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.

(Quad City Times)   Rugged, independent, small-government farmers to receive $16 billion in crop insurance payments for drought of 2012   (qctimes.com) divider line 160
    More: Ironic, crop insurance, Jeff Flake, farmers, crops, federal government, payments  
•       •       •

3646 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Mar 2013 at 12:05 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
NFA [TotalFark]
2013-03-23 08:04:11 AM
Yes, for god sakes lets inject more politics into food production so when can collapse our food supply too.

This is nothing but an attempt to financially burden small farmers so that cash rich, corporate agriculture can have a larger slice of the profit pie.
 
2013-03-23 11:21:51 AM
As long as farmers pay $16.01 billion in premiums, that sounds okay.

The government subsidizes the program by paying about 62 percent of the cost of insurance premiums and farmers pay about 38 percent.

Well, darn.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-23 11:55:34 AM

NFA: Yes, for god sakes lets inject more politics into food production so when can collapse our food supply too.

This is nothing but an attempt to financially burden small farmers so that cash rich, corporate agriculture can have a larger slice of the profit pie.


Right.  Let's get rid of those subsidies.

Or were you saying that free market capitalism doesn't work and we need welfare for farmers?
 
2013-03-23 12:00:48 PM

vpb: NFA: Yes, for god sakes lets inject more politics into food production so when can collapse our food supply too.

This is nothing but an attempt to financially burden small farmers so that cash rich, corporate agriculture can have a larger slice of the profit pie.

Right.  Let's get rid of those subsidies.

Or were you saying that free market capitalism doesn't work and we need welfare for farmers?


i'd rather not starve next year, thank you very much.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-23 12:01:30 PM
What a bootstrap looks like:

www.godirect.org
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-23 12:07:02 PM
Weaver95:

i'd rather not starve next year, thank you very much.

So the invisible hand of the market will throttle us if we let it control out food supply?  Makes sense, considering how well it works for healthcare.

I wonder how humanity survived before crop subsidies?
 
2013-03-23 12:08:55 PM
Rugged, independent, small-government farmers

Since when? Farmers have become whiny, subsidy-dependent vassals of the State.
 
2013-03-23 12:09:47 PM
vpb:
I wonder how humanity survived before crop subsidies?

not very well, actually.  if/when corps failed entire populations (and sometimes civilizations along with 'em) died out or scattered.  sometimes they went to war with their more plentiful neighbors and took THEIR food.  so do you want a stable society that can feed itself?  then it pays to help farmers out through the lean years, as well as maintaining diversity in your food supply.
 
2013-03-23 12:11:39 PM

jjorsett: Farmers have become whiny, subsidy-dependent vassals of the State.


Yes, yes, that's an excellent line of attack. Please, proceed.
 
2013-03-23 12:11:52 PM
Subby? Do you have car insurance? Do you consider yourself self reliant?

You do?

Then geabod.
 
2013-03-23 12:11:57 PM
Subby, are you complaining about the government program working as it's designed to? Or are you just making a big deal about people taking advantage of the government programs?

Do you want to help farmers or not? If yes, then your complaints are weird and incongruous to your position. If no, then aren't you on the wrong side of the aisle?
 
2013-03-23 12:11:58 PM

jjorsett: Rugged, independent, small-government farmers

Since when? Farmers have become whiny, subsidy-dependent vassals of the State.


you've never been through farm country, have you?
 
2013-03-23 12:13:31 PM
Headline reads like those "smart, independent" women that demand guys should "be a man" and pay for their meals and bills.
 
2013-03-23 12:14:53 PM
Meanwhile my Farmville crop has failed but I get jackshiat for my losses. And don't get me started on how thr Mob Wars has affected production.
 
2013-03-23 12:14:54 PM

Weaver95: vpb:
I wonder how humanity survived before crop subsidies?

not very well, actually.  if/when corps failed entire populations (and sometimes civilizations along with 'em) died out or scattered.  sometimes they went to war with their more plentiful neighbors and took THEIR food.  so do you want a stable society that can feed itself?  then it pays to help farmers out through the lean years, as well as maintaining diversity in your food supply.


Now see, that kind of comment is lost to the ether when "Hrrrrrp  no more gov'ment!" is the battle cry of the decade.    But otherwise to people who are open minded and maybe never thought about it your comment is spot on.
 
2013-03-23 12:15:15 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: Subby, are you complaining about the government program working as it's designed to? Or are you just making a big deal about people taking advantage of the government programs?


Welfare farmer queens in Cadillacs taking my hard-earned money!
 
2013-03-23 12:15:52 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: AverageAmericanGuy: Subby, are you complaining about the government program working as it's designed to? Or are you just making a big deal about people taking advantage of the government programs?

Welfare farmer queens in Cadillacs taking my hard-earned money!


Takers voting for Republicans!
 
2013-03-23 12:16:05 PM
Agricultural "Welfare" is actually welfare for us all, especially the poor. Without it the farmers would have to raise their prices to cover their losses in the inevitable bad years. The first people who will start to starve would be the poorest amongst us that wouldn't be able to afford even the basic staples of nutrition.
 
2013-03-23 12:19:32 PM

vpb: Weaver95:

i'd rather not starve next year, thank you very much.

So the invisible hand of the market will throttle us if we let it control out food supply?  Makes sense, considering how well it works for healthcare.

I wonder how humanity survived before crop subsidies?


Well mostly In feudalistic and manorial societies where men were enslaved and legally bound to the estate in order to FORCE them at the point of the sword, gun and whip to produce enough food for the upper class to survive and pursue their vain and arrogant lives of leisure.

Also that question is kind of silly because food subsidies have existed in one form another all the back to antiquity. Unless you want to go as far back as Catalhoyuk in which case buddy I don't think ANYBODY quite knows.
 
2013-03-23 12:20:06 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Welfare farmer queens in Cadillacs taking my hard-earned money!


A few farmers in my family. They see a difference between themselves getting it and THOSE people. The powers of rationalization are impressive to behold.

vpb: I wonder how humanity survived before crop subsidies?


No one alive today has seen those times...

Snarky aside, if hard work really paid off, all farmers would be billionaires.
 
2013-03-23 12:21:20 PM
I always get a laugh out of these threads.  People that think what we have now as far as agriculture constitutes a "free market" and the other people that think it is outright "socialism."

/popping corn
 
2013-03-23 12:21:51 PM
Bloom County strip in 3...2...
 
2013-03-23 12:22:10 PM

Radioactive Ass: Agricultural "Welfare" is actually welfare for us all, especially the poor. Without it the farmers would have to raise their prices to cover their losses in the inevitable bad years. The first people who will start to starve would be the poorest amongst us that wouldn't be able to afford even the basic staples of nutrition.


Then why not just give the money directly to the poor? That way, they could spend it on the food they want to eat, rather than just what had the best subsidies.
 
2013-03-23 12:24:41 PM
Farmer's buy insurance.  They buy the insurance every year.  Most years, they don't collect because their revenues cover their expenses.  When there is a drought, such as last year when most of the U.S. was dried up in the worst, most widespread drought in modern memory, insurance pays for their losses.  Because the losses were so widespread last year, the government kicked in, as per design of the program.

Last year, this cost the government $11billion.  That was across the entire country.  Compare that to Hurricane Sandy, which covered a relatively small area, covered folks who had no insurance, and cost the government over $40billion.
 
2013-03-23 12:25:11 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: jjorsett: Farmers have become whiny, subsidy-dependent vassals of the State.

Yes, yes, that's an excellent line of attack. Please, proceed.


What, I'm supposed to condone dependency, market distortion, and rent-seeking just because <i>some</i> people sharing <i>some</i>of my ideological beliefs do? Puhleeze. I'll attack stupid and/or destructive ideas no matter who holds them. Consistency, try it some time.
 
2013-03-23 12:26:36 PM
Drive through any farm or dairy area. Do these jackholes in McMansions look like their are suffering?
 
2013-03-23 12:27:12 PM

nmemkha: Drive through any farm or dairy area. Do these jackholes in McMansions look like they're are suffering?


/meh
 
2013-03-23 12:27:12 PM

Weaver95: jjorsett: Rugged, independent, small-government farmers

Since when? Farmers have become whiny, subsidy-dependent vassals of the State.

you've never been through farm country, have you?


The farm country that's getting subsidized crop "insurance"? Sure I have, many times. I'm the first generation of my family who was born elsewhere, and I still go back.
 
2013-03-23 12:27:47 PM
Just don't you call it WELFARE, because only a inner city black and illegal alien thing
 
2013-03-23 12:28:00 PM

jjorsett: Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: jjorsett: Farmers have become whiny, subsidy-dependent vassals of the State.

Yes, yes, that's an excellent line of attack. Please, proceed.

What, I'm supposed to condone dependency, market distortion, and rent-seeking just because <i>some</i> people sharing <i>some</i>of my ideological beliefs do? Puhleeze. I'll attack stupid and/or destructive ideas no matter who holds them. Consistency, try it some time.


so you would rather starve than admit your politics is completely wrong?  that's insane.
 
2013-03-23 12:28:02 PM

Snarfangel: Radioactive Ass: Agricultural "Welfare" is actually welfare for us all, especially the poor. Without it the farmers would have to raise their prices to cover their losses in the inevitable bad years. The first people who will start to starve would be the poorest amongst us that wouldn't be able to afford even the basic staples of nutrition.

Then why not just give the money directly to the poor? That way, they could spend it on the food they want to eat, rather than just what had the best subsidies.


The food supply is more than just a "let's be nice to the poor" program, it's a matter of national security. Do you think North Korea would be having 1/10 the problems it has right now if they were a net food exporter that was able to give away millions of tons and throw away billions of dollars worth of food every year?

Take an educated guess, how much do you think the price of milk/beef/bread would have gone up last summer due to the horrific drought?

What do you think the net effect of a 500% markup on staples would have had on restaurants? Employment? The cost of gas?
 
2013-03-23 12:28:16 PM

Snarfangel: Then why not just give the money directly to the poor? That way, they could spend it on the food they want to eat, rather than just what had the best subsidies.


Because you are just adding a middleman and increasing the chances that farmers will exploit the land for money. The subsidies come with some conditions like letting a portion of their land lay fallow for a few years to allow it to regenerate. This is to prevent another dust bowl situation from occurring.
 
2013-03-23 12:28:39 PM

Snarfangel: why not just give the money directly to the poor? That way, they could spend it on the food they want to eat


May as well eliminate the food stamp program as well and just hand out cash.
 
2013-03-23 12:29:23 PM

jjorsett: Weaver95: jjorsett: Rugged, independent, small-government farmers

Since when? Farmers have become whiny, subsidy-dependent vassals of the State.

you've never been through farm country, have you?

The farm country that's getting subsidized crop "insurance"? Sure I have, many times. I'm the first generation of my family who was born elsewhere, and I still go back.


so next time you go back, make sure to call every farmer you meet a 'welfare queen' and imply that they're whiny biatches enslaved to the state.  lemme know how that works out for ya!
 
2013-03-23 12:29:42 PM

nmemkha: Drive through any farm or dairy area. Do these jackholes in McMansions look like their are suffering?


Isn't it a shiatload of celebs get this also who have condos around the country? Pretty sure Scottie Pippen was one
 
2013-03-23 12:30:40 PM
You ultralib farkers can eat that concrete and bricks your democratic cities are made of right?

right?

if not, shut the fark up and pay for your food, and pay for ours also. We could easly feed ourselves if we grew for local consumption rather then global production. We have plenty of land, resources, and the ability to plant mixture of crops to have a stable diet. You however, would have to eat the daydreams and bullshiat your lives are made of if we did that. You would not have bread, meat, or beer. You subside because if you didn't, you would starve. Two pounds of wheat for a day's wages, and six pounds of barley for a day's wages, and do not damage the oil and the wine! You would be living it.
 
2013-03-23 12:31:21 PM

TomD9938: Snarfangel: why not just give the money directly to the poor? That way, they could spend it on the food they want to eat

May as well eliminate the food stamp program as well and just hand out cash.


that'd be one hell of an economic boost.  and it wouldn't be any less responsible than simply handing over billions to failing banks with no restrictions.  I figure we gave bankers and wall street cash with no strings...it can't hurt to give working poor direct cash benefits either.  that'd be equal, least in my eyes.
 
2013-03-23 12:33:04 PM

nmemkha: Drive through any farm or dairy area. Do these jackholes in McMansions look like their are suffering?


1/10 (at least you made me laugh.)
 
2013-03-23 12:33:08 PM

atomicmask: You ultralib farkers can eat that concrete and bricks your democratic cities are made of right?

right?

if not, shut the fark up and pay for your food, and pay for ours also. We could easly feed ourselves if we grew for local consumption rather then global production. We have plenty of land, resources, and the ability to plant mixture of crops to have a stable diet. You however, would have to eat the daydreams and bullshiat your lives are made of if we did that. You would not have bread, meat, or beer. You subside because if you didn't, you would starve. Two pounds of wheat for a day's wages, and six pounds of barley for a day's wages, and do not damage the oil and the wine! You would be living it.


huh.  a biblical troll.  5/10.  I kinda liked it!
 
2013-03-23 12:34:13 PM

Weaver95: ...it can't hurt to give working poor direct cash benefits either.


While we're at it we could replace the Section 8 vouchers for cash too.

What could possibly go wrong?
 
2013-03-23 12:35:12 PM

Mr. Carpenter: nmemkha: Drive through any farm or dairy area. Do these jackholes in McMansions look like their are suffering?

1/10 (at least you made me laugh.)


I grew up in dairy country. What about you?
 
2013-03-23 12:36:28 PM
Don't blame farmers for how the government decided to structure this.  It's not like they really have a choice.  It's how the system works.

And McMansions on farmland?  That doesn't even make sense.
 
2013-03-23 12:37:41 PM
As some one who spent most of my youth working on farms, I can honestly say. Most farmers are the laziest people I know.    They work 14 hours a day but most people would do there job in 8 hours. The lost 6 hours is spent complaining.
 
2013-03-23 12:37:43 PM

Snarfangel: Radioactive Ass: Agricultural "Welfare" is actually welfare for us all, especially the poor. Without it the farmers would have to raise their prices to cover their losses in the inevitable bad years. The first people who will start to starve would be the poorest amongst us that wouldn't be able to afford even the basic staples of nutrition.

Then why not just give the money directly to the poor? That way, they could spend it on the food they want to eat, rather than just what had the best subsidies.


That's socialism talk, you communist! If we give the money to the poor, they won't be poor anymore and THEN who will we blame?
 
2013-03-23 12:37:47 PM
Any sort of crop failure means increased food prices. When disasters happen the government steps in and makes sure those food prices wont skyrocket. People require fod you know, the government is not farking stupid like its citizens.
 
2013-03-23 12:38:30 PM

nmemkha: Mr. Carpenter: nmemkha: Drive through any farm or dairy area. Do these jackholes in McMansions look like their are suffering?

1/10 (at least you made me laugh.)

I grew up in dairy country. What about you?


I grew up in Kirksville MO, IA MO border and still live here. I'd ask where you live now but I'm pretty sure it's under a bridge.
 
2013-03-23 12:39:18 PM

TomD9938: Weaver95: ...it can't hurt to give working poor direct cash benefits either.

While we're at it we could replace the Section 8 vouchers for cash too.

What could possibly go wrong?


hey, it worked for wall street.  should work equally as well for the working poor.
 
2013-03-23 12:39:50 PM

Weaver95: atomicmask: You ultralib farkers can eat that concrete and bricks your democratic cities are made of right?

right?

if not, shut the fark up and pay for your food, and pay for ours also. We could easly feed ourselves if we grew for local consumption rather then global production. We have plenty of land, resources, and the ability to plant mixture of crops to have a stable diet. You however, would have to eat the daydreams and bullshiat your lives are made of if we did that. You would not have bread, meat, or beer. You subside because if you didn't, you would starve. Two pounds of wheat for a day's wages, and six pounds of barley for a day's wages, and do not damage the oil and the wine! You would be living it.

huh.  a biblical troll.  5/10.  I kinda liked it!


Who is trolling you, I used a biblical quote to put into light how city life would be without these subsides. Not every opinion you dislike is a troll.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-23 12:39:50 PM
Weaver95:

not very well, actually.  if/when corps failed entire populations (and sometimes civilizations along with 'em) died out or scattered.  sometimes they went to war with their more plentiful neighbors and took THEIR food.  so do you want a stable society that can feed itself?  then it pays to help farmers out through the lean years, as well as maintaining diversity in your food supply.

Nonsense. farm subsidies protect farmers financially, it doesn't prevent droughts or disease or do anything at all to provide food.

If farmers want crop insurance, fine.  Let them pay for it themselves.
 
2013-03-23 12:41:26 PM
I'm just gonna sit back and watch. This is gonna be a fun thread.
 
Displayed 50 of 160 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report