- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Let's Talk About the Farm Bill
Posted on 1/29/14 at 8:07 pm to bigolecatfish
Posted on 1/29/14 at 8:07 pm to bigolecatfish
quote:
because both aren't crucial to national security or anything.
well shite, If they are crucial then lets give them more money. Double it- NO triple it- WAIT quadruple it!! I mean, if they are crucial then who am I to question how much money they really need?
Posted on 1/29/14 at 8:17 pm to highcotton2
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.
hey. I never said food prices wouldn't go up.
But the people who bitch about rising food prices are the same people who bitch about farmers getting help. Saying this with food in their mouths.
Posted on 1/29/14 at 8:52 pm to jimbeam
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.
Posted on 1/29/14 at 9:02 pm to stewie
quote:
The AG portion of the farm bill saves the average American a substantial amount of money.
The Farm bill is a boon for corporate farming. It hurts the US is many ways.
LINK
Good link full of information.
New Zealand stopped subisidies and surprise, no super inflated prices and it was still profitable for farmers.
quote:
Why New Zealanders don’t like subsidies
According to the Kiwi outlook, the ill effects of subsidies include:
Resentment among farmers, some of who will inevitably feel that subsidies are applied unfairly.
Resentment among non-farmers, who pay for the system once in the form of taxes and a second time in the form of higher food prices.
The encouragement of overproduction, which then drives down prices and requires more subsidization of farmers’ incomes.
The related encouragement to farm marginal lands, with resulting environmental degradation.
The fact that most subsidy money passes quickly from farmers to farm suppliers, processors, and other related sectors, again negating the intended effect of supporting farmers.
Additional market distortions, such as the inflation of land values based on production incentives or cheap loans.
Various bureaucratic insanities, such as paying farmers to install conservation measures like hedgerows and wetlands—after having paid them to rip them out a generation ago, while those farmers who have maintained such landscape and wildlife features all along get nothing.
Removing subsidies, on the other hand, forces farmers and farm-related industries to become more efficient, to diversify, to follow and anticipate the market. It gives farmers more independence, and gains them more respect. It leaves more government money to pay for other types of social services, like education and health care.
Posted on 1/29/14 at 9:10 pm to RogerTheShrubber
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.
This post was edited on 1/29/14 at 9:12 pm
Posted on 1/29/14 at 9:15 pm to stewie
Actually you are wrong.
you government leach
you government leach
Posted on 1/29/14 at 9:19 pm to stewie
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.
Posted on 1/29/14 at 9:22 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Removing subsidies, on the other hand, forces farmers and farm-related industries to become more efficient, to diversify, to follow and anticipate the market. It gives farmers more independence, and gains them more respect. It leaves more government money to pay for other types of social services, like education and health care
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.
Posted on 1/29/14 at 9:26 pm to stewie
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
Posted on 1/29/14 at 9:32 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
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.
Do you really understand the risk? If you put farmers out of business, you starve America.
One of the greatest assets in an ever growing world is the ability to feed oneself.
We are one of the few countries with that capability.
You take that away and you are at the mercy of the world.
It really feels great to be at the hands of OPEC...now imagine instead of having to pay higher gas prices...not eating.
It's not asking for a hand out. It's simply our government stating, hey...we know there are huge risks involved with farming. We want to help mitigate some of those risks because wee need you around for our own national security
quote:
It's not a partisan issue. I've seen progressives against it, and I've seen libertarians/conservatives against it.
You're right, it isn't a partisan issue. It's a rural v. urban issue. It's a people that buy at the grocery store v. people who produce that food issue. It's the lose of the connection between society and where they get their food.
I'm not saying that the entire (AG portion) of the farm bill is free from wasteful spending.
But it's not the problem with our country.
This post was edited on 1/29/14 at 9:34 pm
Posted on 1/29/14 at 9:34 pm to stewie
quote:
I'm not saying that the entire (AG portion) of the farm bill is free from wasteful spending. But it's not the problem with our country.
I agree with this. The issue of having low cost crop insurance IMO is not debatable in the talk of retaining national security however
Posted on 1/29/14 at 9:38 pm to RogerTheShrubber
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.
Posted on 1/29/14 at 9:59 pm to stewie
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
Posted on 1/29/14 at 10:25 pm to RogerTheShrubber
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?
Posted on 1/29/14 at 10:41 pm to stewie
quote:
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.
As farmers in NZ found out, it can be a profitable business without direct subsidies.
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?
This post was edited on 1/29/14 at 10:42 pm
Posted on 1/29/14 at 11:39 pm to RogerTheShrubber
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
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
Posted on 1/30/14 at 12:25 am to stewie
Its to late and I ma a lil too inebriated to wade into this much. I posted this the other day and it didnt get much talk especially from any of the many farmers on here. Now I will forward this like I did the other time by saying I love farmers. My family were commercial ranchers with a rather large operation. My dream job is to ranch and have row crops but the way shite is now is BS. Yal can bitch all yal want, the two things I know, O&G and cattle are also highly volatile and with a small exception with cattle neither get gov help and both are expensive start ups.
LINK
LINK
LINK
Now I have just posted the top two but I will say this.
If the fricking crop you are planting isnt profitable switch to one that fricking is. I sure as shite wish rig day rates and barrel of oil prices had insurance and price floors like yals crops do.
LINK
LINK
LINK
Now I have just posted the top two but I will say this.
If the fricking crop you are planting isnt profitable switch to one that fricking is. I sure as shite wish rig day rates and barrel of oil prices had insurance and price floors like yals crops do.
Posted on 1/30/14 at 12:28 am to GREENHEAD22
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.
Posted on 1/30/14 at 12:34 am to jimbeam
So for ten years they said frick it, plant it take the loss and get the subsides? Thats pretty fricking shitty. Now I am not a farming expert but I am pretty sure you can switch your rice fields to soy, corn, cotton the next year with no problem.
Posted on 1/30/14 at 12:37 am to GREENHEAD22
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.
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.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News