Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Omaha World Herald)   If the Tea Party blocks the Farm Bill it will be a win for....1940s Roosevelt socialism?   (omaha.com) divider line 117
    More: Ironic, farm bills, socialism  
•       •       •

3574 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Jul 2012 at 10:13 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



117 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-14 05:46:13 AM  
Cause government should own all the food grown in the US. What could possibly go wrong?
 
2012-07-14 07:22:29 AM  
I see a couple of things here. First, separate food stamps from the rest. Second, if you don't like existing law pass a bill that permanently changes it not a temporary change. Idiots.
 
2012-07-14 07:22:51 AM  
So, if we don't pass the farm bill, people may actually experience the real cost of food instead of the cheap, subsidized grocery market cost?

/I'm ok with this.
 
2012-07-14 08:25:59 AM  
I predict 37 replies to Envriodud from idiots
 
2012-07-14 08:37:33 AM  
The nation also would see the return of a 1949 system for supporting agriculture through "parity prices," which aim to guarantee that farm commodities hold the same purchasing power they had in the early years of the 20th century.

I'm guessing the overrepresented red state rural congressmen think this is a wonderful idea.

also,

If you're going to complain about the family farmer, don't do it with your mouth full.

// bumper sticker from the 1970s
 
2012-07-14 08:51:02 AM  

Guidette Frankentits: I predict 37 replies to Envriodud from idiots


In a row?
 
2012-07-14 09:18:08 AM  

kronicfeld: Guidette Frankentits: I predict 37 replies to Envriodud from idiots

In a row?


All at once in a massive simulpost. It's the Troll's wet-dream.
 
2012-07-14 09:33:51 AM  

Generation_D: If you're going to complain about the family farmer, don't do it with your mouth full.


When you're complaining about the problems of US farm policy, you aren't talking about the family farmer. You're talking about massive agri-corporations masquerading as family farmer and getting benefits as if they were.
 
2012-07-14 09:42:04 AM  

GAT_00: Generation_D: If you're going to complain about the family farmer, don't do it with your mouth full.

When you're complaining about the problems of US farm policy, you aren't talking about the family farmer. You're talking about massive agri-corporations masquerading as family farmer and getting benefits as if they were.


Are you implying that the CEO of Archer Daniels Midland isn't out in the back 40 RIGHT NOW, sporting overalls and a battered straw hat, perched upon an ancient Massey-Ferguson and sadly opining that the revenuers are gonna git every sprig of his sorghum if'n it don't rain a spell?
 
2012-07-14 09:55:01 AM  

Guidette Frankentits: I predict 37 replies to Envriodud from idiots


"Try not to reply to any trolls on the way to the parking lot!"
 
2012-07-14 10:08:22 AM  

FlyingLizardOfDoom: So, if we don't pass the farm bill, people may actually experience the real cost of food instead of the cheap, subsidized grocery market cost?

/I'm ok with this.


Ha. Just wait.
 
2012-07-14 10:15:52 AM  

PC LOAD LETTER: Guidette Frankentits: I predict 37 replies to Envriodud from idiots

"Try not to reply to any trolls on the way to the parking lot!"


Hey hey! Get back here!
 
2012-07-14 10:24:39 AM  

GAT_00: Generation_D: If you're going to complain about the family farmer, don't do it with your mouth full.

When you're complaining about the problems of US farm policy, you aren't talking about the family farmer. You're talking about massive agri-corporations masquerading as family farmer and getting benefits as if they were.


To be fair some of the massive agri-corporations have to be family dynasties.
 
2012-07-14 10:36:04 AM  

Guidette Frankentits: I predict 37 replies to Envriodud from idiots


I'll take the over.
 
2012-07-14 10:54:47 AM  
i581.photobucket.comfarm5.static.flickr.com

Separated at birth?
 
2012-07-14 10:55:32 AM  

GAT_00: Generation_D: If you're going to complain about the family farmer, don't do it with your mouth full.

When you're complaining about the problems of US farm policy, you aren't talking about the family farmer. You're talking about massive agri-corporations masquerading as family farmer and getting benefits as if they were.


sure I am.
why should anyone get preferential loan and tax treatment from the government because they have mortgage on arable land that they choose not to till? why should someone who is in the business of soybeans be treated any differently than a florist?

farmers should have available to them what is available to all small business, and nothing more.
your ideological bent is the problem.
your encouragement of rent seekers and the politicians that provide the rent has created a massively corrupt and dysfunctional form of governance where interest groups wield power that is out of all proportion to their number or their economic power and that is used to suck resources from the average joe.
none of this crap should even exist.
and you are big part of the problem. you are the enabler without which none of this could happen.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/interactives/farmaid/
 
2012-07-14 10:56:11 AM  

MasterAdkins: I see a couple of things here. First, separate food stamps from the rest. Second, if you don't like existing law pass a bill that permanently changes it not a temporary change. Idiots.


Demand support is the most efficient way to help suppliers (aka farmers) when there is excess supply. Plus, it actually helps people (try not to hold that against it).
 
2012-07-14 10:59:49 AM  
Damn Teabaggers.
 
2012-07-14 11:01:38 AM  
Sounds about right.

/Get it?
 
2012-07-14 11:02:04 AM  

relcec: GAT_00: Generation_D: If you're going to complain about the family farmer, don't do it with your mouth full.

When you're complaining about the problems of US farm policy, you aren't talking about the family farmer. You're talking about massive agri-corporations masquerading as family farmer and getting benefits as if they were.

sure I am.
why should anyone get preferential loan and tax treatment from the government because they have mortgage on arable land that they choose not to till? why should someone who is in the business of soybeans be treated any differently than a florist?

farmers should have available to them what is available to all small business, and nothing more.
your ideological bent is the problem.
your encouragement of rent seekers and the politicians that provide the rent has created a massively corrupt and dysfunctional form of governance where interest groups wield power that is out of all proportion to their number or their economic power and that is used to suck resources from the average joe.
none of this crap should even exist.
and you are big part of the problem. you are the enabler without which none of this could happen.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/interactives/farmaid/


I feel like you're trying to hit me for being too liberal and too conservative, as well as personally destroying everything, all at the same time. Or at least that's the best I could figure from your lack of proper sentence structure and general rambling.
 
2012-07-14 11:04:47 AM  

relcec: why should someone who is in the business of soybeans be treated any differently than a florist?


Because a stable food supply is essential to national security and a stable supply of flowers isn't. Do you not remember the 2007-2008 food riots around the world?
 
2012-07-14 11:06:12 AM  

Carth: relcec: why should someone who is in the business of soybeans be treated any differently than a florist?


Because a stable food supply is essential to national security and a stable supply of flowers isn't. Do you not remember the 2007-2008 food riots around the world?


Oh, and the tulip bubble didn't happen?
 
2012-07-14 11:08:48 AM  

Carth: relcec: why should someone who is in the business of soybeans be treated any differently than a florist?


Because a stable food supply is essential to national security and a stable supply of flowers isn't. Do you not remember the 2007-2008 food riots around the world?


Somehow I doubt that made the front page of Drudge.
 
2012-07-14 11:10:26 AM  

kronicfeld: Guidette Frankentits: I predict 37 replies to Envriodud from idiots

In a row?


This...this is why Fark is my favorite.
 
2012-07-14 11:18:23 AM  

GAT_00: Generation_D: If you're going to complain about the family farmer, don't do it with your mouth full.

When you're complaining about the problems of US farm policy, you aren't talking about the family farmer. You're talking about massive agri-corporations masquerading as family farmer and getting benefits as if they were.


And some who don't even have farms on their properties but because the land used to be farmland they get subsidies STILL to this day. There was an article that appeared here on Fark where someone was complaining about Obama and "socialism" while talking about receiving subsidies for farmland that no longer exists. Can you say real socialism?
 
2012-07-14 11:19:21 AM  
I don't know enough about the subject at hand, but I'd sooner believe Gat than relcec.
 
2012-07-14 11:22:59 AM  
If we revert to a time before Earl Butz structured the rise of corporate farming, maybe we can go back to real family farms and legitimate food, instead of having everything we eat molded from corn slurry.
 
2012-07-14 11:24:44 AM  

kronicfeld: Guidette Frankentits: I predict 37 replies to Envriodud from idiots

In a row?


That always makes me think of this. Oh, possibly NSFW
 
2012-07-14 11:24:59 AM  

Carth: relcec: why should someone who is in the business of soybeans be treated any differently than a florist?


Because a stable food supply is essential to national security and a stable supply of flowers isn't. Do you not remember the 2007-2008 food riots around the world?


and there you go assuming this has to do with a stable food supply.
you have a large burden on your hands to prove that.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/interactives/farmaid/


$1.3 Billion to People
Who Don't Farm

The largest annual subsidy, called direct and countercyclical payments, is given to farmers regardless of what crops they grow - or whether they grow anything at all. The Post found that, since 2001, at least $1.3 billion was paid to landowners who had planted nothing since 2000. Among the beneficiaries were homeowners in new developments whose backyards used to be rice fields. (July 2, 2006)


Growers Reap Benefits
Even in Good Years

For the 2005 corn crop, the federal government spent about $4.8 billion to compensate farmers for low corn prices. That was $3.8 billion more than needed to give them the government-guaranteed price. The program has cost taxpayers $29 billion since 1998. "Most smart farmers are cashing in on it," says one expert. (July 3, 2006)


No Drought Required
For Federal Drought Aid

A 2002 program aimed at helping those facing a serious drought gave $635 million to ranchers and dairy farmers who had moderate or no drought. Some ranchers got money because they lived in counties declared disaster areas after debris fell to earth from the space shuttle Columbia. The program was created to help a Republican candidate for the Senate. It included $34 million for catfish farmers. (July 18, 2006)


Drought Aid Went
To Private Interests

Tens of millions of pounds of surplus powdered milk that was intended for livestock owners in drought-stricken states ended up on the secondary market, generating millions of dollars in profits for middlemen. (July 19, 2006)


Aid Is a Bumper Crop
For Farmers

The government spent billions to expand crop insurance coverage and eliminate the need for annual disaster payments. But taxpayers spent about $9 billion for disaster payments anyway - often to the same farmers. Big beneficiaries of the program were 16 private insurance companies. (Oct. 16, 2006)


Crop Insurance Led
To Waste and Abuse

Crop insurance sometimes alters the landscape of farming, as it did to the sweet potato in North Carolina. Some farmers have found ways around the limits on federal disaster payments. And most farmers pass up low-interest federal disaster loans in favor of the cash. (Oct. 15, 2006)


Dairy Industry Crushed an Arizona Innovator

When a maverick Arizona dairyman decided to sell milk for less than the competition, a coalition of giant milk companies and dairies decided to crush his initiative. For three years, the milk lobby spent millions on lobbying and campaign contributions and made deals with lawmakers. Last March, Congress used a rare procedure to stop the maverick without a hearing. (Dec. 10, 2006)


The Myth of
The Small Farmer

The multibillion-dollar farm subsidy system often is touted by Congress as a way to save small family farms. Instead, those policies are helping to accelerate their demise, because owners of large farms receive the most subsidies and often use the money to acquire more land. Still, some farmers say they could not survive without subsidies. (Dec. 21, 2006)


Powerful Interests Ally to Change Farm Subsidies

Federal rules limit the total amount that farms can receive from the three primary farm programs to $180,000 annually. But for the 2004 crop year about $817 million was sent to farms that had already reached their limits. A big political battle looms over the 2007 farm bill. (Dec. 22, 2006)
 
2012-07-14 11:28:00 AM  

EnviroDude: Cause government should own all the food grown in the US. What could possibly go wrong?


Hey retard, would it be better if Monsanto owned it all?
 
2012-07-14 11:31:03 AM  

friday13: I don't know enough about the subject at hand, but I'd sooner believe Gat than relcec.


Willful ignorance is best ignorance. Relcec seems to have a pretty solid handle on what's going on.

/still have partial ownership of the family farm
//none of us live there or farm
///$$$ for paperwork
 
2012-07-14 11:31:34 AM  

deadcrickets: There was an article that appeared here on Fark where someone was complaining about Obama and "socialism" while talking about receiving subsidies for farmland that no longer exists.


If we don't give them their check, consarnit they'll be tilling them acres tomorry and plunging the world market into turmoil!
 
2012-07-14 11:36:38 AM  

GAT_00: I feel like you're trying to hit me for being too liberal and too conservative, as well as personally destroying everything, all at the same time. Or at least that's the best I could figure from your lack of proper sentence structure and general rambling.


you aren't too liberal, or too conservative.
you are just a douchebag authoritarian who thinks you are among the few that have received universal truth and therefore are uniquely positioned to decide the outer contours of moral behavior and personal autonomy (hence your pronouncement that drugs are evil and drug users must be punished by the state).
plus you think the taxation of the relatively disadvantaged to pay for the resources obtained by rent seeking groups that are already well off is a valid function of government.
you are why we can't have nice things.
 
2012-07-14 11:39:22 AM  

rohar: Carth: relcec: why should someone who is in the business of soybeans be treated any differently than a florist?


Because a stable food supply is essential to national security and a stable supply of flowers isn't. Do you not remember the 2007-2008 food riots around the world?

Oh, and the tulip bubble didn't happen?


Yeah but that was the Dutch. They are.....different
 
2012-07-14 11:42:51 AM  

Generation_D: If you're going to complain about the family farmer, don't do it with your mouth full


The best thing my family ever did was to get the hell out of farming. It's a hard painful life for a family that is better served by larger companies. Especially for commodity items like corn.

Now if you want to have your own boutique farm that grows vegetables for sale or raises free range animals - there is a market there and more power to you.
 
2012-07-14 11:43:16 AM  
So, by NOT approving an extension, the Tea Party is about to stick it to companies like Monsanto? If they retain power, could they allow sugar import bans to expire, thus ending massive subsidies for corn-based-everything?

I think I just became a Tea Partier.
 
2012-07-14 11:43:28 AM  
relcec:

I must be missing something, because it seems to me that everything you posted supports GAT_00's comment:

"When you're complaining about the problems of US farm policy, you aren't talking about the family farmer. You're talking about massive agri-corporations masquerading as family farmer and getting benefits as if they were."
 
2012-07-14 11:44:07 AM  
End all government intervention in the farm industry and let the market sort it out. The only thing the government should be doing is shutting down farmers who employ illegal immigrants.
 
2012-07-14 11:44:20 AM  

gingerjet: Generation_D: If you're going to complain about the family farmer, don't do it with your mouth full

The best thing my family ever did was to get the hell out of farming. It's a hard painful life for a family that is better served by larger companies. Especially for commodity items like corn.

Now if you want to have your own boutique farm that grows vegetables for sale or raises free range animals - there is a market there and more power to you.


I'm curious, did your family sell or sharecrop? When did they stop?
 
2012-07-14 11:45:57 AM  
All the farm policy aside, this just magnifies the fact that John Boehner is the weakest Speaker of the House I have witnessed. Never have I seen someone in his position not even able to unify his "side" for what should be a simple procedural issue. He can't even get enough votes to pass compromises he negotiated.
 
2012-07-14 11:47:13 AM  
Sad part is the joke is on Americans.

Very little of that money supports growing actual food, most of what is "grown" is industrial corn and soy, neither of which are actually edible. It then has to be processed through either a chemistry lab or a sick herbivore to your kitchen, devoid of any of the things a human actually needs to thrive.

Thank you Nixon.
 
2012-07-14 11:48:59 AM  
The entire department of Agriculture should be eliminated. Its just a giant welfare bureaucracy.
 
2012-07-14 11:49:19 AM  
"Old" old 3 Stooges gag:

Curly (panhandling): "I haven't tasted food in 3 days!"

Fatcat (dismissively): "I wouldn't worry about - it still tastes the same!"

/old
 
2012-07-14 11:51:44 AM  

MasterAdkins: I see a couple of things here. First, separate food stamps from the rest. Second, if you don't like existing law pass a bill that permanently changes it not a temporary change. Idiots.


That's what is really annoying about this issue; the actual farming part is something I doubt the majority of voters have really strong emotional ties to (compared to say, abortion, healthcare, gay rights, etc). It could actually be a subject worthy of both sides presenting new solutions and having honest debate.

But yeah...that's not gonna happen.
 
2012-07-14 11:52:23 AM  
Of course the Tea Party wants to keep the money flowing. A lot of them need and rightfully (in their minds) deserve those benefits. Its "You People" who are leeching off the system at their expense.
 
2012-07-14 11:54:35 AM  

FlyingLizardOfDoom: So, if we don't pass the farm bill, people may actually experience the real cost of food instead of the cheap, subsidized grocery market cost?

/I'm ok with this.


As someone who works in a grocery store and knows how expensive food is becoming already, I can't imagine that making the price of food go higher would actually be good for anyone.

Combined with wages not increasing and the cutting of Food Stamps, you've got a lot more people that can't afford food. And ones who can't afford food in places that they can't just grow their own.
 
2012-07-14 11:56:46 AM  
Warlordtrooper
End all government intervention in the farm industry and let the market sort it out.

After a few bouts of severe weather, Bain Capital owns all the farm land. They might give you a job. The free market might function perfectly as a tautology, but it's a lot uglier than they're letting on.
 
2012-07-14 11:56:52 AM  
Farms are just as important to national security as a thriving steel industry. Didn't any of you play Civilization?
 
2012-07-14 11:57:46 AM  

LograyX: FlyingLizardOfDoom: So, if we don't pass the farm bill, people may actually experience the real cost of food instead of the cheap, subsidized grocery market cost?

/I'm ok with this.

As someone who works in a grocery store and knows how expensive food is becoming already, I can't imagine that making the price of food go higher would actually be good for anyone.

Combined with wages not increasing and the cutting of Food Stamps, you've got a lot more people that can't afford food. And ones who can't afford food in places that they can't just grow their own.


So to deal with these problems, the bill cuts SNAP by $15B and expands already bloated price guarantees by $9.5B. Totally makes sense.
 
2012-07-14 11:58:02 AM  

relcec: $1.3 Billion to People
Who Don't Farm

The largest annual subsidy, called direct and countercyclical payments, is given to farmers regardless of what crops they grow - or whether they grow anything at all. The Post found that, since 2001, at least $1.3 billion was paid to landowners who had planted nothing since 2000. Among the beneficiaries were homeowners in new developments whose backyards used to be rice fields. (July 2, 2006)


Except if you follow the link you find this
The checks to Matthews and other landowners were intended 10 years ago as a first step toward eventually eliminating costly, decades-old farm subsidies. Instead, the payments have grown into an even larger subsidy that benefits millionaire landowners, foreign speculators and absentee landlords, as well as farmers.

Most of the money goes to real farmers who grow crops on their land, but they are under no obligation to grow the crop being subsidized. They can switch to a different crop or raise cattle or even grow a stand of timber -- and still get the government payments. The cash comes with so few restrictions that subdivision developers who buy farmland advertise that homeowners can collect farm subsidies on their new back yards.

So the money was planned to eliminate susbidies and the part where it seems that most goes to suburban landowners is contrdicted by the part where it states that most goes to real farmers who grew crops, how comes the article doesn't give a figure for the part that goes to homeowners, because then no outrage.

Maybe this could all be helped by better oversite and more regulation, but that will lead to socialism right?
 
Displayed 50 of 117 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report