1776 till today: Who's bailed out more, banks or farmers?

No, I'm talking historically - what's the meter say right now. Who's gotten more bailout dollars, the banks or the farmers?

How much less food do you forsee?

Rethinking subsidized finance LINK ][LINK]

Very intuitive post I read yesterday (mostly the second half).

quote:

---

($30B annually last 60 years)

---

30?

I thought the farm bill usually comes in around 300B

quote:

---

But doesn't the bill usually cover a period of years?

---

Doesn't mean they don't pass one every year...

I'm pretty sure we had one in 07 and 08 and they're working on the one for 09

It's time to nationalize the banks and hand the keys to the farmers while announcing the subsidies to both are over. The farmers could get loans to buy fertilizer then and I'm sure bankers are good at picking crops.

quote:

---

Doesn't mean they don't pass one every year...

I'm pretty sure we had one in 07 and 08 and they're working on the one for 09

---

Per wikipedia...

LINK

Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, also known as the 2007 Farm Bill "is a $288 billion, five-year agricultural policy....continuation of the 2002 Farm Bill"

The 2002 one expired, but it continued through "continuing resolutions" until this new one was enacted.

The previous one was the 1996 bill.

quote:

---

Subsidies to farmers should decrease in 2009 since many farmers can't get loans to buy fertilizer. There will be less food, so make plans accordingly.

---

You couldn't be more wrong. Subsides are tied to the land, not production, and ag lending has been unaffected, except for maybe, a few high rollers. Farmers can take out subsidized crop insurance that guarantees them they can almost break even. Why would a bank NOT loan them money.

I work in ag, and while we are on the subject, BHO's $500,000 sales cap for subsides is a great idea, done in the worst possible way, for all the wrong reasons.

Half a million of sales is nothing. 90% of the production in this country comes from farms that sell more than that. The only guys who sell less than %500,000 are part-time farmers. Phasing subsidies out, for everyone, over five years would be a far better way to do it.

Eliminating subsides would make it easier for the best farmers to grow their business, by driving out the weaker, dumber competition. It would make food prices cheaper.

The Freedom to Farm bill in '96 was going to eliminate farm subsidies by 2002. Too bad it was back-loaded (subsidies dropped off sharp right at the end). Monica's blowjob coincided with a big drop in grain prices, and Bill Clinton agreed to shitcan FtF in exchange for support from farm state Senators at his impeachement trial. Had he not done that, or if corn was not $1.80/bu. in 1998, Clinton would have been gone.

What people don't realize is that the bulk of the farm bill goes to food stamps. Food stamps eats up about 67% with crop subsidies takes 14%. So if lazy a** people would get off their a** and get jobs and keep their child bearing limited, we would all be doing better!