Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Cannot understand why the government pays these farm subsidies when Congress is busy slashing food stamp program and apparently 900,000 vets are being affected by the SNAP cuts. So can someone please explain why Congress is going after food stamps when this situation with farm subsidies exists? Are the SNAP cuts for show, or is there a real reason we need farm subsidies for the wealthy, but not food stamps for the poor and working poor? Not trying to be political, but it is difficult to understand the reasoning behind this.
While I am anti farm subsidies....this shows the bias agenda/slant of the OP.
1. Congress DID NOTHING to cut food stamps. A TEMPORARY INCREASE expired.
2. The 900,000 figure is bunk. (it's been discussed elsewhere, I'm not looking for it, feel free)
I really wish our congress would grow a pair and end farm subsidies. It is not fair to give billions out to all these rich ass farmers. Congress please end this archaic practice asap. Like the article pointed out people are really struggling and these rich farmers who are probably political donors have to keep the money coming around in cycle.
Too much WSJ/Heritage nonsense. Hong Kong is a tiny city-state and its top employers are its tourism, finance, and welfare industries. It has very high pollution levels and very low birth-rate levels. Do you expect that free markets will be fixing those problems, or will it be the state trying to tackle them?
I really wish our congress would grow a pair and end farm subsidies. It is not fair to give billions out to all these rich ass farmers. Congress please end this archaic practice asap. Like the article pointed out people are really struggling and these rich farmers who are probably political donors have to keep the money coming around in cycle.
As is the case with most complicated problems, it will take more in the way of intelligence and less in the way of testicles to resolve the issues in agriculture. Rumors of "rich-ass farmers" for example may be greatly exaggerated.
the reality is farm land is worth more to a developer than a farmer. to keep farmers from just packing it in and selling to developers they compensate them.
This is correct in some places.
However, people need to realize that the #1 beneficiaries are the American public.
They do not give most farmer's subsidies so the farmers can become rich.
They give the subsidies to keep the cost of food low for consumers.
However, the farm bill may need rewording and changes to improve on that.
On the edge of expanding population centers. No developer is planning to buy up and build in the middle of 10,000 acres of potatos.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyHarley
However, people need to realize that the #1 beneficiaries are the American public. They do not give most farmer's subsidies so the farmers can become rich.
Mostly to keep them from going broke and giving up farming altogether.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyHarley
They give the subsidies to keep the cost of food low for consumers.
That gets harder to argue when you consider that the cost of the corn in a $4.00 box of corn flakes is about 7 cents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyHarley
However, the farm bill may need rewording and changes to improve on that.
Hard to find people who wouldn't agree with that. That might be the last thing they agreed on though.
I really wish our congress would grow a pair and end farm subsidies. It is not fair to give billions out to all these rich ass farmers. Congress please end this archaic practice asap. Like the article pointed out people are really struggling and these rich farmers who are probably political donors have to keep the money coming around in cycle.
Please link to some "rich farmers".. I know quite a few and they aren't rich by any stretch of the imagination.. Ranchers are in the same boat.
Part of the farm subsidies go to help ranchers and farmers who are hurt by disasters, such as the large snowstorm in South Dakota the last couple months. A rancher and farmers "income" varies widely year to year.
I find it interesting that people are hot under the collar to help a family making less than $100,000 year, yet many of those same people support subsidizing many other income brackets so some family can afford a bigger TV.
That's a good idea, but if he or she is a Republican Congressperson, it won't do any good. Congress tried to put means tests and limits into ag subsidies in Bush's final Farm Bill and the idea got shot down quicker than trying to sell the Louisiana Purchase back to France. Republicans will defend to the death the interests of Fat Cats and Big Business. Those people are their bread and butter.
You raise some valid points, but you've oversimplified the argument and thrown in some of the usual "class warfare" rhetoric.
As a general rule the less risk involved in a farming operation, and the more labor-intensive that operation, the less-likely it is to be subsidized, The local dairyman managing 50-100 head with one or two part-time employees will get by. But a half-section (320 acres) in a price-sensitive crop such as corn or wheat involves more risk. Some farm operators, particularly those not tied to the time-demands of animal husbandry, work full-time outside jobs, or work those jobs seasonally, and most likely have spouses who work, so a loss generates a bigger refund of withheld taxes.
Part of the cost can also be tied to the point that American agricultural policy has always been tied to the premise of adequate supply as the first concern. Overproduction drives prices down, but the powers that be would rather deal with that than with a shortage.
Finally, I would like to point out that in dealing with tax issues for a number farm families over 15 years of operating a sideline tax business, I never saw a farm loss denied by the IRS. Admittedly, I practiced in the Northeast where most farm operations are small, but a fair amount of what might be called the "overhead" of simple domestic life can be deducted if somebody farms as a sideline.
As explained in the article cited
Quote:
The money being sent to Brazil is part of the international fallout stemming from U.S. government subsidies for domestic cotton farmers. The U.S. is one of the world's largest cotton exporters and hands out $3 billion a year in subsidies.
About a decade ago, Brazil sued the U.S. before the World Trade Organization. In its complaint, Brazil claimed the U.S. government had subsidized American cotton farmers so much it would make it impossible for other countries to compete. The WTO sided with Brazil in 2004 and said the country had a right to impose punishing trade measures against America.
Under an interim settlement, the Brazilian government agreed to withhold additional retaliatory tariffs on non-agriculture products, in exchange for the payments, until a new farm bill that contains measures to modify the country’s current cotton program is passed and enacted.
The debacle involved the World Trade Organization, which can hardly be described as a bastion of laissez-faire. No matter which of the major parties controls Congress or the White House, we are likely only to be pushed further into the swamps of "state" and "crony" capitalism -- because we're afraid of going "straight - no chaser".
When was the last time someone on food stamps made million dollar campaign donation? Most of them don't even vote. Politicians really care about one thing: getting reelected. If you don't vote and don't buy advertising for them, they'll pander to someone who will.
This is why we need term limits.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
