Farm Subsidies

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by 108, Jul 6, 2013.

  1. 108
    Offline

    108 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    17,990
    Likes Received:
    355
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings Received:
    +1,337
    Why is it not called welfare?

    Why is there no stigma with receiving it?

    Why is the higher fraud rate in receiving crop insurance payments versus welfare abuse, not being scrutinized more?


    [​IMG]
  2. demosthenes
    Online

    demosthenes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    7,210
    Likes Received:
    189
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    Ratings Received:
    +939
    It should be I guess and I'm all for cutting waste (whether through fraud, etc). However, there is an important strategic concern in ensuring a domestic supply of food. Any number of reasons make a domestic supply a priority.

    That being said I'm always amazed at the number of farmers I meet while on vacation and at some fairly expensive hotels/locations. My grandparents were farmers and never had money to do that kind of vacationing. In not sure whether they had the subsidies back then though.
  3. gatordowneast
    Offline

    gatordowneast Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,747
    Likes Received:
    303
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +985
    We agree! Of course some price supports are to keep products like milk, affordable for American families and children, in particular. But much of the farm bill is PORK!
  4. neisgator
    Offline

    neisgator Belligerent Gator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    10,618
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Quincy IL
    Ratings Received:
    +106
    I don't know.
    They should be gone.
    Nothing in The Constitution to protect this spending, along with 90% of the other bullcrap we spend treasure on.
  5. GatorNorth
    Offline

    GatorNorth Premium Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    9,821
    Likes Received:
    262
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Atlanta
    Ratings Received:
    +950
    I think many farms are owned by agribusiness conglomerates not families. It's corporate welfare disguised as Americana.
  6. PIMking
    Offline

    PIMking New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Messages:
    10,528
    Likes Received:
    894
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tuscaloosa, AL (Ft. Myers)
    Ratings Received:
    +894
    I know a very large farm that is owned in Iowa by a family. It's primo land and they have had to use federal help when the floods broke the levees and took most of their crops with it.
  7. dadx4
    Offline

    dadx4 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    29,582
    Likes Received:
    520
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Greenville SC
    Ratings Received:
    +1,401
    I agree as well. The only reason to give subsidies is to keep costs down. Granted I have heard that some farmers are paid NOT to grow certain crops. That has to stop.
  8. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    33,086
    Likes Received:
    2,520
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,572
    Where in the Constitution does it give the government the right to make us citizens purchase a service? A service like Obama-care/tax?
  9. neisgator
    Offline

    neisgator Belligerent Gator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    10,618
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Quincy IL
    Ratings Received:
    +106
    It's not, of course. That is why Obama Care is UnConstitutional.
  10. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    I am in favor of eliminating direct farm subsidies.
  11. G8trGr8t
    Offline

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    14,568
    Likes Received:
    1,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    SW Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +2,368
    ditto. lots of family farmers now just lease their land to corporate farmers and collect checks but if you listen to the press, all farms are poor old grandma and grandpa trying to get by without being evicted. look at where the economy is the strongest and you will find subsidies and gubmnt spending. military towns, college towns, capitals, bug ag etc all living well off of borrowed money that they are sticking future generations with.

    and what about how we supply aid to foreign countries. we don't send seed and fertilizer and teach them to grow their own. nope. we send them grain grown here, subsidized by the taxpayer, and then given a guaranteed market with uncle sam piurchasing it. don't even get me started on big polluting sugar and how the price of sugar costs us all hundreds of millions and drives confectionaire businesses out of this country.

    just think, if Iowa wasn't the first big primary, there wouldn't be ethanol subsidies...just the tip of the iceberg
    • Like Like x 1
  12. leogator
    Offline

    leogator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,417
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Melbourne, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +158
    No price supports. Either you're going to let the market work or not.
  13. urg8rbait
    Online

    urg8rbait Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    Messages:
    283
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings Received:
    +2
    All subsidies should be removed. They distort prices and allocation.
  14. 92gator
    Offline

    92gator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    6,045
    Likes Received:
    323
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,042
    I thought y'all neo-libbies liked the idea of preserving land pristine and useful, so that developers wouldn't come along and make all that farmland into housing developments, whtn the economy is booming, again (whiic it will, eventually--maybe not for another 5-9 years, but it will eventually....).

    Take away farm subs, and watch thousands of farms go under, or companines into farming get out of it...which means:

    1. We'll get to import most of our food!

    2. We'll get to pay more for our food!

    3. We get more farm folk off the farms, and into the cities--because we don't have enough ppl. piled up on each other in the cities...

    4. We'll lose the utility of farm land--which'll pave teh way for developers to come in, and make the land usesful, as only developers know how--by building on them, and building them up!

    5. ...and finally, instead of paying people to produce something (farm goods)--we'll have them in the cities, not only not producing anything, but suckling off the gubm't teet! Real live someting for nothing welfare!

    Hell yeah...let's lose those stupid farming subs., get those producers on the dole man!

    :no:
  15. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    33,086
    Likes Received:
    2,520
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,572
    Can you post a link to this site please?
  16. neisgator
    Offline

    neisgator Belligerent Gator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    10,618
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Quincy IL
    Ratings Received:
    +106
    Are you actually saying that farmers CANNOT make a living without government intrusion?
  17. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    33,086
    Likes Received:
    2,520
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,572
    I'm not so sure about that. I need to research it more to reply beyond this point.
  18. gatorman_07732
    Offline

    gatorman_07732 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    Messages:
    31,252
    Likes Received:
    2,250
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    The Irish Riviera
    Ratings Received:
    +4,285
    Most farm subsidies go to agribusinesses and was intended to alleviate farmer poverty. Get rid of it
  19. oldgator
    Offline

    oldgator Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    13,605
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +139
    the farm subsidies first paid to farmers started decades ago. Back when farms were smaller and family owned and farmed by the family. The subsidies was to help keep them farming when there wasn't as much demand for their particular crop. If those subsidies had not occurred many farming families would have gone bankrupt. There was also the matter of using farm subsidies to create a sort of strategic reserve of some basic corps(wheat, corn, etc) so the military would not come up short if there was a drought, etc.

    since those days of most farming being down on small farms with farming done by the family that owned each farm, there has been a shift to conglomerations and corporate farming with massive farms. For whatever reason the farm subsidies have remained in effect adding on to profit for the conglomerates/corporations. And the era of the small family farm has pretty much vanished(in terms of total produce grown in America as compared to conglomerates/corporations). The main reason the subsidies have remained in effect is via lobbying from the conglomerates.

    from wiki
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_policy_of_the_United_States

    "History

    Over the first 200 years of U.S. agricultural history, until the 1920s, agricultural policy in the United States was dominated by developmental policy — policy directed at developing and supporting family farms and the inputs of the total agricultural sector, such as land, research, and human labor. Developmental policy included such legislation as the Land Act of 1820, the Homestead Act, which granted 160-acre (0.65 km2) townships, and the Morrill Act of 1862, which initiated the land-grant college system, one in a long series of acts that provided public support for agricultural research and education.

    In 1933, with many farmers losing money because of the Great Depression, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which created the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA).[citation needed] The AAA began to regulate agricultural production by destroying crops and artificially reducing supplies. It also offered subsidies to farmers to encourage them to willingly limit their production of crops.[citation needed] The Supreme Court later struck down the AAA as unconstitutional, so in 1938 the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act was passed, which essentially created a similar organization for distributing farmer subsidies.[1]
    Beginning of price supports

    At the end of World War I, the destructive effects of the war and the surrender burdens enforced on the Central Powers of Europe bankrupted much of Europe, closing major export markets in the United States and beginning a series of events that would lead to the development of agricultural price and income support policies. United States price and income support, known otherwise as agricultural subsidy, grew out of acute farm income and financial crises, which led to widespread political beliefs that the market system was not adequately rewarding farm people for their agricultural commodities.

    Beginning with the 1921 Packers and Stockyards Act and 1922 Capper-Volstead Act, which regulated livestock and protected farmer cooperatives against anti-trust suits, United States agricultural policy began to become more and more comprehensive. In reaction to falling grain prices and the widespread economic turmoil of the Dust Bowl and Great Depression, three bills led the United States into permanent price subsidies for farmers: the 1922 Grain Futures Act, the 1929 Agricultural Marketing Act, and finally the 1933 Agricultural Adjustment Act- the first comprehensive food policy legislation.

    Out of these bills grew a system of government-controlled agricultural commodity prices and government supply control (farmers being paid to leave land unused). Supply control would continue to be used to decrease overproduction, leading to over 50,000,000 acres (200,000 km2) to be set aside during times of low commodity prices (1955–1973, 1984–1995). The practice was eventually ended by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996.
    Increased comprehensiveness

    Over time, a variety of related topics began to be addressed by agricultural policy: soil conservation (1956 Soil Bank Act), surplus crops as food aid (National School Lunch Act of 1946, Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, the 1964 Food Stamp Act), and much later wetlands and habitat conservation (Food Security Act of 1985, 1990 Wetlands Reserve Program, 1996 Wildlife Habitat and Environmental Quality Incentive Programs and 2002 Grassland Reserve Program) and organic food labeling (Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990).

    During this time, agricultural financial support also increased, through raised price supports, export subsidies, increased crop insurance (1938 Agricultural Adjustment Act), expanding price supports to different crops(Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000), offering more guaranteed federal loans, and through the replacement of some price supports with fixed payments (Food and Agricultural Act of 1962 and Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996).
    1970s

    Beginning with the administration of Secretary of Agriculture Henry A. Wallace, the United States had generally moved to curb overproduction. However, in the early 1970s, under Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz, farmers were encouraged to "get big or get out" and to plant "hedgerow to hedgerow". Over the course of the 20th century, farms have consolidated into larger, more capital-intensive operations and subsidy policy under Butz encouraged these large farms at the expense of small and medium-sized family farms.[2]

    The percentage of Americans who live on a farm diminished from nearly 25% during the Great Depression to about 2% now,[3] and only 0.1% of the United States population works full-time on a farm. As the agribusiness lobby grows to near $60 million per year,[4] the interests of agricultural corporations remain highly represented. In recent years, farm subsidies have remained high even in times of record farm profits.[5]"

    please note that both Dem and GOP admins signed farm subsidy bills over the years.

    What is interesting to see is that in the 1970's there were farm subsidy bills that actively favored conglomerations/corporations over the small family farms.

    Seeing that both parties have promoted farm subsidy bills and both parties want votes in farming states---both parties are probably not going to do much to clean up the fraud of farm subsidies that is now rampant.
  20. 92gator
    Offline

    92gator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    6,045
    Likes Received:
    323
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,042
    Not really--not as farmers. One drought, one flood, one catastrophe, and they're wiped out. Govm't subs provide the stability they need to remain in bidniz, through these unpredictable (yet guaranteed), disasters. That is, there isn't any telling when they will hit...but there's no doubt that they will hit.

    When these catastrophes hit, the notes go into default (their profit margins aren't that great to begin with), get called, and the farms go into foreclosure--at foreclosure, without subs--new/big farmers, won't be so inclined to succeed them.

    ...but developers will be happy to take their already cleared lands, and pop up a bunch of strip malls, aparment complexes, etc. (and the 'big farmers' might just get into the developing business themselves, if farming becomes too risky--i.e.--no subs).

    I'm oversimplifying things, but that's mostly because the 'stop the farm subs' school of thought, is pretty simplistic.

Share This Page