re: Let's Talk About the Farm Bill

quote:

---

Let me amend this. Farmers could pay the crop insurance if the price of every single commodity quadrupled overnight without the corresponding increase in production costs. The market could correct this but it would be at the expense of wildly fluctuating prices.

---

Prices would fluctuate greatly, but would be 4-5 times higher on average (and that's a low ball estimate), there would be food shortages, and our fragile economy would be crippled.

People not spending money now? How about make their food budget quadruple over night.


The AG portion of the farm bill saves the average American a substantial amount of money.

quote:

---

farmers aren’t necessarily struggling anymore. In 2010, the average farm household earned $84,400, up 9.4 percent from 2009 and about 25 percent more than the average household income nationwide

---

(1) 84,000 - that amount fluctuates greatly from year-to-year...depending on the most extreme variables.

(2) You average farmer has a higher level of education than your average American (most I've come across actually have a Bachelors)

(3) Take the hours worked per week compared to the average American. On the farm, I work an average of 63 hour weeks. When you consider that I take about 3 weeks of vacation in the year, I average almost 67 hour weeks of hard work

quote:

---

Lawmakers would compensate farmers by expanding another unjustifiable farm subsidy program: crop insurance.

---

(1) NO ONE could afford to farm...the cost of production v. the risk is too great a disparity.

quote:

---

Farm subsidies also hurt young farmers through their impact on land values. Almost half of the country’s farmland is operated by someone other than its owner. Those renters—especially young farmers who generally have higher borrowing costs to start with—face increases in both the price of renting and the cost of buying. On the other hand, farmers near retirement age, who own land through inheritance or length of tenure, reap the benefits of higher land values induced by the subsidies. In 2010 some 90,000 direct payments went to wealthy investors and absentee land owners in more than 350 American cities, according to an EWG report.

“It’s no accident that the average age of farmers is nearing 60 years old,” a friend who runs a farm wrote in a recent email to me. “We’ve drastically increased barriers to entry through subsidy programs, at huge social and economic costs. If I’m a 30-year-old farmer, as my sons-in-law are, I should mightily resent the fact that the landowner whose land I need receives government subsidies while I’m forced to compete against those subsidies to secure enough land to have a viable farm business.”

Farm subsidies benefit the rich and hurt the poor. They

---

I agree that direct payments do increase the cash rent drastically...and that often goes to a company that is flush with cash (the landlord).
On the other hand...the barrier to young potential farmers getting their opportunity is lack of land, high equipment cost, high production cost, and having no real credit (not enough to justify a large crop production loan).

People fail to realize the actual cost (and risk) farmers endure every crop cycle. You must have a substantial amount of cash (loan or your own) to even begin an operation.
There are very few businesses that incur the cost of production v. actual value of produce that farmer must face.
Lenders don't like that risk...thus someone with no proven record (on their own) has a hard time getting that start up funds.

The high land value is an issue...but it's not the real problem for young farmers.

In Louisiana, the problem is lack farmable land (there ain't much and getting less by the day), not direct payments.

However, if farmers don't produce...guess who gets cries about the cost of their food...the same people that cry about subsidies.

quote:

---

(2) You average farmer has a higher level of education than your average American (most I've come across actually have a Bachelors)

(3) Take the hours worked per week compared to the average American. On the farm, I work an average of 63 hour weeks. When you consider that
I take about 3 weeks of vacation in the year, I average almost 67 hour weeks of hard work

---

You think that's good enough reason for the taxpayer to subsidize you? You know what the work is like going in. My grandparents farmed, had a ranch I understand the work that is involved. It doesn't mean you are justified in welfare.

quote:

---

However, if farmers don't produce...guess who gets cries about the cost of their food...the same people that cry about subsidies.

---

Hogwash. Most people understand prices of commodities can be volatile. I've not seen anything that has me convinced ending subsidies will mean the end of farming, or that food prices will be sky high. I've seen a lot of scare tactics by farm interests however, to keep the status quo.

It's not a partisan issue. I've seen progressives against it, and I've seen libertarians/conservatives against it.

quote:

---

How do you become more efficient? Become larger...more land, less labor, better equipment, better varieties.

This puts the small farmer (young farmer) out of business and keeps them out.


How can you say that subsidies hurt the small farmer and then encourage a program that would eradicate small farmers and only enhance corporate farming?


And this quote says it all,
quote:
Rush Limbaugh says "The Heritage Foundation's Morning Bell is just terrific!"
.
A true ringing endorsement.

---

I'd like to think you're smarter than to take an endorsement to mean a source is invalid, but I don;'t think you are.

Here's a progressive source probably much more to your liking

Common Dreams

Here's a duscussion on D.U. you would probably prefer

LINK

quote:

---

I'd like to think you're smarter than to take an endorsement to mean a source is invalid, but I don;'t think you are.

---

You are right...an endorsement with little credibility doesn't make the source invalid.

However, a source flaunting an endorsement with little credibility does make me question that source.

quote:

---

There are many sources that challenge your view of agri welfare, I recommends you try to expand your knowledge. They are easy to find and you may actually find one credible

---

Roger, I invite any and all sources of information. I may not agree but I'll certainly entertain them.

I know farmers have a very staunce view on these issues, but having not grown up on a farm, I feel as though I approach these issues with a fairly neutral view point.

At the same time, I didn't realize rhe risk and need for many of these programs until I was figuring the balance sheet on a farm.

And while US AG has it's issues, it is the world leader. Sure there are small scale operations that may have it figured out slightly better but on a large domestic scale, no one competes.
So if we are struggling with the risk, what about the other less efficient arenas?

Maybe the reason small farms are struggling is because large, corporate farms are being subsidized and making it hard for them (small farms) to make a living and compete?

Maybe...


If a small farm wants to succeed in this national market, he must produce a higher quality produce for a specialty or local market.
It can be done with great success and I believe that is a growing trend.
But people must be willing to pay the higher price..in some areas it works...but not everyone is willing to go that route

second and third links you can tell that they are tapering. And with the direct payments out of the picture, a crop insurance will be more reasonable.

mais. I guess you could.

but I know round where I'm from it's pretty much just rice. soybeans is very hit and miss. 25% chance of more than breaking even at best I'd say. So it's not commonly planted.

Like I've said a lot of the farmers I know do not want to rely on the gov't. Rather just a true free market and do away with subsidies. But being able to buy crop insurance is one thing I think would have to remain.