Montana, rugged individualism, and Farm Subsidies (sales, insurance, lenders)

[ursa22]

Many citizens and self identified agricultural "producers" of the great State of Montana profess disdain for various agencies of the Federal Government. Often one hears of the rugged individualist who through their self-reliance, work ethic, and determination to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" meets with success and prosperity.
Given the flow of Federal dollars into Montana, are Montana's "producers" actually a burden on the taxpayer? Are we being swindled by those who perpetuate a self-serving mythology?
Montana Summary || EWG Farm Subsidy Database

[constantcuriosity]

If I understood the information obtained from that particular site correctly, Montana farmers received 1.5 percent of total and 2.2 percent of USDA subsidies given to farmers in the US from 1995 to 2010. It is up to the individual taxpayer and consumer to decide whether or not that constitutes a burden on Montana's part.

[oldtrader]

Did you look at what the subsidies are for.



1: Conservation subsidies (the second biggest subsidy). This is payment to farmers to keep some land open for animal and fish habitat for the good of the public, where otherwise the land would be used for other purposes that would make impossible for certain animals like deer, elk, etc. to exist. It pays farmers, to keep certain wet lands from being farmed, etc., for the goods of the country. It also holds certain areas from being sold to developers to build homes, etc. This was brought into being by people from the cities and environmentalists not by farmers. Certain farmers, are often kind of forced to go along with these subsidies.

2: Disaster subsidies. This is crop insurance, that the farmers pay for in case of weather or other natural happenings, that wipe out their crop before harvest. Without this, the farmers would not grow some of the crops that are needed to feed Americans. Without this insurance if a big windstorm came up and wiped out the crops of wheat in the wheat belt, many of the farmers would be bankrupt. Just as people buy auto insurance in case of accident, farmers insure their crops in case they are destroyed.

3: Commodity subsidies. There are certain crops, the government really wants grown in this country such as wheat. To get farmers to grow wheat which may be selling for less than what it costs to grow, farmers are paid a guaranteed amount of money to get them to grow the crops, receiving the difference between market price and the guaranteed price as subsidy. Without these guarantees, a lot of important crops would not be grown in the amounts that are needed to feed the country.

Remember that many farms in Montana are very large, and some farmers own many farms not just a 40 acre farm which is often popular in parts of the country. The biggest one has farms in 46 counties, and most of those are very large and/or has several farms in some of the counties.

Remember these subsidies are set up by the government to influence farmers to: 1)--Protect the environment and animals, fish, water, etc. 2)--Crop guarantees as in Crop Insurance to induce farmers to grow crops that are risky due to weather, etc. 3)--To insure a sufficient price for crops, to get farmers to grow certain necessary crops to feed the nation.

Take away the last two so called subsidies, and you would see huge jumps in food prices due to insufficient food of certain basic necessities being grown. A good example, would be bread, pastries, pasta, and many other foods such as Pizza, which would be much higher in price and in very short supply if you took away the crop insurance, and price guarantees.

Farming is the riskiest industry there is. It is so effected by weather including how much rain, drought caused irrigation shortages, wind storms, hail storms (a biggie), unseasonable snow and freezing, excessively hot weather at the wrong time, price fluctuation which will bring prices down below cost of production, etc., etc., etc.

Farmers operate on debt, and they often cannot get financing if they do not have crop insurance as an example to protect the farmers and the lenders in case of crop failure, and if there is not a guaranteed price that will bring in enough to service the debt on the crops that are risky to grow. Fifty Six percent of the farmers, did not collect any kind of subsidy. They were not effected by conservation easements, they had no crop failures, and the price they got of their crops was high enough that no subsidy was needed often growing crops that were not subject to subsidies such as animals, etc.

[ursa22]

State ranks 14th nationwide for receiving federal farming subsidies
Subsidizing beef for the Chinese market? http://mtstandard.com/business/local...9bb2963f4.html
Budget Cuts? http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/48097.html

[Geo Roam]

Party line post.

same old playbook.

Is it subsidies that are really the issue? Of course not.

This is a red herring (as always) and fully an issue of land grab.

Bottom line...land grab.

Biggest government takeover in a decade and it will not slow down for another year.

[mtboy]

Old trader you are exaclty right......

It is the governement who set these up...... to protect the consumer, producer, and environment.

One can dive into the numbers all they want, but without looking at the reasoning behind it, that is all they are is numbers.

Without these subsidies, an item may cost $2 today, $6 next year, $1 the year after that, then the following no product is even available, or you couldn't afford to purchase it...... in the end without these farms would go out of business, and in the end the consumer would get the brunt of it.

Ag markets rely on these subsidies to stay stable........ subsidies are not just present in the ag industry, they play a hand in virtually every market.

[gfunkerror]

Are these Farmers regular "Joes" or are we talking Subsidizing Corporate Farms? I just want to be clear in understanding who is getting the welfare... er I mean money to sustain a farm.

[ursa22]

Here's a an article about a "regular Joe" who has benefited from subsidies. I've included data from the Farm subsidy data base.
Police say guns found on man at Sacramento airport
http://farm.ewg.org/persondetail.php...mber=A08286059
I happen to know this nut personally.

[ursa22]

Originally Posted by Geo Roam

Party line post.

same old playbook.

Is it subsidies that are really the issue? Of course not.

This is a red herring (as always) and fully an issue of land grab.

Bottom line...land grab.

Biggest government takeover in a decade and it will not slow down for another year.

Which party?
Republicans pass on cuts to farm subsidies, cut food aid - USATODAY.com

[ursa22]

Originally Posted by oldtrader

Did you look at what the subsidies are for.



1: Conservation subsidies (the second biggest subsidy). This is payment to farmers to keep some land open for animal and fish habitat for the good of the public, where otherwise the land would be used for other purposes that would make impossible for certain animals like deer, elk, etc. to exist. It pays farmers, to keep certain wet lands from being farmed, etc., for the goods of the country. It also holds certain areas from being sold to developers to build homes, etc. This was brought into being by people from the cities and environmentalists not by farmers. Certain farmers, are often kind of forced to go along with these subsidies.

2: Disaster subsidies. This is crop insurance, that the farmers pay for in case of weather or other natural happenings, that wipe out their crop before harvest. Without this, the farmers would not grow some of the crops that are needed to feed Americans. Without this insurance if a big windstorm came up and wiped out the crops of wheat in the wheat belt, many of the farmers would be bankrupt. Just as people buy auto insurance in case of accident, farmers insure their crops in case they are destroyed.

3: Commodity subsidies. There are certain crops, the government really wants grown in this country such as wheat. To get farmers to grow wheat which may be selling for less than what it costs to grow, farmers are paid a guaranteed amount of money to get them to grow the crops, receiving the difference between market price and the guaranteed price as subsidy. Without these guarantees, a lot of important crops would not be grown in the amounts that are needed to feed the country.

Remember that many farms in Montana are very large, and some farmers own many farms not just a 40 acre farm which is often popular in parts of the country. The biggest one has farms in 46 counties, and most of those are very large and/or has several farms in some of the counties.

Remember these subsidies are set up by the government to influence farmers to: 1)--Protect the environment and animals, fish, water, etc. 2)--Crop guarantees as in Crop Insurance to induce farmers to grow crops that are risky due to weather, etc. 3)--To insure a sufficient price for crops, to get farmers to grow certain necessary crops to feed the nation.

Take away the last two so called subsidies, and you would see huge jumps in food prices due to insufficient food of certain basic necessities being grown. A good example, would be bread, pastries, pasta, and many other foods such as Pizza, which would be much higher in price and in very short supply if you took away the crop insurance, and price guarantees.

Farming is the riskiest industry there is. It is so effected by weather including how much rain, drought caused irrigation shortages, wind storms, hail storms (a biggie), unseasonable snow and freezing, excessively hot weather at the wrong time, price fluctuation which will bring prices down below cost of production, etc., etc., etc.

Farmers operate on debt, and they often cannot get financing if they do not have crop insurance as an example to protect the farmers and the lenders in case of crop failure, and if there is not a guaranteed price that will bring in enough to service the debt on the crops that are risky to grow. Fifty Six percent of the farmers, did not collect any kind of subsidy. They were not effected by conservation easements, they had no crop failures, and the price they got of their crops was high enough that no subsidy was needed often growing crops that were not subject to subsidies such as animals, etc.

It sounds like a sure thing. No wonder so many corporations are jumping into the agricultural sector.
Last week, we took 19 head of dry cows to the sales ring and benefited from record high cattle prices. Due to ethical considerations, we are among the "producers" who do not receive subsidies (although we are eligible).