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  
•       •       •

3659 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
 
2013-03-23 01:27:34 PM  

vpb: Thunderpipes: Weird, Democrats are all for 60 billion bailout for Sandy "victims".

You mean the disaster aid that people in farm country get too, in addition to their subsidies?  Maybe we should just give the Sandy victims some free money on top of the disaster aid to compensate.


Remember when people didn't have a biatch fit about disaster aid?

Do people really think that there aren't people who suffered a lot because of Sandy?
 
2013-03-23 01:30:05 PM  
Government insurance is necessary to maintain a steady price on food.  Without it, prices would spike and dip wildly with the yearly crop.  Stability in the food supply is the governments goal.. they dont care what it costs.  A well fed populace is a content one, in regards to social order and rioting etc.
 
2013-03-23 01:30:07 PM  
lol monsanto
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-23 01:30:24 PM  

Radioactive Ass: vpb: all subsidies would do is transfer the cost from our grocery bills to our tax bills.

And that's exactly what they are intended to do. The rich pay more in taxes in real dollars than the poor do. The rich would also be the last people affected by huge price increases on food, the poor would be the first ones to starve. With lower prices of food for everyone then you won't have starving people, rich or poor.


Except that we don't do that, I was saying that that would be better than the system we have now.  When there is a drought now, food prices go up.  The only people crop insurance helps is the farmers.
 
2013-03-23 01:33:15 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.


HMMMMMM...So why the fark does milk cost $4.99 1/2 gallon if they don't have to raise their prices?

Seems to me like they are doing both!
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-23 01:33:28 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Remember when people didn't have a biatch fit about disaster aid?

Do people really think that there aren't people who suffered a lot because of Sandy?


There seem to be people who think it compared to ongoing farm subsidies, as opposed to a special response to an unusual emergency.
 
2013-03-23 01:38:01 PM  

BMFPitt: PapaChester: END ALL SUBSIDIES!

/except mine

END ALL SUBSIDES!

Including mine.


That sinks.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-23 01:39:55 PM  
They have to pay for houses like this:

blog.sfgate.com

Remember Romney's farmer buddy?
 
2013-03-23 01:41:31 PM  

vpb: Except that we don't do that, I was saying that that would be better than the system we have now. When there is a drought now, food prices go up. The only people crop insurance helps is the farmers.


The prices would go up a hell of a lot more without the subsidies. Farmers would always be chasing the almighty dollar when they make their choices on what to grow. That's what caused the dust bowl in the 1930's. That disaster is what led to farming subsidies in the first place. You must have a very narrow view of things if you think that agricultural subsidies only benefit the farmers, they benefit everyone who buys food.

That's why when people look at raw numbers (the ones where red states take in more than they pay out in taxes) they can be misled. Without subsidies that number would be reversed as massive amounts of cash get sucked out of the population centers through spiking food prices instead. Someone, somewhere, is going to be paying the farmers for their products. The subsidy programs make it so that that cost is leveled out over time while ensuring that there is an as stable as possible food supply with little fluctuation in prices.
 
2013-03-23 01:45:42 PM  
If farm subsidies are a cost-effective way to lower food prices, then theoretically, it would cheaper for the government to crank up the subsidies enough so that it's free.

I call this "single-payer food."
 
2013-03-23 01:45:49 PM  

Weaver95: a biblical troll


The best kind. No matter what you post next you're wrong because you took it out of context.
 
2013-03-23 01:48:09 PM  

Turbo Cojones: HMMMMMM...So why the fark does milk cost $4.99 1/2 gallon if they don't have to raise their prices?

Seems to me like they are doing both!


Well I know that in my state the price of milk is regulated with both low and high price caps on its shelf price. It's far more likely that your store and processing facilities are marking up the prices well above what the farmer himself is charging per gallon.

That and right now there is a shortage of cattle in general because of the drought. Nobody ever said that prices would be rock solid in stability, only that the prices wouldn't spike as much as they would without them.
 
2013-03-23 01:54:05 PM  
This is no different than anything else.  You can live on a fault line, in a city below sea level, or on the coast and if an earthquake, flood, or hurricane gets you, hey, who could have ever seen than coming!  No insurance?  Here's your check.

As others have pointed out, I'd much rather pay the farm subsidy than turn the food supply over to an oligopoly of giant corporate ag interests.
 
2013-03-23 02:00:29 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.


They can't afford it now, primarily because we aren't subsidising nutrient dense foods.  We're subsidising corn and dairy, which are, quite frankly, bad for you.   As a result, we're fat, which makes us sick, which drives up health care costs.

I'm all for an asparagus or brussel sprout subsidy.   Corn should be left to market forces entirely.
 
2013-03-23 02:02:28 PM  

Weaver95: 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!


When I run into these types of state dependent folks that vote Republican and biatch about big government, that is *exactly* what I do.
 
2013-03-23 02:04:51 PM  

Weaver95: vpb: 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.

And when food prices spike to unbelievably high levels, what do you think happens next?


They stop growing subsidized crops and grow something a free market can support.   There is no green bean subsidy, yet I've got a case of them in the pantry.
 
2013-03-23 02:05:14 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?


Ideally, if we do subsidize, it should come from the defense budget.
 
2013-03-23 02:08:03 PM  

yingtong: Not all poor people make optimal purchasing decisions. Some pay for cigarettes, cell phones, and cable before they pay for rent, food, or medicine. Some do that deliberately, then expect the government to provide them with the important things. Those people place a never-ending load on programs intended to help people with legitimate needs get through a rough patch.


Not all bankers make optimal purchasing decisions.  Some keep money on the books before they turn around and lend out money to small businesses and families.  Some do that deliberately, then expect the government to provide them with the important things.
 
2013-03-23 02:21:05 PM  

Weaver95: WhoopAssWayne: You liberal dumbasses created this welfare state, so you don't have any room to complain when those evil bastards who grow our food game that idiotic system for all it's worth. Now get your asses back to work and keep those tax dollars rolling in to the red states, dumbasses.

nah, we'll just jack taxes on the elite 1% and change laws to make it expensive for corporation to hoard billions of dollars in cash reserves.  its amazing how much money we'd have if we stopped blowing the f*ck outta deserts on the other side of the world.


We would have zero more money. We borrowed that money from our future revenues and if we didn't borrow it at all we would still have zero more by not "blowing the f*club outta deserts".

I always love that line of argument... We shouldn't have run up that spending, we should have spent it on something else.

Oh... and the rich will always evade taxation wherever possible with the help of their employees... congress.
 
2013-03-23 02:23:04 PM  
whatever, we are like 17 TRILLION in the hole and still increasing entitlements. The U.S. dollar is worth only slightly more than monopoly money at this point.
 
2013-03-23 02:34:34 PM  

TomD9938: CruJones: By definition a McMansion is an oversized house, built on land too small for it, and typically in neighborhoods not designed for large multi-story homes.

That's a pretty strict definition, but I'll abide and just start calling those type of homes, 'Tacky Piles of Sheetrock With Nine Foot Ceilings'.


To be fair, I don't know much about how the midwest looks.  I just know in the south, farmhouses tend to look like well, farmhouses.  Plus half the farmers I know don't actually live on their farm anyway.
 
2013-03-23 02:48:24 PM  

Oldiron_79: whatever, we are like 17 TRILLION in the hole and still increasing entitlements. The U.S. dollar is worth only slightly more than monopoly money at this point.


Mexican food stamps are worth more than Monopoly money... oh wait... nvm
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-23 03:03:20 PM  
Radioactive Ass:

That's why when people look at raw numbers (the ones where red states take in more than they pay out in taxes) they can be misled. Without subsidies that number would be reversed as massive amounts of cash get sucked out of the population centers through spiking food prices instead. Someone, somewhere, is going to be paying the farmers for their products. The subsidy programs make it so that that cost is leveled out over time while ensuring that there is an as stable as possible food supply with little fluctuation in prices.

No they wouldn't.  Food prices wouldn't spike, any more than they do because farm subsidies don't keep prices down.

They were designed during the depression to keep prices up when a large percentage of Americans households were on farms.  They are designed to keep farm income up, they do nothing to lower prices for consumers.  The only people who benefit are farmers or people who own stock in agribusiness.

The two largest crops subsidized (feed grains and cotton) aren't even staples.  Meat and dairy are a luxury foods and cotton isn't even food.  And most of the money goes to large agribusinesses who have multiple farms that aren't going to be effected by a single event like a drought.

Not only do subsidies not prevent hunger, they cause it.
 
2013-03-23 03:08:03 PM  
I wonder what percentage of that payout goes directly into Monsanto's pocket. They are responsible for significant increases in production costs and have a near monopoly on several major crops.
 
2013-03-23 03:16:00 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.


Hey moron, read the article. These are democratic programs. Republicans are whining about it now.

Most of us here are just pointing and laughing at the idiocy. Vote Republican, cherish Democratic programs, hate "takers" but take plenty themselves - and for good reason, just as a poor person in the city has a good reason to want to eat.
 
2013-03-23 03:17:01 PM  
It would be a lot cheaper to put these "mouchers" on food stamps.
 
2013-03-23 03:18:50 PM  

diaphoresis: Oldiron_79: whatever, we are like 17 TRILLION in the hole and still increasing entitlements. The U.S. dollar is worth only slightly more than monopoly money at this point.

Mexican food stamps are worth more than Monopoly money... oh wait... nvm


Aside from a slight increase in the cost of producing it, monopoly money and American dollars are both worth exactly what their dimensions of already-printed-on paper are worth.

Worth != value
 
2013-03-23 03:42:07 PM  
I would have no problem with this, except that my farmer relatives are all frothing-at-the-mouth conservatives who go apoplectic at any government spending that doesn't go directly into farmers' pockets. (Except, well, they like the military, because that's where my rural relations who don't have farms end up.)
 
2013-03-23 03:53:43 PM  

LavenderWolf: diaphoresis: Oldiron_79: whatever, we are like 17 TRILLION in the hole and still increasing entitlements. The U.S. dollar is worth only slightly more than monopoly money at this point.

Mexican food stamps are worth more than Monopoly money... oh wait... nvm

Aside from a slight increase in the cost of producing it, monopoly money and American dollars are both worth exactly what their dimensions of already-printed-on paper are worth.

Worth != value


If we take the amount of money in the monopoly bank, and compare how much it costs to buy a monopoly set, it comes out to about $440 per monopoly dollar to US dollar.
The more you know.
 
2013-03-23 03:58:00 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: atomicmask: Who is trolling you, I used a biblical quote to put into light how city life would be without these subsides.

And without us you'd be out there watching your food spoil and worrying about how you're going to make the mortgage this month without anyone buying your wares.

You need us as much as we need you, pilgrim.


Actually no, I would be growing just enough to support myself and trade with the local community and using the rest as hunting land. If other farmers in the area followed suit, the bank wouldn't be able to do jack shiat, nor could the government. I guess you never heard an army marches on its belly,...

We don't actually need you, your banks, or your cities at all.
 
2013-03-23 04:00:21 PM  

Bastard Toadflax: atomicmask: You ultralib farkers

I'm guessing "ultralib" is the default setting to you. In your mind there's no such thing as a nomal lib, or a slightly left-of-center lib, or any lib but ultralib. You have learned well from Bill O'Reilly et ilk.


No, I know of normal liberals, they are usually called independents. Socially liberal while fiscal conservative does exist out here too...

We just tend to realize that "welfare state" is not the same as "farmer subsides." we can get buy without them, we might financially be hurt, but we would survive. On the other hand, you wouldn't.
 
2013-03-23 04:02:47 PM  

Mrtraveler01: vpb: Thunderpipes: Weird, Democrats are all for 60 billion bailout for Sandy "victims".

You mean the disaster aid that people in farm country get too, in addition to their subsidies?  Maybe we should just give the Sandy victims some free money on top of the disaster aid to compensate.

Remember when people didn't have a biatch fit about disaster aid?

Do people really think that there aren't people who suffered a lot because of Sandy?


Live near the ocean, need a bailout because of flooding. Smart that.
 
2013-03-23 04:14:25 PM  
Farmers. Farmers are the problem. Sure.

www.heritage.org
 
2013-03-23 04:35:34 PM  
Charts and graphs are no substitute for a tractor at your side, kid.
 
2013-03-23 04:41:56 PM  

The Irresponsible Captain: Farmers. Farmers are the problem. Sure.
[www.heritage.org image 350x350]

-=-
Was there a graph showing how much production, or size of the farming operation that the 10% of recipients have as opposed to the the other groups of recipients? You know, to be able to see if that 10% getting 65%... is not actually doing their 65%'s worth.
---------------

As for me, I want to keep the farmers around for a good long time. I'm not saying give them a free ride, but make it worth them staying in the business. Let them raise plenty of children* and teach others to farm. We need farmers more than we need G.E. or Verizon.

*Even when we get to the point of limiting the birthrate of this planet.
 
2013-03-23 04:57:56 PM  
Here we see a group of humble farmers discussing their crops:

emergeblog.net


Monsanto, Cargill, and ADM get most of the subsidy dollars.
 
2013-03-23 05:08:47 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?


Fortunately there have never been famines
 
2013-03-23 05:11:25 PM  

vpb: Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: atomicmask: Who is trolling you, I used a biblical quote to put into light how city life would be without these subsides.

And without us you'd be out there watching your food spoil and worrying about how you're going to make the mortgage this month without anyone buying your wares.

You need us as much as we need you, pilgrim.

No, we could buy in food from Mexico or Argentina just as easily as from Iowa.


You forget this small detail that the US is one of the largest exporters of food and has been for decades. If the US isn't making enough food the collapse would affect countries world wide. We export far more than we import.
 
2013-03-23 05:28:50 PM  
Expensive bootstraps.

Weaver95: 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.


McDonald's dollar menu.
 
2013-03-23 06:04:26 PM  

Weaver95: 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


I have been reading and commenting on your posts for many years. Has someone hijacked your Fark account? If not, you now appear to be a Liberal. Please explain.
 
2013-03-23 06:14:24 PM  

Oldiron_79: whatever, we are like 17 TRILLION in the hole and still increasing entitlements. The U.S. dollar is worth only slightly more than monopoly money at this point.


So, vote Republican. Second amendment rights?
 
2013-03-23 06:16:48 PM  
Again, the whole gist of the headline was the people receiving the gov't agriculture payouts are primarily people who think almost the entire gov't debt was caused by the darned commie leftwingers giving all their tax dollars to poor ethnic folks in big cities and illegal immigrants. They tend to think gays, atheists, and other monsters are destroying the economy for some reason and probably thank Jesus when their crop insurance money shows up.
 
2013-03-23 06:34:15 PM  
Delay: Oldiron_79: whatever, we are like 17 TRILLION in the hole and still increasing entitlements. The U.S. dollar is worth only slightly more than monopoly money at this point.

So, vote Republican. Second amendment rights?


So either way its rearranging deck chairs on the titanic
 
2013-03-23 06:36:15 PM  

Thunderpipes: Mrtraveler01: vpb: Thunderpipes: Weird, Democrats are all for 60 billion bailout for Sandy "victims".

You mean the disaster aid that people in farm country get too, in addition to their subsidies?  Maybe we should just give the Sandy victims some free money on top of the disaster aid to compensate.

Remember when people didn't have a biatch fit about disaster aid?

Do people really think that there aren't people who suffered a lot because of Sandy?

Live near the ocean, on a farm, need a bailout because of flooding drought. Smart that.


Derp.
 
2013-03-23 06:59:14 PM  

FunkOut: Again, the whole gist of the headline was the people receiving the gov't agriculture payouts are primarily people who think almost the entire gov't debt was caused by the darned commie leftwingers giving all their tax dollars to poor ethnic folks in big cities and illegal immigrants. They tend to think gays, atheists, and other monsters are destroying the economy for some reason and probably thank Jesus when their crop insurance money shows up.


Counter point: Left wingers thing the entire debt of the government was caused by darn ol republican christians and the best way to fix it is to toss open the doors and give more entitlements to brown people because gosh golly it makes them feel good or something. You tend to think Christians, rural folk, and true conservatives are the reason the economy is tanking and its most definitely not the fault of the toss money out the window to everyone faster then we can earn it individuals in charge on both sides of the political fence.

The truth is conservative government, meaning a tax low spend low mentality in which we only spend on ABSOLUTELY helpful things such as charity for the poor but programs to help them stop being poor, wars to ACTUALLY DEFEND ourselves instead of pre-emptive dick waving contests, and taxing the wealthy to make them pay the lions share, since they earn the lions share of the rewards of the society.

Ultra-liberalism is just as shiatty a philosophy and political structure as ultra conservatism. We cant afford to feed the world, its not our god damn responsibility. Nor can we afford to let every mexican or otherwise into our borders because we just do not have the land and resources. We need to worry about US primary and everyone else secondary. Farmers getting subsides is no more a problem then urban poor getting welfare. THe difference is the farmers provide food, the urban poor provide nothing.
 
2013-03-23 07:08:35 PM  

atomicmask: FunkOut: Again, the whole gist of the headline was the people receiving the gov't agriculture payouts are primarily people who think almost the entire gov't debt was caused by the darned commie leftwingers giving all their tax dollars to poor ethnic folks in big cities and illegal immigrants. They tend to think gays, atheists, and other monsters are destroying the economy for some reason and probably thank Jesus when their crop insurance money shows up.

Counter point: Left wingers thing the entire debt of the government was caused by darn ol republican christians and the best way to fix it is to toss open the doors and give more entitlements to brown people because gosh golly it makes them feel good or something. You tend to think Christians, rural folk, and true conservatives are the reason the economy is tanking and its most definitely not the fault of the toss money out the window to everyone faster then we can earn it individuals in charge on both sides of the political fence.

The truth is conservative government, meaning a tax low spend low mentality in which we only spend on ABSOLUTELY helpful things such as charity for the poor but programs to help them stop being poor, wars to ACTUALLY DEFEND ourselves instead of pre-emptive dick waving contests, and taxing the wealthy to make them pay the lions share, since they earn the lions share of the rewards of the society.

Ultra-liberalism is just as shiatty a philosophy and political structure as ultra conservatism. We cant afford to feed the world, its not our god damn responsibility. Nor can we afford to let every mexican or otherwise into our borders because we just do not have the land and resources. We need to worry about US primary and everyone else secondary. Farmers getting subsides is no more a problem then urban poor getting welfare. THe difference is the farmers provide food, the urban poor provide nothing.


Potato point : I'm Canadian, spent 7 years in 4-H, and grew up on a small farm. I've watched a lot of small farms get eaten up by giant poultry operations that resemble factories or subdivisions covering prime growing soil because of the pretty view.

Never make assumptions about your audience.
 
2013-03-23 07:18:28 PM  

atomicmask: the urban poor provide nothing.


Well... aside from votes for the liberals that is. It's in the liberals best interests (getting and keeping political power) to keep the urban poor people poor because the urban poor seem to think that welfare and such type things can only come from the liberals so they use the conservatives as their "White man keeping them down" bogyman to keep them coming back to the voting booths and voting against the evil conservatives that would put them out in the streets and burn their babies as fuel for heating their chafing dishes filled with caviar or something. It's the elephant in the room that doesn't get discussed because although it's true it's become politically incorrect to point things like these out.

The conservative pull the same type of trick only they target people who are either rural or suburban middle class and higher and point to the liberals throwing their hard earned money (at the cost of higher taxes for them) at the poor.

The truth lies somewhere in between the two.
 
2013-03-23 07:55:35 PM  
Rugged, independent, small-government = welfare queens
 
2013-03-23 09:13:13 PM  
If only there was a website ran by the government so you could see where all those subsidies are actually going!

My family has a farm.  Full time (no outside money) family ran farm.   In the past 16 years they have got around 5 grand average (6 of those years they got squat).  That is for 200 acres of corn, 200 head of hog, 20 head of cattle, and 5 sheep (damn grandfather and his damn sheep).

About 80% of that is for the corn.  Let me tell you, 4 grand doesn't cover seed corn for 300 acres (roughestimate is about 20 acres for 4K). Not to mention gas, maintenance on the vehicles, nitrogen, and the pesticides and herbicides.

And my father said he could live without subsidies, and wouldn't be sad to see them go.  But hey, if the money is there, why not use it.
 
2013-03-23 09:14:29 PM  

Burr: for 300 acres


That should have been 200 acres again. They used to have 300, but have moved some of that to other things (wheat, hay, barns)
 
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