Topic: Welfare Checks Keep Coming
started by: bancgrl
Posted by bancgrl on Mar. 09 2008,8:26 am
< http://farm.ewg.org/farm....de=corn >Nice welfare checks for Sunset Farm.
< http://www.albertleatribune.com/articles/2008/03/08/news/news4.txt >
Isn't he also the big shot in the ethanol plant?
Interesting article here also.
< www.minnesotaoutside.blogspot.com >
Posted by hot84svo on Mar. 09 2008,10:46 am
I didn't see the term "welfare" listed in the link- what are you talking about?
Posted by TameThaTane on Mar. 09 2008,11:06 am
How much you wanna bet even with the hundreds of thousands ($700,000) he gets off farm welfare in ONE year, he's against welfare for single moms. They're all like that. Rednecks.
Posted by Moparman on Mar. 09 2008,11:32 am
It is still hard to believe that some people still think that subsidy payments are "welfare" to farmers.
Posted by TameThaTane on Mar. 09 2008,4:20 pm
What do you call it....earned income? 
Posted by Merlyn on Mar. 09 2008,4:46 pm
(TameThaTane @ Mar. 09 2008,4:20 pm)
QUOTE
What do you call it....earned income?
Call it anything but welfare, you don't want to hurt the feelings of the welfare, sorry, FARMERS.
Pestorious needs the money to heat his mansion
(the one all you taxpayers are paying for).
< http://www.angelfire.com/pa....in.html >
Posted by bancgrl on Mar. 10 2008,9:46 am
(hot84svo @ Mar. 09 2008,10:46 am)
QUOTE
I didn't see the term "welfare" listed in the link- what are you talking about?
wel·fare (wlfâr)
n.
1.
a. Health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being.
b. Prosperity.
2. Welfare work.
3.
a. Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government.
b. Corporate welfare. (FARMERS)(ETHANOL PLANTS)
Did I type to fast for you?
Maybe someone could read this to you.
Posted by Mamma on Mar. 10 2008,9:57 am
I just wonder how this "welfare" affects the price of the food we eat.
Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 10 2008,3:10 pm
Welfare has income guidelines, time limits , base line benefits, it seems with farm subsidies no such limits exist.
Posted by hot84svo on Mar. 10 2008,7:01 pm
Where did this definition of welfare come from? QUOTE
b. Corporate welfare. (FARMERS)(ETHANOL PLANTS)
You can have your own opinion but not your own facts.
Posted by MADDOG on Mar. 10 2008,8:25 pm
QUOTE
The Archer Daniels Midland Corporation (ADM) has been the most prominent recipient of corporate welfare in recent U.S. history. ADM and its chairman Dwayne Andreas have lavishly fertilized both political parties with millions of dollars in handouts and in return have reaped billion-dollar windfalls from taxpayers and consumers. Thanks to federal protection of the domestic sugar industry, ethanol subsidies, subsidized grain exports, and various other programs, ADM has cost the American economy billions of dollars since 1980 and has indirectly cost Americans tens of billions of dollars in higher prices and higher taxes over that same period. At least 43 percent of ADM's annual profits are from products heavily subsidized or protected by the American government. Moreover, every $1 of profits earned by ADM's corn sweetener operation costs consumers $10, and every $1 of profits earned by its ethanol operation costs taxpayers $30
< CATO Institute >
< CATO Institute >
Posted by TameThaTane on Mar. 10 2008,9:42 pm
Poor families and single moms don't get welfare. They get government subsidies. You can have your own opinion but not your own facts. 
Posted by hot84svo on Mar. 10 2008,9:48 pm
This is the same Cato Institute pushing for legalization of currently controlled substances like pot.TTT rants have more facts than the typical Cato report! Cato reports only are rational to the uneducated and uniformed readers.
As the Joe Friday character frequently imploreds "Just the facts, ma'am, Just the facts"
Posted by TameThaTane on Mar. 10 2008,11:42 pm
They're calling for the decriminalization of cannabis. Even you can't get yer facts straight. Are you implying that's somehow a bad thing? 
Talk about uniformed and uneducated. A stupid farmer calling smart people uneducated? LOL You really take the cake! 
Corporate welfare is indeed welfare. If the term makes you feel bad, so what? It's just part of your denial in order to except your own discrimination. "When I get free gubmnet money it's NOT welfare. When the poor single mother does it IS welfare. Therefore it's OK for me to discriminate against that kind of trash while feeling good about myself".
I'm not buying it. Welfare is welfare. Free gubment money is free taxpayer money. Doesn't matter what you want to call it.
Posted by Common Citizen on Mar. 11 2008,1:49 pm
Here are a few questions for any farmer out there that receives farm subsidies. What is the subsidy suppose to do for you in this present age of advanced technology and higher yields and higher prices? What is the purpose?
How is it determined who does or does not receive the subsidies?
When the common citizen drives around the countryside and see's new equipment like 90' planters and 9030T tractors in the fields, year after year, with farmer's driving new pickups, are these the same farmers that receive these subsidies or are these large farmers already self-sufficient?
Just looking for honest answers to gain a better understanding to dispel any myths.
Posted by MADDOG on Mar. 11 2008,5:24 pm
This is perhaps a little known fact. Gary is going to have his own little private pond compliments of the state and watershed district.QUOTE
Chair, Manager Miller returned to a prior discussion on the Pestorious Water Retention Pond Project. The
March 14th, 2006 motion on this project was read and the intent to move forward with this project as it will
be of great value to the Watershed District was still the intent of the Board of managers.
Manager Overgaard offered the following motion:
Moved, to proceed, subject to State bonding, on the Pestorious Water Retention Pond Project.
Motion seconded by Manager Bakken.
Discussion followed. Manager Peterson called for the question.
A roll call vote was taken and the motion was approved with 6 yes votes from: Managers Bakken;
Overgaard; Sorenson; Nelson; Peterson; and Miller with 1 abstention vote from Manager Pestorious. < SRRWD minutes >
March 14th, 2006 motion on this project was read and the intent to move forward with this project as it will
be of great value to the Watershed District was still the intent of the Board of managers.
Manager Overgaard offered the following motion:
Moved, to proceed, subject to State bonding, on the Pestorious Water Retention Pond Project.
Motion seconded by Manager Bakken.
Discussion followed. Manager Peterson called for the question.
A roll call vote was taken and the motion was approved with 6 yes votes from: Managers Bakken;
Overgaard; Sorenson; Nelson; Peterson; and Miller with 1 abstention vote from Manager Pestorious. < SRRWD minutes >
Now, in their defense, if believed, I questioned why he got it and not someone else. I was told they asked several other farmers who were not interested in it.
Posted by Moparman on Mar. 12 2008,1:09 pm
Here are some facts/ quotes from FarmPolicyFacts.org:The commodity title of the current farm bill has saved taxpayers $25 billion.
98% of U.S. farms are run by families-less than 2% are corporate farms.
Family farms produce 86% of America's food and fiber.
"Our farmers deserve praise, not condemnation; and their efficiency should be cause for gratitude, not something for which they are penalized" - President John F. Kennedy.
There are more than 2 million farms in America.
America has the cheapest, safest, most abundant food supply in the world.
U.S. consumers spend just 10% of their income on food-the lowest percentage in the world.
Pharmaceuticals...paint...fuel...cosmetics...crayons. These are just some of the everyday products made possible by U.S. farms.
Today's farmer provides food and fiber for 144 people-up from just 19 people in 1940.
For every dollar Americans spend on food, farmers only get 20 cents.
The average U.S. farm is 441 acres-up from 155 in 1935.
There are 6.5 billion people on the planet, and the world's population will reach 8 billion by 2025. Good thing U.S. farmers continue to increase their efficiency.
"Cultivators are the most valuable citizens…they are tied to their country" - President Thomas Jefferson.
There were 13.4% more women farmers in 2002 than in 1997, according to the 2002 Ag Census.
Agriculture employs 20% of the U.S. workforce, or about 21 million people.
Agriculture accounts for roughly 20% of the nations GDP, contributing $3.5 trillion a year to the U.S. economy.
Agricultural land provides habitat for 75% of the nation's wildlife.
X-ray film…adhesives...ink...toothpaste. These are just some of the everyday products made possible by U.S. farms.
About 40% of the country is farmland-that's an area the size of nine Californias.
The current farm bill isn't just about farmers, food and clothing-it also provides nearly $40 billion for environmental conservation.
Japanese grocery shoppers spend 26% of their incomes on food- Americans only spend 10%, thanks to farm policy.
The market value of U.S. agriculture products in 2002 was $200 billion, or about $94,000 per farm.
Under the current farm bill, 2007 federal farm support is predicted to decline $3.9 billion since last year.
"In no other country do so few people produce so much food, to feed so many, at such reasonable prices" - President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
"Farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil, and you're a thousand miles from the corn field" - President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Compared to other major agricultural producers around the globe, the U.S. ranks near the bottom of the subsidization and tariff scale.
Nearly 6% of farm households have had a negative household income over the past 10 years.
Agriculture is America's number one export.
"It will not be doubted that with reference either to individual or national welfare, agriculture is of primary importance" - President George Washington.
Grocery shoppers from India spend 51% of their incomes on food-Americans only spend 10%, thanks to farm policy.
The Bureau of Engraving and Printing depends on farmers to produce paper currency-75% of every bill is made of cotton.
Posted by bancgrl on Mar. 12 2008,3:55 pm
(Moparman @ Mar. 12 2008,1:09 pm)
QUOTE
Here are some facts/ quotes from FarmPolicyFacts.org:
" Farm Policy Facts—a 501©(4) non-profit organization—is a coalition of farmers and commodity groups created to educate Congress and Americans about agriculture's contribution to a strong and vibrant United States. "
In other words, it's the farmers propaganda machine!
Now there's an unbiased organization.
Posted by Mamma on Mar. 12 2008,6:53 pm
The family farm is almost gone. Young people can't afford to get into farming. Looking at the country road I live on......There used to be 8 farms. Now there is one. Drive around the country sometime and take a look at all the barns setting empty. You see the farmers with the huge equipment, but it takes that size to run the amount of acres they are running. All that crop is not profit. The price of fuel, fertilizer, seed, insecticides, and insurance goes up with everything else. I know of a neighbor farmer who has big equipment and most of it is leased. Farming is a business and one of the biggest gambles a person can take. You are at the mercy of the weather and markets. Don't be so quick to criticize until you talk to a farmer and find out the facts.
Posted by GEOKARJO on Mar. 12 2008,8:03 pm
I had a farmer come in a answer all these questions common citizen posed I hope I remember his answers correctly.The money farmers receive from the government is payment to not work acreage of his land and leave it has habitat. The payment is not quite equal to the amount of money he would generate had he planted that acreage. With land at 3000 to 5000 dollars an acre a farmer needs to work that land to see an income, the government merely encourages farmers to set this land aside.
Are you sure that is new equipment in that field or is it well cared for equipment that could be as old as 15 to 20 years old. He said, I paid 250,000 for a piece of equipment I going to keep it washed and waxed so that fading paint doesn't depreciate that investment.
Posted by Moparman on Mar. 13 2008,2:23 am
(bancgrl @ Mar. 12 2008,3:55 pm)
QUOTE
(Moparman @ Mar. 12 2008,1:09 pm)
QUOTE
Here are some facts/ quotes from FarmPolicyFacts.org:
" Farm Policy Facts—a 501©(4) non-profit organization—is a coalition of farmers and commodity groups created to educate Congress and Americans about agriculture's contribution to a strong and vibrant United States. "
In other words, it's the farmers propaganda machine!
Now there's an unbiased organization.
Ok then, what statements on the list do you disagree with?
Posted by TameThaTane on Mar. 13 2008,5:44 am
Most of them. Families can have corporations. It gives no reference to the SIZE of the family farm. These programs were designed for the SMALL family farm, not to give Pastorious $700,000 in one year. Even Mamma tells us farms have consolidated.
Posted by Mamma on Mar. 13 2008,8:01 am
Well, sure farms are consolidating. When poor "Charlie" kicks the bucket and his kids don't want to farm.....then his widow is either going to rent the land out to the neighbor or sell it to them. Not much of an option.
Posted by GEOKARJO on Mar. 13 2008,10:47 am
(TameThaTane @ Mar. 13 2008,5:44 am)
QUOTE
Most of them. Families can have corporations. It gives no reference to the SIZE of the family farm. These programs were designed for the SMALL family farm, not to give Pastorious $700,000 in one year. Even Mamma tells us farms have consolidated.
The payment in Mn for placing land in soil bank is 135 dollars an acre that means Pestorious has place over 5000 acres into habitat
Posted by TameThaTane on Mar. 13 2008,11:18 am
Why does the minimum wage worker as well as anyone for that matter have to pay money out of his taxes to someone worth over $15,000,000?
Posted by GEOKARJO on Mar. 13 2008,11:28 am
(TameThaTane @ Mar. 13 2008,11:18 am)
QUOTE
Why does the minimum wage worker as well as anyone for that matter have to pay money out of his taxes to someone worth over $15,000,000?
Very Good you are starting to understand. Now if that program was not in place for the 15,000,000 farmer to rent his land to the goverment the 15,000,000 farmer would most likely farm it cause it would not be good business to let 25,000,000 worth of real estate sit idol for the little animals.
Posted by Moparman on Mar. 13 2008,2:20 pm
(TameThaTane @ Mar. 13 2008,5:44 am)
QUOTE
Most of them. Families can have corporations. It gives no reference to the SIZE of the family farm. These programs were designed for the SMALL family farm, not to give Pastorious $700,000 in one year. Even Mamma tells us farms have consolidated.
"Most of them". That is the best you can with up with? That is really disappointing.
Posted by Common Citizen on Mar. 13 2008,4:18 pm
(Moparman @ Mar. 12 2008,1:09 pm)
QUOTE
Here are some facts/ quotes from FarmPolicyFacts.org:
The commodity title of the current farm bill has saved taxpayers $25 billion.
98% of U.S. farms are run by families-less than 2% are corporate farms.
Family farms produce 86% of America's food and fiber.
"Our farmers deserve praise, not condemnation; and their efficiency should be cause for gratitude, not something for which they are penalized" - President John F. Kennedy.
There are more than 2 million farms in America.
America has the cheapest, safest, most abundant food supply in the world.
U.S. consumers spend just 10% of their income on food-the lowest percentage in the world.
Pharmaceuticals...paint...fuel...cosmetics...crayons. These are just some of the everyday products made possible by U.S. farms.
Today's farmer provides food and fiber for 144 people-up from just 19 people in 1940.
For every dollar Americans spend on food, farmers only get 20 cents.
The average U.S. farm is 441 acres-up from 155 in 1935.
There are 6.5 billion people on the planet, and the world's population will reach 8 billion by 2025. Good thing U.S. farmers continue to increase their efficiency.
"Cultivators are the most valuable citizens…they are tied to their country" - President Thomas Jefferson.
There were 13.4% more women farmers in 2002 than in 1997, according to the 2002 Ag Census.
Agriculture employs 20% of the U.S. workforce, or about 21 million people.
Agriculture accounts for roughly 20% of the nations GDP, contributing $3.5 trillion a year to the U.S. economy.
Agricultural land provides habitat for 75% of the nation's wildlife.
X-ray film…adhesives...ink...toothpaste. These are just some of the everyday products made possible by U.S. farms.
About 40% of the country is farmland-that's an area the size of nine Californias.
The current farm bill isn't just about farmers, food and clothing-it also provides nearly $40 billion for environmental conservation.
Japanese grocery shoppers spend 26% of their incomes on food- Americans only spend 10%, thanks to farm policy.
The market value of U.S. agriculture products in 2002 was $200 billion, or about $94,000 per farm.
Under the current farm bill, 2007 federal farm support is predicted to decline $3.9 billion since last year.
"In no other country do so few people produce so much food, to feed so many, at such reasonable prices" - President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
"Farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil, and you're a thousand miles from the corn field" - President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Compared to other major agricultural producers around the globe, the U.S. ranks near the bottom of the subsidization and tariff scale.
Nearly 6% of farm households have had a negative household income over the past 10 years.
Agriculture is America's number one export.
"It will not be doubted that with reference either to individual or national welfare, agriculture is of primary importance" - President George Washington.
Grocery shoppers from India spend 51% of their incomes on food-Americans only spend 10%, thanks to farm policy.
The Bureau of Engraving and Printing depends on farmers to produce paper currency-75% of every bill is made of cotton.
The commodity title of the current farm bill has saved taxpayers $25 billion.
98% of U.S. farms are run by families-less than 2% are corporate farms.
Family farms produce 86% of America's food and fiber.
"Our farmers deserve praise, not condemnation; and their efficiency should be cause for gratitude, not something for which they are penalized" - President John F. Kennedy.
There are more than 2 million farms in America.
America has the cheapest, safest, most abundant food supply in the world.
U.S. consumers spend just 10% of their income on food-the lowest percentage in the world.
Pharmaceuticals...paint...fuel...cosmetics...crayons. These are just some of the everyday products made possible by U.S. farms.
Today's farmer provides food and fiber for 144 people-up from just 19 people in 1940.
For every dollar Americans spend on food, farmers only get 20 cents.
The average U.S. farm is 441 acres-up from 155 in 1935.
There are 6.5 billion people on the planet, and the world's population will reach 8 billion by 2025. Good thing U.S. farmers continue to increase their efficiency.
"Cultivators are the most valuable citizens…they are tied to their country" - President Thomas Jefferson.
There were 13.4% more women farmers in 2002 than in 1997, according to the 2002 Ag Census.
Agriculture employs 20% of the U.S. workforce, or about 21 million people.
Agriculture accounts for roughly 20% of the nations GDP, contributing $3.5 trillion a year to the U.S. economy.
Agricultural land provides habitat for 75% of the nation's wildlife.
X-ray film…adhesives...ink...toothpaste. These are just some of the everyday products made possible by U.S. farms.
About 40% of the country is farmland-that's an area the size of nine Californias.
The current farm bill isn't just about farmers, food and clothing-it also provides nearly $40 billion for environmental conservation.
Japanese grocery shoppers spend 26% of their incomes on food- Americans only spend 10%, thanks to farm policy.
The market value of U.S. agriculture products in 2002 was $200 billion, or about $94,000 per farm.
Under the current farm bill, 2007 federal farm support is predicted to decline $3.9 billion since last year.
"In no other country do so few people produce so much food, to feed so many, at such reasonable prices" - President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
"Farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil, and you're a thousand miles from the corn field" - President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Compared to other major agricultural producers around the globe, the U.S. ranks near the bottom of the subsidization and tariff scale.
Nearly 6% of farm households have had a negative household income over the past 10 years.
Agriculture is America's number one export.
"It will not be doubted that with reference either to individual or national welfare, agriculture is of primary importance" - President George Washington.
Grocery shoppers from India spend 51% of their incomes on food-Americans only spend 10%, thanks to farm policy.
The Bureau of Engraving and Printing depends on farmers to produce paper currency-75% of every bill is made of cotton.
The contributions of farmers to this nation does not go unrecognized. I myself grew up on a grain/livestock farm. But if you were trying to answer my question, you didn't.
You said "6% of farm households have had a negative household income over the past 10 years."
That is not a large number in my opinion. Also, I am familiar with the ways farmers that make a lot of money make it look like they haven't made a dime on their tax returns.
If the average farmer around here owns, say, 400 acres of tillable land, that would make their net worth close to $2,000,000. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not know of any other type of small business owner in Freeborn County with a $200,000(for example) business receiving any government handouts. That's the point I'm trying to make.
Posted by TameThaTane on Mar. 13 2008,5:51 pm
^And it's a good point. You see, rich folks deserve free money, but the poor mother is just a welfare case. 
It's all politics. Other states get free money through military bases and contracts, we get farm welfare. It's the taxpayer who loses.
Posted by banquo on Mar. 13 2008,8:19 pm
< http://www.heritage.org/Research/Agriculture/bg2043.cfm >Farm payments go disproportionately to the rich farmers. The top 10% of farmers received 73% of the farm subsidies averaging $91,000 each.
The bottom 80% of farmers received less than $3,000 per year.
For more information on the farm bill go to the Center for Rural Affairs website.
< http://www.cfra.org/ >
It explains how the current farm program subsidizes large farms, and hurts the small family farms.
Posted by hot84svo on Mar. 13 2008,9:20 pm
For those who want to know about the current farm bill please review:< http://bennelson.senate.gov/documen....ams.pdf >
It's a government document, not a focus or political program report.
I get the feeling that a few members have class envy and are suggesting it is a crime to have received farm payments.
The farm program payments are legal.
Posted by banquo on Mar. 13 2008,10:07 pm
(GEOKARJO @ Mar. 13 2008,10:47 am)
QUOTE
The payment in Mn for placing land in soil bank is 135 dollars an acre that means Pestorious has place over 5000 acres into habitat
Sorry, Geo this is incorrect. There are 4 sources of farm subsidies according to the current [2002-2007] farm program.
CRP: Conserveration Reserve Acres: Land that is highly erodeable or bordering waterways that is set aside from crop production. Farmers are paid a yearly amount according to soil type and erodability.
Direct paments: Farmers are paid a yearly amount for being enrolled in the farm program.
Counter Cyclical Payments: Farmers are paid the difference between the current cash price and the "target price" based on an average of market prices over a period of time.
Loan Deficiency Payment: [LDP} Farmers are paid the difference between the target price and the current posted county price X bushels havested depending on the PCP [posted country price] for the day.
The reason the payments listed for 2005 are so high is cause the cash price was so low when farmers collected their LDP's, they made out like bandits! Corn was 50 cents a bushel just for the LDP.
Posted by Mamma on Mar. 14 2008,7:10 am
I think I missed something. How does 400 acres turn into $2,000,000? I'll bet if a farmer sold 400 acres he would not net anything near that. After the taxes and a nice slice for capital gains it wouldn't be that much.Somehow people that have not lived on a farm don't seem to understand how much expense is involved in this business. Farmers also pay taxes on every acre they own. I heard a gov. official say one time : The farmers pay to educate the doctor's sons.
Posted by RET on Mar. 14 2008,7:51 am
Yes Mama farmers do pay tax on their land but not to the extent that non farmers do. My neighbor pays about 2/3 of what I pay in property tax, it should be noted however he is taxed on 74 acres and I am taxed on 5. Additionally I receive a tax break for being permanently and totally disabled, without that he would not even be paying half of what I do and our land is less than 200 feet apart.
Posted by TameThaTane on Mar. 14 2008,8:18 am
What mamma can't understand is this issue is well known. 60 Minutes did a piece on it not long ago showed the program has morphed and changed from what it was intended to be. How large farmers would split up their land into smaller parcels to milk the system. How large farmers benefited most. Still we waste all kinds of money on the federal level. Why shouldn't the Midwest get a piece? But I say the farmers must split it with us and help us lower property tax in the city. YES they should be able to "steal" to get large amounts of free money only if they share it with me. If not, I say we stick it to em!
Posted by Common Citizen on Mar. 14 2008,8:32 am
(Mamma @ Mar. 14 2008,7:10 am)
QUOTE
I think I missed something. How does 400 acres turn into $2,000,000? I'll bet if a farmer sold 400 acres he would not net anything near that. After the taxes and a nice slice for capital gains it wouldn't be that much.Somehow people that have not lived on a farm don't seem to understand how much expense is involved in this business. Farmers also pay taxes on every acre they own. I heard a gov. official say one time : The farmers pay to educate the doctor's sons.
Land has sold for over $5000 an acre, some more and some less, so: 400x5000 =2,000,000 on paper, after taxes it would be 1,700,000 if the cost basis is zero. Sorry I wasn't more specific. I was generalizing my figures.
I did not bring into the fact expenses, costs, overhead, taxes, etc.. because all businesses incur those costs, so it was a moot point.
I have lived on a farm. Now I work with farmers. I have farmers that are close friends. I know what costs there are associated with farming. But to try and have an honest discussion about this always brings out the tapping shoes in them.
Posted by ICU812 on Mar. 14 2008,10:03 am
My thought on the corn subsidy thing is:Why does corn need to be subsidized?
300,000,000 people a day use it, just in the US, it is used everywhere, everyday.
I have no problem that it is, if it has to be but why does it with such a huge customer base?
Posted by usmcr on Mar. 14 2008,10:08 am
imho: in one word " polotics "!
Posted by Common Citizen on Mar. 14 2008,10:41 am
There are a lot of farmer's that 'know' farming but are horrible at managing the business, but year after year they keep plugging along. If it weren't for the subsidies would these farmer's still be able to farm.The farmer's that I see growing are great at managing their business. Are we still subsidizing these as well?
Posted by Moparman on Mar. 14 2008,2:25 pm
I have no idea what farmers you are talking to or about. Farming is not something that one can do by "plugging" along while being a horrible business person. In the past I traveled all over the country exhibiting at farm shows and attending grower meetings. I know for a fact that you cannot be a bad business person and run a profitable farm. Maybe if someone inherited the farmland, equipment, and a lot of cash could they do this, but not likely. How can you blame your farming buddies for not wanting to disclose their business practices? If you walked into any business and started asking questions about its taxes, expenses, and profits they would be evasive to. To say that expenses, costs, overhead, taxes, etc.. are incurred in all business and a moot point is also not quite right. You see if these increase a business can just pass that cost on to the consumer (price increases, surcharges, etc..) a farmer does not have that luxury. Sure prices are good now, but they could go down as well. As for the bigger farmers getting more money is a silly argument because obviously the more acres you run the more you will get. I will bet if you asked the best farmer/ business manager you know if they could make a profit without the payment their answer would be no.
Posted by TameThaTane on Mar. 14 2008,3:15 pm
Then they shouldn't be farming and much of the land could go back to tall grass prairie and we wouldn't have all the pollution and erosion we have today like run off etc. With fewer producers, the market wouldn't be so flooded and only those super efficient producers would be making it and be getting a better price. The way we're doing it now is ridiculous. But like I said, we waste all kinds of money on defense and bases and other things we might as well get free money in the Midwest as well, but I'd like to see politicians handing out everybody less. Grassley and other power brokers ain't gonna give Cali any federal money if we don't get free money too! It just pisses me off these same rednecks feeding from the gubmint trough have the gall to disrespect welfare moms.
Posted by Mamma on Mar. 14 2008,6:59 pm
Why don't you stick to a subject you know something about? Do you want to pay the farmers not to farm their land? Or are these farmers just going to volunteer to let it sit idle? Ok...then once the production of corn and soybeans is cut to a smaller percentage they will raise the price of the goods made out of them. It's all priced by demand. I just bet you would be screaming your mullet head off about a $10.00 loaf of bread. Then of course the price of meat would go up because cattle also eat grain. Good idea TTT
Posted by MADDOG on Mar. 14 2008,7:11 pm
Mamma, have you ever heard the phrase, "don't let your mockingbird mouth over load your hummingbird ass"?
Posted by TameThaTane on Mar. 14 2008,7:36 pm
Wee! Now I ride.
Posted by Common Citizen on Mar. 14 2008,10:44 pm
Obviously, I am asking for some answers that you can't comprehend.QUOTE
I know for a fact that you cannot be a bad business person and run a profitable farm.
'GONG'
I said, "There are a lot of farmer's that 'know' farming but are horrible at managing the business, but year after year they keep plugging along." I didn't say they were profitable. You're misinterpreting. And, IMO, it would be possible to keep 'plugging along' and be a 'bad' business person if you're receiving government aid just to keep you a float. I've seen it, and it's usually just a matter of time before, well, you know...
QUOTE
How can you blame your farming buddies for not wanting to disclose their business practices?
I'm not asking for trade secrets. 
I'm asking about government programs. 
QUOTE
As for the bigger farmers getting more money is a silly argument because obviously the more acres you run the more you will get.
It's not an arguement. Stop being defensive. With that statement you're acknowledging then that the bigger you are the higher the subsidy? So it doesn't really matter how big or much revenue you bring in, you're going to get a proportionate amount of governemt aid? This is why I asked, "If it weren't for the subsidies would these (struggling) farmer's still be able to farm.
The farmer's that I see growing are great at managing their business. Are we still subsidizing these as well?"
Settle down.
See, this is why I can never get straight answers. When I ask, people get defensive and act like I'm trying to take something away from them.
Chill dude...chill.
Posted by banquo on Mar. 15 2008,9:07 am
< ]http://farm.ewg.org/sites/farmbill2007/region1614.php?fips=00000 >[/URL]It's public information. Here is a link to search the subsidy database by city, zip code name, or business name. Simply click on the state you wish to search.
Like Jim H always said, your sitting in front of a computer, try using it.
Posted by Common Citizen on Mar. 17 2008,7:38 pm
Didn't mean to frustrate ya banguo, I was just looking for a more local opinion. I have read the website you posted and see that there are alot of local farmer's that I thought were successful and yet are receiving over $100k a year in subsidies yet they have new machinery, trucks, snowmobiles, boats, campers, etc... I guess the question that the internet does not point out is whether the farmer's that I think are successful really aren't thus the need for the subsidies.I'm just trying to get handle on why I would or would not support farm subsidies, that's all.
Posted by Moparman on Mar. 18 2008,3:17 am
(Common Citizen @ Mar. 17 2008,7:38 pm)
QUOTE
Didn't mean to frustrate ya banguo, I was just looking for a more local opinion. I have read the website you posted and see that there are alot of local farmer's that I thought were successful and yet are receiving over $100k a year in subsidies yet they have new machinery, trucks, snowmobiles, boats, campers, etc... I guess the question that the internet does not point out is whether the farmer's that I think are successful really aren't thus the need for the subsidies.
I'm just trying to get handle on why I would or would not support farm subsidies, that's all.
I'm just trying to get handle on why I would or would not support farm subsidies, that's all.
Think of it as a food subsidy. These payments keep the price of the food everyone eats low. Being successful has absolutely nothing to do with receiving a farm payment. How one could connect these things together is ridiculous. You will know when the farmers are not successful, because everyone will be going hungry. How do you know all these farmers have new equipment? Do you stop and look at the operators manual? This equipment is a huge investment. Farmers use it to make their living. They are going to take care of it. Just because it looks "new" from the road does not mean it is. I am not trying to be defensive, just trying to explain something in the simplest terms I can to someone who obviously does not even know the basics of running a farming operation.
Posted by Common Citizen on Mar. 18 2008,6:45 am
QUOTE
How do you know all these farmers have new equipment? Do you stop and look at the operators manual?
They brag about it. I don't have to ask.
QUOTE
I am not trying to be defensive, just trying to explain something in the simplest terms I can to someone who obviously does not even know the basics of running a farming operation.
What do the basics of farming have to do with wanting to learn and understand government farm programs. I don't have to give you my background again. Unless, of course, you feel that subsidies are so mainstream and have become the norm within farming, that we never have to question the validity of the programs. Then yes, I am guilty, of not understanding the basics of farming according to your definition.
QUOTE
Being successful has absolutely nothing to do with receiving a farm payment. How one could connect these things together is ridiculous.
I think many in the non-farming community relates government assistance as a mechanism to help the less fortunate in our society. That is why I can easily connect the two, being successful and receiving a farm payment. That is where I am coming from.
QUOTE
You will know when the farmers are not successful, because everyone will be going hungry.
That's a little extreme. It may create more competition but I don't believe it would starve people. Sounds like a scare tactic. We'd just buy food from South America or other parts of the world that could provide it cheaper. We're doing it now by buying other goods and supplies, that were once made in america, at stores like Walmart selling the same stuff from overseas markets that are cheaper? (not always better quality, but cheaper none the less)
Posted by Moparman on Mar. 19 2008,1:18 pm
(Common Citizen @ Mar. 18 2008,6:45 am)
QUOTE
They brag about it. I don't have to ask.
There will always be a few of these types in every crowd.
What do the basics of farming have to do with wanting to learn and understand government farm programs. I don't have to give you my background again. Unless, of course, you feel that subsidies are so mainstream and have become the norm within farming, that we never have to question the validity of the programs. Then yes, I am guilty, of not understanding the basics of farming according to your definition.
Because the government programs are a major part of running a farming operation. If you do not know how a farming operation is run you will not understand the programs. Do you think that farm payments are something new? They have been around for decades. Every farmer receives them. They have had become mainstream because of the peoples demand for cheap food.
I think many in the non-farming community relates government assistance as a mechanism to help the less fortunate in our society. That is why I can easily connect the two, being successful and receiving a farm payment. That is where I am coming from.
That is because the "non farming community" does not understand that the farm program keeps their food cheap, safe and abundant. They do not understand that anybody that eats food receives this "assistance".
That's a little extreme. It may create more competition but I don't believe it would starve people. Sounds like a scare tactic. We'd just buy food from South America or other parts of the world that could provide it cheaper. We're doing it now by buying other goods and supplies, that were once made in America, at stores like Walmart selling the same stuff from overseas markets that are cheaper? (not always better quality, but cheaper none the less)
Extreme? Where do think the food comes from? I will give you a hint, it is not the grocery store or restaurants. We already depend on foreign countries for our oil. I guess since that is working out so well we should just depend on the extremely stable region of South America for our food. Look at the problem with lead in toys made in foreign countries. Would you really want your food coming from one? We have all seen the devastating effects of the outsourcing of jobs has had on this country. And you want to the same for food? All this because you think it can be done (which it cannot) cheaper? That type of thinking is what REALLY is scary!
Posted by banquo on Mar. 19 2008,10:49 pm
(Moparman @ Mar. 19 2008,1:18 pm)
QUOTE
Because the government programs are a major part of running a farming operation.
This may have been true in the past, but with current farm prices how can you say these subsidies are needed? $5 corn and $12 beans? No way.
I can see having a floor for prices where subsidies would kick in if prices fell below a certain level, but paying subsidies at current commodity prices is ridicules.
Posted by Common Citizen on Mar. 19 2008,11:00 pm
QUOTE
All this because you think it can be done (which it cannot) cheaper?
You say that it cannot be done but by your own admission it has been around for decades therefore you have nothing to base that on.
QUOTE
Do you think that farm payments are something new? They have been around for decades. Every farmer receives them. They have had become mainstream because of the peoples demand for cheap food.
I agree with you that subsidies have become a norm in farming albeit to keep our prices down. It is then my understanding that we are compensating the farmer via subsidies to replace any financial gain that they would normally realize through normal market competition, which may or may not increase the cost of our food supply (has this ever been tested). So then the only question I have is directed towards certain farmer's that have more toys than the average joe who is not farming and not receiving government assistance, do they still need the subsidy and why?
Posted by hot84svo on Mar. 19 2008,11:57 pm
Boo whoo - he has more toys than me!!! I like said before - Common you really have a class envy problem!!!
The farm payments are legal. Just like the child tax credit is legal, standard tax deduction is legal.
I would guess you don't use any deductions on your tax return, you would consider taking them welfare and an unfair advantage.
Please read the Farm Bill link before posting anymore of your uninformed commy crap.
Posted by bianca on Mar. 20 2008,5:00 am
So......farm subsidies are ok for profitable farmers but JOBZ benefits for companies are not? 
Posted by TameThaTane on Mar. 20 2008,7:12 am
^Good point! Ha!OK, they're legal, but are they fair? They are? Then don't bitch when others get free money.
Posted by Common Citizen on Mar. 20 2008,8:35 am
(hot84svo @ Mar. 19 2008,11:57 pm)
QUOTE
Boo whoo - he has more toys than me!!!
I like said before - Common you really have a class envy problem!!!
The farm payments are legal. Just like the child tax credit is legal, standard tax deduction is legal.
I would guess you don't use any deductions on your tax return, you would consider taking them welfare and an unfair advantage.
Please read the Farm Bill link before posting anymore of your uninformed commy crap.
I like said before - Common you really have a class envy problem!!!
The farm payments are legal. Just like the child tax credit is legal, standard tax deduction is legal.
I would guess you don't use any deductions on your tax return, you would consider taking them welfare and an unfair advantage.
Please read the Farm Bill link before posting anymore of your uninformed commy crap.
I've never had a class envy problem. And if you have ever read my posts surrounding taxation and gov't aid you'd know that is not the case. You're totally missing my point. I never said anywhere that subsidies are illegal.
I could care leass how many toys someone has. Are you ready? Now pay attention. My problem is when they are getting gov't aid to supplement their income and somehow can still afford the toys. Receiving gov't aid is totally different than the gov't saying I can keep more of the income that I earn. Your taxes are not going toward my deductions however, gov't subsidies are funded by the tax payers. Deductions are not subsidies or gov't aid. You can't call something that's already mine (in this case my income) a subsidy or gov't aid. Child tax credits are not gov't aid. The income that I would normally pay in taxes if I did not have any children is MY income. I do deduct, and I also have to pay AMT. Speaking of the AMT, now that's a gov't racket. Do you even know what AMT is? C'mon you're brighter than that. You've totally taken my statements out of context. As far as the boo hoo? Damn right. I'll shout it out from the highest mountain when I see gov't programs that take income out of my pocket, which the gov't calls a tax, and redistributes it to others that do not need it.
Posted by TameThaTane on Mar. 20 2008,11:43 am
^I agree, but...QUOTE
As far as the boo hoo? Damn right. I'll shout it out from the highest mountain when I see gov't programs that take income out of my pocket
And I'll shout even louder when you support spending 2-4 Trillion(that's with a T) to play policeman in some foreign country. In that case you take 10's of thousands out of my pocket. Penny wise, pound foolish.
Posted by hymiebravo on Mar. 20 2008,12:55 pm
QUOTE
I could care leass how many toys someone has
For someone making that claim you sure seem to be bringing it up a lot.
Also I find it interesting that you claim you grew up on a farm, yet seem to have copius amounts of disdain for farmers. I've never seen that before. Most farm people that I've come across always seem to take a lot of pride in what they do.
Also it would seem you wouldn't have so many qestions as to the inner workings of it all.
When I think of farming around here, I think of run down dumpy looking places that smell like pig s***. Seems like I've seen more of THAT, then all these imaginary guy's sitting around in their Armani suits, collecting their government subsidies. That everyone here seems to think is the rule rather than the exception.
Drive around the countryside(okay maybe that's a redundant term when your out "in the sticks" lol) for yourself; tell me which one you see more of.
And that smell - it gets trapped up in your sinuses and it seems like you can't get rid of it. lol On second thought maybe you DON'T wanna drive around the country and look.
Posted by Moparman on Mar. 20 2008,1:28 pm
(banquo @ Mar. 19 2008,10:49 pm)
QUOTE
(Moparman @ Mar. 19 2008,1:18 pm)
QUOTE
Because the government programs are a major part of running a farming operation.
This may have been true in the past, but with current farm prices how can you say these subsidies are needed? $5 corn and $12 beans? No way.
I can see having a floor for prices where subsidies would kick in if prices fell below a certain level, but paying subsidies at current commodity prices is ridicules.
How about $4 dollar diesel fuel? How about fertilizer that could be $1000 a ton? How about cash rents in the $170 -$225 per acre range. How about increasing chemical costs? Sure the prices are high, but input costs have been going up right along with them.
Posted by hot84svo on Mar. 20 2008,1:34 pm
Just in case others readers don't know what AMT is:Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)
Definition: A separate tax system designed to keep high-earning corporations and individuals from reducing their taxes to a level that the federal government considers too low. The AMT basically amounts to a second tax system under which you may be required to figure your taxes if your income exceeds a certain level.
Posted by Moparman on Mar. 20 2008,2:03 pm
(Common Citizen @ Mar. 19 2008,11:00 pm)
QUOTE
It is then my understanding that we are compensating the farmer via subsidies to replace any financial gain that they would normally realize through normal market competition, which may or may not increase the cost of our food supply (has this ever been tested). So then the only question I have is directed towards certain farmer's that have more toys than the average joe who is not farming and not receiving government assistance, do they still need the subsidy and why?
You still do not get it. This is not "normal" market competition. The farmers DO NOT get to set the price of the things they produce. If you think that free market competition would not increase foods prices you are crazy. Just try to name one thing that everyone needs, not wants, pretty much from the day they are born to the day they die? And do not say air and water. Now put that product on the open market. Now what do you think prices would do?
Your last question is very confusing. If this farmer is not farming, not getting a farm payment, my answer would have to be he is not a farmer.
Posted by Common Citizen on Mar. 20 2008,2:04 pm
QUOTE
For someone making that claim you sure seem to be bringing it up a lot.
It's critical to the point I'm trying to make. Sorry if you're offended.
QUOTE
Also I find it interesting that you claim you grew up on a farm, yet seem to have copius amounts of disdain for farmers. I've never seen that before. Most farm people that I've come across always seem to take a lot of pride in what they do.
Why do you ASSume I have disdain for farmer's? Because I question the validity of subsidies being paid to certain "wealthy" farmers? Come on. I have that right. This doesn't mean I do not like farmers. I believe farmers help make this world go around and I believe it is the greatest profession on earth in my opinion. I don't understand why someone is not allowed to question certain things when it comes to farmer's without being attacked and made into some sort of anti-farmer zealot.
QUOTE
Also it would seem you wouldn't have so many qestions as to the inner workings of it all.
I said a grew up on a farm. I didn't say I was the CFO for my dad. Why is that so hard to understand?
Posted by Common Citizen on Mar. 20 2008,2:17 pm
(Moparman @ Mar. 20 2008,2:03 pm)
QUOTE
(Common Citizen @ Mar. 19 2008,11:00 pm)
QUOTE
It is then my understanding that we are compensating the farmer via subsidies to replace any financial gain that they would normally realize through normal market competition, which may or may not increase the cost of our food supply (has this ever been tested). So then the only question I have is directed towards certain farmer's that have more toys than the average joe who is not farming and not receiving government assistance, do they still need the subsidy and why?
You still do not get it. This is not "normal" market competition. The farmers DO NOT get to set the price of the things they produce. If you think that free market competition would not increase foods prices you are crazy. Just try to name one thing that everyone needs, not wants, pretty much from the day they are born to the day they die? And do not say air and water. Now put that product on the open market. Now what do you think prices would do?
Your last question is very confusing. If this farmer is not farming, not getting a farm payment, my answer would have to be he is not a farmer.
I get it. I have always understood why we have farm subsidies. What I don't understand is why every farmer should receive the subsidy? think of it this way...we have low or no income people on welfare to help. For whatever reason, other people have a high enough income which would make them ineligible for welfare. But in farming it doesn't matter how much you make. Poor farmer's, rich farmer's, their all going to get a subsidy...
oh never mind...
nuff said...