. The fact he states may be wrong but that doesn't make it hearsay.


 Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Any grain farmers here who can shed some light on this? I have 5 acres I'm hoping to clear this winter in order to start pasturing some cattle and sheep, maybe raise an acre of corn for silage or just shelled feedcorn. But heck, *if the government is gonna pay me NOT to do that*, maybe I should just step up to the trough and get my share of the handouts


You've been trying to say they are doing it, but now *you don't know *any of the details?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Hearsay would be if he said *someone else told him *such and such


And he did:



> I've talked to enough grain farmers here to know where many of them stand on the issues


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Jan 9, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's hearsay in the sense that he's SAYING it without offering any data to verify


Yeah but that's not what hearsay means, so it would be in your unique sense of the word 

He's saying he knows a fact based on data he's privy to and you're basically saying you don't believe him without seeing the data or similar data.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Jan 9, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> And he did:


No that would be anecdotal evidence not hearsay, he personally talked to those people or saw the signs in their yard, someone else didn't tell him what they said. I'm really not trying to bust your balls, although I know it seems like it.

I was actually referring to the fact that he said he has access to the county political party registration info. as the data in question.

Hearsay would be if he said my neighbor farmer John knows all the local farmers and he told me...


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You've been trying to say they are doing it, but now *you don't know *any of the details?


 A few years back when I had my 20 acres in Bond county ( an hour or so north of here) I looked into the CRP program. But never went with it. Ended up renting out the pasture to a local farmer so HE could get involved with a state sponsored cost-share program.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Dwayne Barry said:


> No that would be anecdotal evidence not hearsay, he personally talked to those people or saw the signs in their yard, someone else didn't tell him what they said. I'm really not trying to bust your balls, although I know it seems like it.
> 
> I was actually referring to the fact that he said he has access to the county political party registration info. as the data in question.
> 
> Hearsay would be if he said my neighbor farmer John knows all the local farmers and he told me...


 OK you guys are getting people mixed up . I stated the subsidy amounts are published in the local paper. I never stated I had access to party registration info.


----------



## Guest (Jan 13, 2011)

Heres a link to the top recipients last fully recorded year. Top payouts start at 4.8 million dollars for 2009.
http://farm.ewg.org/top_recips.php?fips=00000&progcode=total&yr=2009&regionname=theUnitedStates


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Jan 9, 2009)

greg273 said:


> OK you guys are getting people mixed up . I stated the subsidy amounts are published in the local paper. I never stated I had access to party registration info.


Descending into a farce and seriously side-tracking the thread 

Regardless nothing here has been hearsay. No one is claiming (I don't think) to know something about something else based on what someone else told them.

If you personally talk to someone and learn something about them or observe political signs in their yard, or see stats in the paper, or at the county office and then tell someone else any of it, it is not hearsay because it is your personally acquired knowledge.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

zong said:


> Heres a link to the top recipients last fully recorded year. Top payouts start at 4.8 million dollars for 2009.
> http://farm.ewg.org/top_recips.php?fips=00000&progcode=total&yr=2009&regionname=theUnitedStates


Thanks for the info...

Corporate welfare at it's worse....

Question is why does the The Nature Conservancy get over 750 K and has received over 4.6 mil?

If this is such a Right Wing conspiracy, how is it that left wing groups use it..

Or is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black?


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Jan 9, 2009)

beowoulf90 said:


> Question is why does the The Nature Conservancy get over 750 K and has received over 4.6 mil?


Google is a beautiful thing. Looks like the vast majority of that went to the Minnesota chapter last year for conservation easements to convert farmland back to prairie.

http://www.hpj.com/archives/2005/apr05/apr11/NatureConservancytopsrecipi.CFM


----------



## Windy in Kansas (Jun 16, 2002)

greg273 said:


> Lots of Roundup, lots of diesel fuel, GMO corn, and all for what? To produce a cheap feed for cattle? (when God made cattle to eat grass, not acidic corn) To produce a second-rate motor fuel that takes almost as much energy to produce as we get out of it?  Believe me, I've worked on grain farms my whole life. I've seen the negative effects this type of 'big ag' has on the land. Every year tons and tons my neighbors eroded topsoil washes onto my land. Every year his chemical overspray drifts onto my land And the government is helping this along.


If you've worked on grain farms you whole life then you should know better.

Are you unaware of plastics made from corn derivatives?
Are you unaware of corn syrup?

Are you looking at the true numbers or are you simply looking at the numbers which include school nutrition, etc.?

As far as I'm concerned until the farmer is given true access to a world wide market then they can keep getting price supports, etc. If in doubt ask Castro how many times he TRIED to buy farm commodities from the United States and how many times he succeeded. 

Even cooperatives selling in bulk aren't allowed true free world market access.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Again, I don't think farm subsidies have any political leaning - money knows no political side.

I truly don't get what farm subsidies have to do with having access to free world markets.

I thought subsidies were so American farmers could stay in business and keep producing food so Americans would not starve.

That's not meant to be insulting - I just don't know what world markets have to do with it.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Google is a beautiful thing. Looks like the vast majority of that went to the Minnesota chapter last year for conservation easements to convert farmland back to prairie.
> 
> http://www.hpj.com/archives/2005/apr05/apr11/NatureConservancytopsrecipi.CFM


So I think you missed the point..

But either way I will run with what you posted and ask why farm aid was used to convert a farm to a non-farm.. So The Nature Conservancy has taken Ag money and contributed to the Food Crisis (in another thread) by converting farmland to a non production..

Not Smart (since according to the other thread ) there is a food crisis going on...

This also shows that liberals value animal over human life regardless of whom it kills.. 

Well Imagine that!:nana:

Either way it is wrong! We the tax payer shouldn't be paying anyone not to farm or to plant certain crops etc..


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Windy in Kansas said:


> If you've worked on grain farms you whole life then you should know better.
> 
> Are you unaware of plastics made from corn derivatives?
> Are you unaware of corn syrup?
> ...


Yes, I am aware of the many varied things corn makes.I'm not debating that. But if a farmer cant make money growing corn on his own, why is it the taxpayers duty to make up the difference? When I build a house,and dont make as much money as I'd like, should the government pay me as well? 
Here are some numbers from one of the farms I worked for in the early 2000's.

http://farm.ewg.org/persondetail.php?custnumber=A03568770


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Jan 9, 2009)

beowoulf90 said:


> So I think you missed the point..


No offense, but I didn't care about your point. I found your question interesting (why is Nature Cons. getting a bunch of farm subsidy money) and so I looked it up and since you asked the question I thought you or others might be interested in the answer. So I posted the link.

I'm with Trixie on this. I don't think farm subsidies are much of political thing as a money thing (and food security). Although it would appear to be hypocritical of folks (left or right) who decry welfare taking farm subsidy money.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Jan 9, 2009)

Trixie said:


> I thought subsidies were so American farmers could stay in business and keep producing food so Americans would not starve.


And be competitive on the world market. Or at least that's the other reason I've seen.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Dwayne Barry said:


> And be competitive on the world market. Or at least that's the other reason I've seen.


But why do they have to be competitive in the world market?

I do understand, in the pure sense, the idea of making sure farmers can grow enough for America's needs. 

If, however, they are producing enough for America's needs and have some to sell to others, they shouldn't need our tax dollars.


----------



## sticky_burr (Dec 10, 2010)

Windy in Kansas said:


> Are you unaware of plastics made from corn derivatives?
> Are you unaware of corn syrup?


thats because it is dirt cheap if it was at REAL market value there would be less waste and making kitty litter out of "food"
like fuel subsidies if oil was un subsidised and gas was 10-12$ a gallon maybe we would have fuel efficient cars too

the top farm subsidy in my state got 233,000 last year 100k more than #2 (~130k) so i looked them up. forestry they clear cut and put up house lots at 3k a acre in the middle of no where. so they are being paid to develop realestate they got for probally 500$ a acre. and not being paid to maintan a farm but to kill the (tree)'farm' off. they are not reseeding but taking profit now and forsaking future generations. dont get me wrong i am sure they were approved to do this by paid off officials, but this goes contrary to why the subsidies are there

first thing we need is to change public corruption to treason


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Jan 9, 2009)

Trixie said:


> But why do they have to be competitive in the world market?
> 
> I do understand, in the pure sense, the idea of making sure farmers can grow enough for America's needs.
> 
> If, however, they are producing enough for America's needs and have some to sell to others, they shouldn't need our tax dollars.


I don't have the economics background or knowledge to answer that. I listened to a book a little while back that went into the whole world food economy issue. Unfortunately I can't recall the title and don't see it popping up when I search on Amazon. Search food politics there and you'll find plenty.

I'm going to guess the short answer is and this is what that book at least implied is that without the subsidies our farmers would have a difficult time competing on the world market. I would guess for the same reason all our other industries have a hard time competing (i.e. our high standard of living, environmental laws, etc.).

I'm guessing given the direction of the world over the last several decades the option of not competing in the world market is even considered or isn't feasible for reasons I don't know.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Dwayne Barry said:


> I'm guessing given the direction of the world over the last several decades the option of not competing in the world market is even considered or isn't feasible for reasons I don't know.


I do understand they want to compete on the world market - of course, I think they intend to control the world market.

But the question is why should taxpayers be forced to help them be competitive. 

I'm sure there are plenty of companies who, if promised and given constant yearly subsidies to stay competitive on the world market, would return to the US.

Again, I understand the concept of making sure there is enough food for the people of this country. I don't think competitiveness on the world market is any business of our government and especially should not be the burden of the taxpayers.


----------



## Allen W (Aug 2, 2008)

These threads are always a hoot.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Allen W said:


> These threads are always a hoot.


Aren't they just - we might disagree on why they are.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Dwayne Barry said:


> No offense, but I didn't care about your point. I found your question interesting (why is Nature Cons. getting a bunch of farm subsidy money) and so I looked it up and since you asked the question I thought you or others might be interested in the answer. So I posted the link.
> 
> I'm with Trixie on this. I don't think farm subsidies are much of political thing as a money thing (and food security). Although it would appear to be hypocritical of folks (left or right) who decry welfare taking farm subsidy money.


Well since I'm against both welfare and farm subsidies and a conservative, that makes the OP null and void..Since they state that conservatives aren't against farm subsidies according to them, yet a liberal org takes them...

Imagine that!


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

You know, I remember some President - Pres. Clinton or Bush II, talking about giving money to companies who were already off shore to keep them more competitive in the world market.

So evidently we do other companies as well.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

zong said:


> The guy here, he's a lawyer, inherited a farm and got $119,000 last year. to not grow. *Like he was going to take off his suit, put on his overalls, and get to plowing. LOL*. There is some big rice producing company was getting a huge amount.
> ETA: Riceland Foods inc and Producers Rice Mill inc, both with the same zip code, got to be the same company. 868 million dollars between 1995 and 2009.


This shyster must never heard of "cash renting" land.

If that was the case, the the Lawyer would be PAYING taxes, on his cash-rented land, instead of taking agriculture WELFARE, compliments of U.S. taxpayers.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Trixie said:


> But why do they have to be competitive in the world market?
> 
> I do understand, in the pure sense, the idea of making sure farmers can grow enough for America's needs.
> 
> If, however, they are producing enough for America's needs and have some to sell to others, they shouldn't need our tax dollars.


Yes, America overproduces a lot of food.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Conservative or Liberal, most farmers can't say no to agriculture welfare.

Like most other Government largess, they are so used to taking it for so long, it has become an "entitlement". Until the laws change (which they won't), why should they stop? It's free money.

Of course, they will continue to scoff that those, who see no reason, to move out of section 8 housing (though they might be able to afford to), because they have lived there so long, that it too, has become an entitlement.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Trixie said:


> You know, I remember some President - Pres. Clinton or Bush II, talking about giving money to companies who were already off shore to keep them more competitive in the world market.
> 
> So evidently we do other companies as well.


I remember a president saying "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"
Seems to me opposite ends of the spectrum, the farmer does for the country while the professional welfare case lets the country do for him.
I have nothing against keeping the farmers in business, they feed the world.
What do the welfare people do for anybody?


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

I am amazed at people who can scream about something being so terribly wrong, but they don't know the very first thing about it. At least get educated on what you are screaming about so you can make a somewhat intelligent argument about it.

Do some research on the USDA website, or go bug the people at your local FSA office, but at least understand what you are so against.

Nothing worse than an ignorant ranter.


----------



## Allen W (Aug 2, 2008)

A new farm bill will be wrote this year so if you don't like the current one call your elected officials and let them know how you feel.


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

Government was supposed to exist to protect our rights. It is not to protect one person&#8217;s rights by taking from another. That is why it should not by force take money from one to give to another. Or take money from one to make food available for others. This is also why conservatives should agree that healthcare is not a right. Or heat for my house. Important, yes, but you cannot steal to get them.

Why are we at a homesteading site? To learn self-sufficiency through government? Why grow your own food when government subsidies make it cheaper at the store? Cheap food is the goal, right?

So we have an obesity epidemic, and government is keeping us from starving?

http://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/you-are-what-you-grow/


> For the answer, you need look no farther than the farm bill. This resolutely unglamorous and head-hurtingly complicated piece of legislation, which comes around roughly every five years and is about to do so again, sets the rules for the American food system&#8211;indeed, to a considerable extent, for the world&#8217;s food system. Among other things, it determines which crops will be subsidized and which will not, and in the case of the carrot and the Twinkie, the farm bill as currently written offers a lot more support to the cake than to the root. Like most processed foods, the Twinkie is basically a clever arrangement of carbohydrates and fats teased out of corn, soybeans and wheat&#8211;three of the five commodity crops that the farm bill supports, to the tune of some $25 billion a year. (Rice and cotton are the others.) For the last several decades&#8211;indeed, for about as long as the American waistline has been ballooning&#8211;U.S. agricultural policy has been designed in such a way as to promote the overproduction of these five commodities, especially corn and soy.
> 
> That&#8217;s because the current farm bill helps commodity farmers by cutting them a check based on how many bushels they can grow, rather than, say, by supporting prices and limiting production, as farm bills once did. The result? A food system awash in added sugars (derived from corn) and added fats (derived mainly from soy), as well as dirt-cheap meat and milk (derived from both). By comparison, the farm bill does almost nothing to support farmers growing fresh produce. A result of these policy choices is on stark display in your supermarket, where the real price of fruits and vegetables between 1985 and 2000 increased by nearly 40 percent while the real price of soft drinks (a k a liquid corn) declined by 23 percent. The reason the least healthful calories in the supermarket are the cheapest is that those are the ones the farm bill encourages farmers to grow.
> 
> A public-health researcher from Mars might legitimately wonder why a nation faced with what its surgeon general has called &#8220;an epidemic&#8221; of obesity would at the same time be in the business of subsidizing the production of high-fructose corn syrup.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I know that database, and I checked around real good, nowhere on it does it give the political inclinations of the "farmers". Don't you think your statement is clearly inflammatory rhetoric with absolutely no basis in facts??


If you will read my earlier post more carefully, you will see that I looked up the subsidies received by farmers in my area. Farmers _I knew,_ and knew to be Republicans. Like, umm, my boss at the time ... and his dad and brother.

Funny story: I was at a Farm Bureau meeting ... a lady was going around passing out Bush/Cheney bumper stickers (this was back in the day). She offered me one and I said, "No thank you." The look on her face was PRICELESS! For a fleeting moment, I thought they were gonna throw me out ... 

That area is so staunchly Republican that the head of the local Democrats once joked to me that her biggest challenge wasn't getting people elected ... it was finding candidates willing to run as Democrats!

Edited to add: I just looked up the top 20 recipients of dairy subsidies in my home county ... 6 were herds I used to test. Five out of the 6 were herds of 200 cows or less. The farmers each received $70,000-$80,000 _in subsidies_ last year. That's not counting the income they received _from farming_ ... just the subsidies. Sheesh, no wonder they all drove brand-new pickup trucks!

Ha, I just looked up the farmer I work for now ... he got $32,000 last year. Think I need to ask for a raise!


----------



## Windy in Kansas (Jun 16, 2002)

Jena said:


> I am amazed at people who can scream about something being so terribly wrong, but they don't know the very first thing about it. At least get educated on what you are screaming about so you can make a somewhat intelligent argument about it.
> 
> Do some research on the USDA website, or go bug the people at your local FSA office, but at least understand what you are so against.
> 
> Nothing worse than an ignorant ranter.


Thank you Jena. It became obvious to me that many don't know of the different payments that farmers and landowners can receive of what they are each for. I gather some are just lumping them all together and calling them subsidies. If they do educate themselves they will at least understand what the various payments are for and perhaps why there are those payments.

I wonder if CCC lending/loans shows up only as payments? Same for other loans. I'm guessing they show up only as payments to a farmer and the amount listed on those web sites do not reflect repayment.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Yes, America overproduces a lot of food.


LOL

Yet many on another thread say we are responsible for "starving Africans" because we produce too much.

Some will just whine about anything at all


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Windy in Kansas said:


> Thank you Jena. It became obvious to me that many don't know of the different payments that farmers and landowners can receive of what they are each for. I gather some are just lumping them all together and calling them subsidies. If they do educate themselves they will at least understand what the various payments are for and perhaps why there are those payments.
> 
> I wonder if CCC lending/loans shows up only as payments? Same for other loans. I'm guessing they show up only as payments to a farmer and the amount listed on those web sites do not reflect repayment.



Its pretty tough to keep up with ALL the different programs out there... the lists of govt. payouts are long.
Here is one I am familiar with....

http://www.il.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/eqip/index.html

You can read the details, but here is the bottom line: Wealth is being redistributed. Some of our fellow Americans might think this is 'good' for the nation. But it still goes against conservative principles. 

I advocate a reduction in government spending. Plain and simple. Unfortunately, the governor of illinois thinks taking more money from us will help us in some way.


----------



## Kevingr (Mar 10, 2006)

All I know for sure is that with the websites provided I have neighbors collecting susidies and they do not have a "farm" as we think. One neighbor who is collecting money has 40 acres of land that she has posted and doesn't grow a thing on it, can't it's covered in trees.

I'm heading into the local farm office to see how I can cash in, I actually grow stuff!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> One neighbor who is collecting money has 40 acres of land that she has posted and doesn't grow a thing on it, can't it's covered in trees.


It's probably CRP land, and the money paid isn't a "subsidy" , but rather a lease payment.

Details matter


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

Kevingr said:


> All I know for sure is that with the websites provided I have neighbors collecting susidies and they do not have a "farm" as we think. One neighbor who is collecting money has 40 acres of land that she has posted and doesn't grow a thing on it, can't it's covered in trees.
> 
> I'm heading into the local farm office to see how I can cash in, I actually grow stuff!


Get all you can before the collapse!

I'm fascinated by the notion that to keep food cheap, we should send all our money to Washington.

Yes, instead of spending a dollar directly for corn, send a dollar to the gov't and then the corn will only be 75 cents. Yes, you'll end up spending $1.75 instead of a dollar, but it won't feel like it!

Apparently the more money we give away, the more we save!


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Get all you can before the collapse!


The conservative motto. LOL


----------



## Windy in Kansas (Jun 16, 2002)

Kevingr said:


> All I know for sure is that with the websites provided I have neighbors collecting susidies and they do not have a "farm" as we think. One neighbor who is collecting money has 40 acres of land that she has posted and doesn't grow a thing on it, can't it's covered in trees.
> 
> I'm heading into the local farm office to see how I can cash in, I actually grow stuff!


Thank you old buddy Al for that with his theory about global warming.

That one may be about carbon credits.
http://www.truth-it.net/carbon_credit.html
"Forest landowners are paid to plant or manage trees on their land that soak up carbon and store it for decades, even centuries."


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

willow_girl said:


> I looked up the big farmers around me ... most had gotten more government money in a couple years than the average welfare recipient will collect in a lifetime!
> 
> They were all staunch Republicans, of course.


Farm subsidies do not exist to help farmers, they exist to keep cheap grub in front of those welfare recipients.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Farm subsidies do not exist to help farmers, they exist to keep cheap grub in front of those welfare recipients.


This is true insofar as SNAP program (what used to be referred to as "food stamps") is administered by the USDA. But I would argue it's the other way around: food stamps don't exist to feed the poor so much as to create markets for commodities, and thus amount to welfare for producers, processors and retailers. 

(Incidentally, this explains the resistance to limiting food stamp purchases to wholesome unprocessed foods, as this would cut the makers of things like Doritos, Captain Crunch and pudding cups out of the equation.)


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

willow_girl said:


> This is true insofar as SNAP program (what used to be referred to as "food stamps") is administered by the USDA. But I would argue it's the other way around: food stamps don't exist to feed the poor so much as to create markets for commodities, and thus amount to welfare for producers, processors and retailers.


I disagree. Food stamp users are free to choose whatever food they like.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

willow_girl said:


> This is true insofar as SNAP program (what used to be referred to as "food stamps") is administered by the USDA. But I would argue it's the other way around: food stamps don't exist to feed the poor so much as to create markets for commodities, and thus amount to welfare for producers, processors and retailers.
> 
> (Incidentally, this explains the resistance to limiting food stamp purchases to wholesome unprocessed foods, as this would cut the makers of things like Doritos, Captain Crunch and pudding cups out of the equation.)


I'm not talking about food stamps, I'm talking about cheap food. The US has the cheapest food in the world and the politicians want to keep it that way. Farm subsidies encourage overproduction and hence cheap food.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Bread and circuses, baybee!


----------



## rancher1913 (Dec 5, 2008)

what most don't get about the farm programs is that they are a means to control the farmer. I was told when I did my fsa paperwork this year that doing the statistical surveys were not optional. the gov can tell us what we have to plant. the gov can tell us who we sell to. what if we ignore them--we are subject to repaying ALL the money they have "GIVEN" us over the years. as of right now they don't tell us what to grow or who to sell to but they have in the past and will in the future


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

tinknal said:


> I'm not talking about food stamps, I'm talking about cheap food. The US has the cheapest food in the world and the politicians want to keep it that way. Farm subsidies encourage overproduction and hence cheap food.


Are we actually agreeing on something here?
... Who hacked your account?


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I disagree. Food stamp users are free to choose whatever food they like.


Actually that proves my point. If SNAP really was about providing _nutrition_ for the poor, it would be limited to wholesome foods, the way WIC (arguably) is. But it's not. 

(Did you know that food stamps actually started as a way to move surplus commodities? Originally they could be used only to purchase excess foods, and thus helped to prop up prices received by farmers. Hence their origination in the Department of Agriculture and not, for instance, Health and Human Services.)


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

Heritagefarm said:


> Are we actually agreeing on something here?
> ... Who hacked your account?


This has been my contention for years. I have stated this many times on this forum.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

I hear everyone about farmers getting tax money and subsidies, but you MUST realize (at least those interested in discussing this honestly and not as a bash the ideological party of your choice thread) that what is being subsidized is all the food that is growing.

The cheap grain that we use to trade/sell away to foreign countries to help make them dependent on us, the cheap corn in the tortillas that feed the poor Mexicans, the cheap food that keeps American's fat and non-violent (for the most part)...

Really, you guys need to open your eyes a bit wider.

The first people to suffer if Farmer's got their due paid to them for what the food was REALLY worth (ie how much it costs to grow it) would be the poor.

I am ok with removing the subsidies, but don't think it's the evil "Republican Farmers" that are getting the benefits of the program....

If you shopped, or ate tonight anything YOU didn't raise... you're guilty as charged.

(disregard this if someone else said it, I only got through the first page before I got tired of the sorry sad rhetoric).


----------



## Mike in Ohio (Oct 29, 2002)

rancher1913 said:


> what most don't get about the farm programs is that they are a means to control the farmer. I was told when I did my fsa paperwork this year that doing the statistical surveys were not optional. the gov can tell us what we have to plant. the gov can tell us who we sell to. what if we ignore them--we are subject to repaying ALL the money they have "GIVEN" us over the years. as of right now they don't tell us what to grow or who to sell to but they have in the past and will in the future


That's why I have nothing to do with FSA. Even got into a legal fight with them when they contacted me about our farm being "reconstituted". As I looked into it, we were eligable for CRP because some of our farm was designated as highly erodable even their own data showed it wasn't. I fought them up through the state level and then decided to give up and ignore them because it was sucking the life out of me timewise.

Now the interesting thing about FSA is that if you disagree with them they have the right to prevent you from participating (in the government organized and paid for organization) and voting against what they want to do.

As far as I'm concerned all those programs can be eliminated.

Just my 2 cents.

Mike


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Google is a beautiful thing. Looks like the vast majority of that went to the Minnesota chapter last year for conservation easements to convert farmland back to prairie.
> 
> http://www.hpj.com/archives/2005/apr05/apr11/NatureConservancytopsrecipi.CFM


So it is alright for a left wing tree hugger group to get paid to not farm their farm land, but those greedy republican farmers are hogs for placing their land into Conservation Reserve Programs that pay a bit more than what the property taxes are?

Seems easy to complain about what you know little about but hard to go downtown and see what the programs require and pay.

If class envy were a sport, there's some here that may be headed to the olympics.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

haypoint said:


> So it is alright for a left wing tree hugger group to get paid to not farm their farm land, but those greedy republican farmers are hogs for placing their land into Conservation Reserve Programs that pay a bit more than what the property taxes are?
> 
> Seems easy to complain about what you know little about but hard to go downtown and see what the programs require and pay.
> 
> If class envy were a sport, there's some here that may be headed to the olympics.


Better read that again. Individual farmers got the money. The Nature Conservancy (which is far from a "tree hugging" group) only facilitated the transfer.


----------



## Lilandra (Oct 21, 2004)

the current movement in subsidies is to convert farmland to green space that is regulated by the government. they are paying farmers to spend money to plant trees and develop land into unfarmed space to save the environment. its part of a global warming/carbon credit plan that makes no sense when you actually crunch the numbers.

if you really talk to farm folks, you'll find more democrats than republicans out there in the fields. but these are those old fashion democrats, not this new lefty liberal crap... these folks are union guys, teachers and the like...

look at what the farm bill actually goes to and you'll see it's not the farmer that gets the big bucks, and those "farmers" that do get the bigger bucks - they aren't your amish style family farms, its the new corporations run by a family that farms. the small family farm isn't a productive business model and is being displaced by bigger farms with more efficient business practices. ma & pa operations are quietly fading into the sunset like the corner drug store/ice cream parlor

i think before folks get their knickers in knots, they ought to do some reading outside of the rolling stone and huffington post for their facts


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Lilandra said:


> look at what the farm bill actually goes to and you'll see it's not the farmer that gets the big bucks, and those "farmers" that do get the bigger bucks - they aren't your amish style family farms, its the new corporations run by a family that farms. the small family farm isn't a productive business model and is being displaced by bigger farms with more efficient business practices. ma & pa operations are quietly fading into the sunset like the corner drug store/ice cream parlor


Are you saying that it's wrong for people to be able to make a living on 60, 40 or even 20 acres instead of needing several hundred to be able to make a living?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

I&#8217;ve read on this site, over and over, about the small farmers that throw away the livestock and crop surveys that the USDA puts out. People want to operate their small farms like hobbies, then carp about when those farmers that run their farms like a business get assistance.
This is a complex topic. There are scores of different programs and legitimate reasons for them. To explain a single program would be difficult because first I&#8217;d have to explain the tiny margin that these big farms operate under. A single spring frost could wipe out any profit for that entire growing year. Sure it can be tilled under and replanted, but the seed and fuel may exceed the margin between input and expected output. 
Without federal crop insurance, a crop failure could wipe out a cash strapped farm, forever. Banks would turn their backs on such risky ventures. The only ones left farming would be those connected further up the food chain, Con Agra, Smithfield, etc. Can&#8217;t complain about industrialized agriculture and cut the legs off the mid sized farms.
Erosion is less on green space. A Conservation Reserve Program gives a farmer an incentive to idle a field that might not be the most productive. You can&#8217;t dispute that tree planting, pond digging, etc. helps wildlife habitat. So, paying a farmer a little as an incentive, so the land is preserved serves, seems to benefit us all. 
Most of the farmers I know were democrats. They worked in the Union factories so they could afford to farm. The Unions all push the democrat agenda. 
If the profit margin on a loaf of bread is 50 cents and Ma and Pa&#8217;s Corner Store sells 10 loaves a day, it isn&#8217;t the government&#8217;s fault they went out of business. The small farms, operating on small profit margins, faced the same choices. When the kids didn&#8217;t want to work that hard and took jobs in town, it was easy to sell out. To the farms where the kids wanted to farm, they got big. But they also had to get smart. They learned business and operated the farm as a business. They bought futures contracts on their corn, so they knew what they could afford to spend getting a crop in. They adopted the latest advancements in seed and equipment. They created a business plan and stuck to it. Plus, they worked hard. Many found other angles to stay in business. Some sell seed, some market chemicals. Some do custom work on smaller farms.
It isn&#8217;t good for the consumer to have huge changes in prices and it isn&#8217;t good for the farmer either. Often times, things the government does affects the farmer. When the government shuts down trade with a country because they are mad at them, the farmer suffers due to the excess product in the market and fewer buyers. That&#8217;s called supply and demand. 
Do you really think those 5 dollar 40 piece socket sets from China aren&#8217;t subsidized by their government? Then you want to beat up on the farmers because the government promises to buy his crop if the price for a bushel falls below $3.50 a bushel?
This whole thread is people that don&#8217;t like the government, don&#8217;t understand a single agriculture or conservation program, have no idea what it costs to produce a bushel of corn or soybeans and are too lazy to learn about it from a government agency right down the road. 
So, go ahead, pump your fist in the air and curse the big farmer, if that satisfies you. If Homesteading to you is clinging onto the 1840s, fine. But I&#8217;m on here because I&#8217;m interested in homesteading TODAY. I can adopt or reject modern methods, but I intend to keep up on every bit of it, so my choices are educated choices.


----------



## The Paw (May 19, 2006)

If one were so inclined, one could look up the percentage of household income the average family spends on food, compared to 40 years ago. You would find that the current figure is a much lower percentage. 

This "cheap food" policy allows Americans greater amounts of disposable income to spend on toys, consumer goods, fashion, etc. The consequence is that with the lower prices, the margins were lower. The agricultural sector did two things (a) looked to achieve economies of scale by getting bigger operations and (b) agri-food processors vertically integrated. (Archer Daniels Midland and Monsanto still both do very well thank you. ) Both of these trends are putting the traditional family farm in an income squeeze. Agricultural subsidies are a political band-aid to avoid the backlash that would happen if even more family farms were forced to the wall.


----------



## chickenslayer (Apr 20, 2010)

haypoint said:


> So, go ahead, pump your fist in the air and curse the big farmer, if that satisfies you. If Homesteading to you is clinging onto the 1840s, fine. But Iâm on here because Iâm interested in homesteading TODAY. I can adopt or reject modern methods, but I intend to keep up on every bit of it, so my choices are educated choices.



I nominate this for quote of the decade


----------



## BetsyK in Mich (May 14, 2002)

Finally Haypoint, a voice of reason in the darkness. Thanks! I second Chickenslayers nomination.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Haypoint: Your post strongly implies that small farmers are somehow stupid.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Here is a radical idea - instead of sniping and griping at each other on the forum, hows about using some of that word power to write your elected officials and tell them it's a good idea to phase out farm subsidies? John Stossell did a great piece on this topic a few years back on 20/20. He showed a lot of info. from New Zealand, where they did drop their farm subsidies. At first there was marching in the streets and near riots, but as time went on, so did their economy. Farmers didn't go out of business in droves, nor were there shortages. 

The farm subsidies were intended to guarantee a steady supply of the staple grains. Like just about everything the gov't gets ahold of, it has been twisted around for political gamesmanship and bloated up into a program that is unrecognizable from what it was when it started. Remember when Sam Donaldson caught all the flack when it went public that his ranch received a big chunk of subsidies? He had sheep on the ranch, and there has been a wool subsidy since WORLD WAR I, originally to assure a supply of wool for the soldier's uniforms. Gee, ya think that program has run its course yet??


----------



## Stephen in SOKY (Jun 6, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> Haypoint: Your post strongly implies that small farmers are somehow stupid.


In all the time I've been here at HT, I cannot recall a single thread started by any of our numerous modern farmers deriding your type of farming. Never. Yet the modern farmers are attacked several times a week. Is there a reason you can't pay them the respect they pay you?


----------



## Canning Girl (Jan 13, 2010)

I grew up on a small family farm, and I have relatives who are still farming in that same county. The land they farm has all been inherited, free and clear, and they own several large implement businesses in the area. They don't need government subsidies. Yet I went to the link provided earlier in this thread and saw that in any given year they are receiving around $100,000 from the govt. Other big farmers in that county are getting $500,000 to $1,000,000 a year from subsidies. These are families who have formed corporations and make a living (partially) from figuring out how to get the most money they can from the federal govt. That, IMO, is wrong, and it exemplifies the attitude of many across social/political/ethnic groups in America. If we all try to get the most that we can from every govt. program that we can access, how long before this country goes down, eaten from within?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Are you saying that it's wrong for people to be able to make a living on 60, 40 or even 20 acres instead of needing several hundred to be able to make a living?


You seem to be saying the big farmers are wrong many times a day.

Stop pretending your little farm is capable of feeding the world, and stop trying to tell everyone how to run their business.

No one is trying to tell you what to do on your place


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Haypoint: Your post strongly implies that small farmers are somehow stupid.


Not all of them


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

Heritagefarm said:


> Haypoint: Your post strongly implies that small farmers are somehow stupid.


Sounds to me like someone has acreage envy.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Jan 9, 2009)

seedspreader said:


> The first people to suffer if Farmer's got their due paid to them for what the food was REALLY worth (ie how much it costs to grow it) would be the poor.


Every informed discussion of this issue discusses this basic fact. Ending subsidies would almost certainly increase the cost of food. I would imagine probably run a lot of U.S. farmers competing with foreign growers out of business too?

I'm not decided one way or the other and think any changes that did occur would have to be implemented gradually and with caution.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Most of the farmers I know were democrats. They worked in the Union factories so they could afford to farm. The Unions all push the democrat agenda.


In northern Michigan? Oh, you must be talking about the guys from Macomb and Oakland counties who buy 40 acres 'up North' to hunt and snowmobile on, then plant it up in Christmas trees so they can get tax breaks for 'agriculture.'

Of all the farmers I knew in Michigan, I can think of only 1 who was a Democrat, and he didn't actually own the farm -- his parents did, and they were Republicans.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

willow_girl said:


> In northern Michigan? Oh, you must be talking about the guys from Macomb and Oakland counties who buy 40 acres 'up North' to hunt and snowmobile on, then plant it up in Christmas trees so they can get tax breaks for 'agriculture.'
> 
> Of all the farmers I knew in Michigan, I can think of only 1 who was a Democrat, and he didn't actually own the farm -- his parents did, and they were Republicans.


Agreed. This is a mostly republican area, with lots of small agriculture. (mostly cows) Small farmers have routinely been the most republican people.


----------



## mrpink (Jun 29, 2008)

haypoint said:


> Iâve read on this site, over and over, about the small farmers that throw away the livestock and crop surveys that the USDA puts out. People want to operate their small farms like hobbies, then carp about when those farmers that run their farms like a business get assistance.
> This is a complex topic. There are scores of different programs and legitimate reasons for them. To explain a single program would be difficult because first Iâd have to explain the tiny margin that these big farms operate under. A single spring frost could wipe out any profit for that entire growing year. Sure it can be tilled under and replanted, but the seed and fuel may exceed the margin between input and expected output.
> Without federal crop insurance, a crop failure could wipe out a cash strapped farm, forever. Banks would turn their backs on such risky ventures. The only ones left farming would be those connected further up the food chain, Con Agra, Smithfield, etc. Canât complain about industrialized agriculture and cut the legs off the mid sized farms.
> Erosion is less on green space. A Conservation Reserve Program gives a farmer an incentive to idle a field that might not be the most productive. You canât dispute that tree planting, pond digging, etc. helps wildlife habitat. So, paying a farmer a little as an incentive, so the land is preserved serves, seems to benefit us all.
> ...


I very rarely agree with you but I whole heartily agree with this post


----------



## mrpink (Jun 29, 2008)

Heritagefarm said:


> Haypoint: Your post strongly implies that small farmers are somehow stupid.


I didn't get that feeling. I got the feeling that he said time are changing always have and always will and that you have to adjust.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> Haypoint: Your post strongly implies that small farmers are somehow stupid.


Based on most of the posts on this thread, Iâd have to say ignorant, not stupid.

Ignorance is simply not knowing. Stupid is the inability to learn. There have been plenty of times when I have presented facts and busted myths, yet some cling to their baseless beliefs. I have, at times, been stupid because I believed those people were ignorant and simply needed some facts so they could realign their beliefs. 

This thread is chock full of beliefs that have no basis on fact. I was attempting to shed some light on this complex subject. I donât claim to be an expert, but even a short man is a giant in a room of little people.

If you are angry at what seems to be a waste of taxes or a free ride for farmers, knowledge will clear that up for you and you will not be as ignorant. If you canât grasp the concept and are not open to understanding and seeking out more knowledge, then you remain ignorant.

Either way, I seem to have hit a nerve (again) with you. Sorry.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

haypoint said:


> So it is alright for a left wing tree hugger group to get paid to not farm their farm land, but those greedy republican farmers are hogs for placing their land into Conservation Reserve Programs that pay a bit more than what the property taxes are?
> 
> Seems easy to complain about what you know little about but hard to go downtown and see what the programs require and pay.
> 
> If class envy were a sport, there's some here that may be headed to the olympics.


 I dont care WHO is the recipient...both the lefties and the RW benefit! dont confound the issue by turning this into another left- vs right thing.
The original point of this thread was to point out that WELFARE exists on many levels in our society. I mentioned farm subsidies for corn to illustrate that point. I just hope people keep that in mind next time they feel like trashing the stereotypical 'welfare person'.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

greg273 said:


> I dont care WHO is the recipient...both the lefties and the RW benefit! dont confound the issue by turning this into another left- vs right thing.
> The original point of this thread was to point out that WELFARE exists on many levels in our society. I mentioned farm subsidies for corn to illustrate that point. I just hope people keep that in mind next time they feel like trashing the stereotypical 'welfare person'.


Again, it's the difference between keeping a producer in business and a non producer getting assistance.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> Again, it's the difference between keeping a producer in business and a non producer getting assistance.


You are assuming that small farmers are not producing and not self supporting.

Some are and some are not. My husbands Uncle did very well with his cattle on a hundred acre farm. Though, not so many people would be willing to make their own fence posts, pay off their mortgage ASAP, and heat with wood and a couple of space heaters for the upstairs.

He had a pretty good standard of living, and he ate out often. But, his base costs were very low. And no, he was not eligible for government assistance: few small farmers are.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Cornhusker said:


> Again, it's the difference between keeping a producer in business and a non producer getting assistance.


 If your business model depends on handouts, its not sustainable. 
So if I as a producer, dont make enough to stay in business, the government should help me? They should reward failure? And that helps us how?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Cattle are not a subsidized crop, thus they are worth more.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

greg273 said:


> If your business model depends on handouts, its not sustainable.
> So if I as a producer, dont make enough to stay in business, the government should help me? They should reward failure? And that helps us how?


It assists the corporations. Being able to buy corn at below production prices allows excellent marketing strategies.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Greg273, I didn&#8217;t start the left wing, right wing crap, but I did respond to it, as you have.

It really isn&#8217;t a question if your business model requires handouts or not. The government plays an important part in the selling price farmers get for their crops. Government regulations that attempt to control inflation, government policies on what countries we will open trade with all impact the value of a farmer&#8217;s crop. If the government doesn&#8217;t offer crop insurance or set a support price, most farmers couldn&#8217;t take the risk alone. The result would be that your food stamps wouldn&#8217;t buy much. If the government will agree to pay a farmer the difference between corn selling for $2.50 a bushel and his costs to produce a bushel of $2.75 a bushel, then the farmer is willing to risk just breaking even.
Terri, there are plenty of programs that are open to small farms. Size is rarely a qualifier. Mostly it is just not worth the trouble for 40 acres, but is worth the trouble for 4,000 acres. If you think I'm wrong, site examples.

Heritagefarm, when the price of corn drops below the &#8220;support price&#8221; (the price the government decides it costs to produce a bushel of corn) then the farmer sells the corn to the government at that breakeven point. The corn goes into government storage and is used as a reserve. Years ago, that was where the food commodities came from to feed the folks on the dole. The government helps the market, both producer and consumer, the same way medication helps those that are bi-polar. It takes out the extreme highs and lows. 
If a corporation tried to buy up all the corn futures contracts the way they bought up oil futures to drive up gasoline, the government reserves would spill into the market stabilizing the price and keeping Junior&#8217;s Fritos cheap.
The government provides a safety net for the farmers that produce the food we all eat. It keeps our food cheap and allows us a chance to compete on the world market. Canada assists farmers, too, just in a different way. They limit production and set retail prices. Instead of corporations and rich people&#8217;s taxes subsidizing the cost of a jug of milk or a frozen chicken, the individuals pay it directly at the checkout line. Since it is corporations and rich people that pay most of the taxes in this country, it seems us common folk aren&#8217;t subsidizing big business, but actually it is the other way around. 
If you want the government out of agriculture, expect wildly changing prices and mostly higher prices. 
Ask a Canadian friend what they pay for a gallon of milk or a pound of chicken and you&#8217;ll see why they food shop south of the border.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Cattle are not a subsidized crop, thus they are worth more.


Wrong yet again.

Why not just give up?



> Premiums are not subsidized, but all *administrative and operating expenses *of the crop insurance companies are *covered by the federal government*.


http://livestockinsurance.unl.edu/resources_lgm/questions.html



> The Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service which manage the public lands, currently charge only $1.35 per cow and calf for grazing on public lands. Ã *That translates to an astonishing taxpayer subsidy ofÃ "$132 million Ã each year, and independent economists have estimated the true cost at between $500 million and $1 billion dollars a year*.


http://www.animallawcoalition.com/wildlife/article/1397


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

Terri said:


> And no, he was not eligible for government assistance: few small farmers are.


That is not true.


----------



## ksfarmer (Apr 28, 2007)

Heritagefarm said:


> Cattle are not a subsidized crop, thus they are worth more.


Ever hear of the LIP program ( Livestock Indemnity Program) for livestock owners?


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

> It really isn&#8217;t a question if your business model requires handouts or not. The government plays an important part in the selling price farmers get for their crops. Government regulations that attempt to control inflation, government policies on what countries we will open trade with all impact the value of a farmer&#8217;s crop. If the government doesn&#8217;t offer crop insurance or set a support price, most farmers couldn&#8217;t take the risk alone. The result would be that your food stamps wouldn&#8217;t buy much. If the government will agree to pay a farmer the difference between corn selling for $2.50 a bushel and his costs to produce a bushel of $2.75 a bushel, then the farmer is willing to risk just breaking even.
> Terri, there are plenty of programs that are open to small farms. Size is rarely a qualifier. Mostly it is just not worth the trouble for 40 acres, but is worth the trouble for 4,000 acres. If you think I'm wrong, site examples.
> 
> Heritagefarm, when the price of corn drops below the &#8220;support price&#8221; (the price the government decides it costs to produce a bushel of corn) then the farmer sells the corn to the government at that breakeven point. The corn goes into government storage and is used as a reserve. Years ago, that was where the food commodities came from to feed the folks on the dole. The government helps the market, both producer and consumer, the same way medication helps those that are bi-polar. It takes out the extreme highs and lows.
> ...


 I cant believe I am saying this but I agree with haypoint. I am very small and though not certified organic I mainly follow those practices and have found my small niche' but it would be absurd to think that eliminating all subsidies or modern farming techniques would do anything but wreck the world's economies and cause mass famine.

There is certainly room for improvement in how this country manages agriculture but some of the views here are extremely naive IMO. My fantasy is to go back in time to the era of small farms that fed locally, eating seasonally, crime was low, etc.....but thats all it is, a fantasy and the reality is that those so called good times werent really all that good to a great many people.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

haypoint said:


> Greg273, I didnât start the left wing, right wing crap, but I did respond to it, as you have.
> 
> It really isnât a question if your business model requires handouts or not. The government plays an important part in the selling price farmers get for their crops. Government regulations that attempt to control inflation, government policies on what countries we will open trade with all impact the value of a farmerâs crop. If the government doesnât offer crop insurance or set a support price, most farmers couldnât take the risk alone. The result would be that your food stamps wouldnât buy much. If the government will agree to pay a farmer the difference between corn selling for $2.50 a bushel and his costs to produce a bushel of $2.75 a bushel, then the farmer is willing to risk just breaking even.
> Terri, there are plenty of programs that are open to small farms. Size is rarely a qualifier. Mostly it is just not worth the trouble for 40 acres, but is worth the trouble for 4,000 acres. If you think I'm wrong, site examples.
> ...


We already had a price support system. When subsidies went in place it was to _intentionally boost production_, to help prevent hunger. And then they stayed. And now we have enough food for 9 billion people. We are in a state of over-production.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

ksfarmer said:


> Ever hear of the LIP program ( Livestock Indemnity Program) for livestock owners?


They pay you if you lose animals... I wouldn't call that a subsidy.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

What we have then is government stepping in to 'assist' with a problem that it helped create in the first place. 

I agree, there is room for improvements in agriculture. But do you think the government, the distributor of all this wonderful, farm-saving money, is actually interested in ANY solutions that dont require collusion with Monsanto, DuPont, Cargill, ADM, etc? 

I'm glad I asked these questions, its been very informative to see the responses, and to get an idea of peoples views on government handouts.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

MO_cows said:


> Here is a radical idea - instead of sniping and griping at each other on the forum, hows about using some of that word power to write your elected officials and tell them it's a good idea to phase out farm subsidies? John Stossell did a great piece on this topic a few years back on 20/20. * He showed a lot of info. from New Zealand, where they did drop their farm subsidies. At first there was marching in the streets and near riots, but as time went on, so did their economy. Farmers didn't go out of business in droves, nor were there shortages*.
> 
> The farm subsidies were intended to guarantee a steady supply of the staple grains. Like just about everything the gov't gets ahold of, it has been twisted around for political gamesmanship and bloated up into a program that is unrecognizable from what it was when it started. Remember when Sam Donaldson caught all the flack when it went public that his ranch received a big chunk of subsidies? He had sheep on the ranch, and there has been a wool subsidy since WORLD WAR I, originally to assure a supply of wool for the soldier's uniforms. Gee, ya think that program has run its course yet??


 Good point!


----------



## The Paw (May 19, 2006)

haypoint said:


> Canada assists farmers, too, just in a different way. They limit production and set retail prices. Instead of corporations and rich peopleâs taxes subsidizing the cost of a jug of milk or a frozen chicken, the individuals pay it directly at the checkout line. Since it is corporations and rich people that pay most of the taxes in this country, it seems us common folk arenât subsidizing big business, but actually it is the other way around.
> If you want the government out of agriculture, expect wildly changing prices and mostly higher prices.
> Ask a Canadian friend what they pay for a gallon of milk or a pound of chicken and youâll see why they food shop south of the border.


Canada has a mix of supply management and open market products in agriculture. Dairy, eggs and poultry are all under supply management through marketing boards. Year after year, these are the farms with best net income.

The Canadian Wheat Board requires all farmers from MB west to sell wheat and barley through the Wheat Board at pooled pricing. Other grains, oats, canola, beans, etc are all non-restricted. 

Beef is not supply managed, and consequently there are a lot of small time marginal beef operators that had little or no resilency when the BSE crisis hit. Pork used to be supply managed, and then went to an open market. We saw a massive expansion of industrial hog barns, and now of course the prices are in the toilet, and a lot of operators are bleeding cash. 

I am not as familiar with the specifics of crop insurance and income support programs, but I think the general theme is the same: Agri-corps are making out like bandits, there is a price squeeze on the farmer, and the only real option is to get bigger or start working off-farm.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> They pay you if you lose animals... I wouldn't call that a subsidy.


What you choose to call it doesn't change what it truly is, but merely shows you will deny the facts even in the face of evidence:



> *Livestock Subsidies *in the United States totaled $3.5 billion from 1995-2009.


http://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=livestock


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> What you choose to call it doesn't change what it truly is, but merely shows you will deny the facts even in the face of evidence:
> 
> 
> 
> http://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=livestock


$25 million per year vs. 20-30 billion per year for crops?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> $25 million per year vs. 20-30 billion per year for crops?


You claimed there were* NO *subsidies and now you want to discuss the *amounts*?

LOL

You have 0 credibility


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

greg273 said:


> If your business model depends on handouts, its not sustainable.
> So if I as a producer, dont make enough to stay in business, the government should help me? They should reward failure? And that helps us how?


The farmers don't set the price they get for their crops, and the subsidies are to keep the food cheap so the city folks don't pay $9 for a loaf of bread.
Personally, I'm all for getting the government out of farming and out of the price fixing racket.
Let the farmers do what they do so well and let the rest of the country fend for themselves.


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

If there is such a program it is to make the politicians look good. So they can say "look we are keeping food cheap so you can afford it".
In the mean time the corporations get away with not paying the employees enough to buy food at regular prices. 
Besides that the polticians get kick backs from the substity reicpients to pass the bills allowing the substidies.
Same reason we are so far in debt. Politicians didn't want to look like they were doing a bad job, so they started borrowing money instead of raising taxes or staying on a budget.
Giving out more welfare, because they didn't know how to make jobs.
All of this comes down to incompetent corrupt politicians and the banks, and corporations.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

I'm all for phasing them out too... but the reality is that New Zealand is NOT the USA. New Zealand is not a bulk grain exporter.

Comparing USA and New Zealand is like when they compare the USA to Switzerland for any social program... not the same.

We are the worlds bread basket.

My point is that, we CAN stop subsidies, but it WILL be the poor, first in the world at broad and then locally, that suffer.

It might do us good in the long run, but don't think because a couple of hundred thousand New Zealanders did it without any adverse issues that we would be able to.


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

that's right, just like weaning the welfare recipient off the dole. How do you start with out hurting people.
I know they were all stopped once and the market did correct it's self. They snuck it all back in there when no one was looking.


----------



## DaleK (Sep 23, 2004)

Not to mention that New Zealand didn't JUST cut farm subsidies. They also cut education subsidies, road subsidies, welfare subsidies, etc.etc.etc so that EVERYONE in their society was in the same boat. You rarely see anyone using New Zealand as an example for cutting farm subsidies that will point that out without being forced to.... strange.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Cornhusker said:


> The farmers don't set the price they get for their crops, and the subsidies are to keep the food cheap so the city folks don't pay $9 for a loaf of bread.
> Personally, I'm all for getting the government out of farming and out of the price fixing racket.
> Let the farmers do what they do so well and let the rest of the country fend for themselves.


 Ok, so we end farm subsidies, what happens?? Fewer farmers will be willing to risk going broke, so they diversify, convert those cornfields to pasture, let cows graze on GRASS instead of corn. With fewer corn farmers, the supply will drop, prices will RISE and then they can once again make a living growing corn. Of course, the big middlemen in the whole scheme dont want this,because cheap subsidised corn benefits them much more than it does the farmers.


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

DaleK said:


> Not to mention that New Zealand didn't JUST cut farm subsidies. They also cut education subsidies, road subsidies, welfare subsidies, etc.etc.etc so that EVERYONE in their society was in the same boat. You rarely see anyone using New Zealand as an example for cutting farm subsidies that will point that out without being forced to.... strange.


This pretty well sums it up. In the U.S. you can't stop subsidizing one industry because another is getting them, and that is unfair. We'd prefer to all sink together. These wonderful ideas always run out of money because nobody can put a limit on doing good. There will be bankruptcy. There will be a collapse.

Maybe the Soviet Union had it right after all - guaranteed food and safety for all!

The arguments for farm subsidies apply to all govt programs. It is all fear based. If not for subsidized cheap food, we'd all starve.

If not for the war on terror, we'll all be killed by terrorists.

If not for the war on drugs, all our children will be overcome with addiction.

If not for the Dept of Education and student loans, our children will not get a college education and they'll fall behind the rest of the world and won't be able to survive, blah, blah, blah.....



> Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear - kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor - with the cry of grave national emergency.
> ~General Douglas MacArthur
> 
> We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security.
> ...


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

greg273 said:


> Ok, so we end farm subsidies, what happens?? Fewer farmers will be willing to risk going broke, so they diversify, convert those cornfields to pasture, let cows graze on GRASS instead of corn. With fewer corn farmers, the supply will drop, prices will RISE and then they can once again make a living growing corn. Of course, the big middlemen in the whole scheme dont want this,because cheap subsidised corn benefits them much more than it does the farmers.


Greg, while you make sense, realize that government is a religion. It is our source of salvation. Without it, we will experience everlasting death. The god of government will save us from all evil. Fortunately, we are preaching the word to all our kids in government schools. Many here at HT learned their lessons well.

Only when the system collapses will some question what they've been taught. But then they'll likely just cry out for more govt intervention. There can never be enough of it, especially when it needs to clean up the mess it created.

I get a kick out of the idea of government existing to prevent extremes. Like the housing bubble and bust we just went through, which govt promoted. And it's supposed to control inflation. Like creating the Federal Reserve in 1913, which has caused a dollar to be worth 5 cents. And how about the student loan mess now ($1 trillion) for a more worthless education because of govt help.

I could go on and on, but I hate to weaken the faith or some might not be able to handle life.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> If you want the government out of agriculture, expect wildly changing prices and mostly higher prices.


The thing is, most government subsidies go to only a handful of crops. Corn, rice, wheat, soybeans and a couple others. I don't think anyone is subsidizing zucchini, yet it seems to be plentiful each summer at the farmers market, and I haven't noticed any drastic price increases. :shrug:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The thing is, most government* subsidies go to only a handful of crops*. Corn, rice, wheat, soybeans and a couple others. I don't think anyone is subsidizing *zucchini, yet it seems to be plentiful each summer *at the farmers market, and I haven't noticed any drastic price increases


Subsidies go to *commodities*, not produce

All the subsidized crops are available year round, are easily stored, and can be shipped around the world


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

> We are in a state of over-production


LOL

Where?


----------



## HeritagePigs (Aug 11, 2009)

"If not for subsidized cheap food, we'd all starve."

Google "Americans throw away food"


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Jan 9, 2009)

HeritagePigs said:


> "If not for subsidized cheap food, we'd all starve."
> 
> Google "Americans throw away food"


I don't have the numbers at hand but I know I've read we also spend a relatively small percentage of our income on food as compared to others in the developed world (e.g. Italians). IOW, we choose to buy other things than food.

So there seems to be a good bit of wiggle room between the current state of affairs and starvation.


----------



## HeritagePigs (Aug 11, 2009)

Americans, IMO, have very little idea of the real cost of their food and therefore little respect for it. I am a small farmer and I am constantly trying to get other small farmers to price their products at their real value. I see lots of small farmers who get into the habit of trying to compete with Walmart which is something that can't be done. If someone wants cheap food then go buy it at Walmart. But if they want the stuff that small farmers provide then pay them what it costs to produce. Otherwise, make sure to say "Hi!" to that former small farmer who greets you at the door to Walmart.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

It also seems that, when we buy food that costs a little more, we heal ourselves. Buying more expensive food encourages one to eat less, while at the same time being fully and more well nourished. The solution to the entire health and food crisis is to simply "Eat food, not too much, mostly plants"!


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Jan 9, 2009)

Heritagefarm said:


> It also seems that, when we buy food that costs a little more, we heal ourselves. Buying more expensive food encourages one to eat less, while at the same time being fully and more well nourished. The solution to the entire health and food crisis is to simply "Eat food, not too much, mostly plants"!


For example, I started buying some tasty locally produced goat and cow cheeses and quit eating that yellow stuff that passes for cheese in the supermarket. Amazing how you realize "American" cheese has essentially no flavor beyond fat/salt when you start eating the good stuff.

Now, I'm eating less cheese overall, which probably benefits my health and still spending about the same as I always have on cheese.

Pretty much done the same with meat. Try to get local, pay more, eat less of a typically better tasting product and likely benefit the family's health to boot.


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> Cattle are not a subsidized crop, thus they are worth more.


Sure they are. Every time things get rough on the cattle producers they turn the CRP acreage loose to drive down hay prices and destroy the hay market.
HAY isnt a subsidized crop.


----------

