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  
•       •       •

3639 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
 
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.
 
2013-03-23 12:41:27 PM

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?
 
2013-03-23 12:41:36 PM

CruJones: And McMansions on farmland? That doesn't even make sense.


You could write on one hand what I know about agriculture, but I've seen this as well in my travels on the backroads of the upper Midwest.

I'm guessing it's corn money, mostly.
 
2013-03-23 12:42:00 PM

Mr. Carpenter: 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.


I went to Truman. I know all too well what Kirksville looks like.

It's weird to see someone from Kirksville on Fark...small world. Now we can talk about Paglai's and Pancake City.
 
2013-03-23 12:42:06 PM
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.
 
GBB
2013-03-23 12:42:22 PM

jeffowl: 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


How did you get corn?   I thought there was a drought??
 
2013-03-23 12:43:08 PM
I don't understand why farmers are held in such esteem, merely because they inherited land. Even a small farm is quite valuable, as far as land prices go. Surely the idea that you have some sort of "Right to Farm" (if your father was a farmer) runs counter to the idea of equality, opportunity, and independence.

Family farms are, at best, break-even enterprises. Instead of propping them up with subsidies, they should go broke *naturally*, so that the land and resources they use inefficiently can be consolidated into corporate farms of more profitable scale.

Even a small farm is quite valuable, as far as land prices go.
 
2013-03-23 12:43:30 PM
Perhaps we need something like the ACA for crop insurance.  Make every farm worker buy it, whether he works for a large ag firm or owns a family farm.
 
2013-03-23 12:43:38 PM

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.
 
2013-03-23 12:44:54 PM

Mrtraveler01: Mr. Carpenter: 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.

I went to Truman. I know all too well what Kirksville looks like.

It's weird to see someone from Kirksville on Fark...small world. Now we can talk about Paglai's and Pancake City.


So all my friends love Pagliai's but I think the sauce tastes like crap and the pizza is horribly overpriced.  About the only thing they have going for them are Ronza's which aren't even Ronza's even more. I guess they got sued and have to call them Palonzas now. And yeah it's such a small place weird to see a fellow from Kville on Fark lol.
 
2013-03-23 12:44:59 PM

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.
 
2013-03-23 12:45:32 PM

Weaver95: 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.


What organized society helps to fund, it has every right to regulate. Farmer or working poor.
 
2013-03-23 12:45:35 PM

douchebag/hater: Subby? Do you have car insurance? Do you consider yourself self reliant?

You do?

Then geabod.


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?

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?


I think subby's point is that it's a myth that farmers are the self-reliant, bootstrappy, rugged individualists that conservatives make them out to be. "Real Americans" as Sarah Palin put it. Those who complain the loudest about welfare and government aid are the ones who receive it most.
 
2013-03-23 12:45:57 PM

douchebag/hater: Subby? Do you have car insurance? Do you consider yourself self reliant?

You do?

Then geabod.


The government doesn't pay 62% of subby's car insurance.
 
2013-03-23 12:46:24 PM

TomD9938: Weaver95: 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.

What organized society helps to fund, it has every right to regulate. Farmer or working poor.


so you're ok with regulating the f*ck outta wall street and bankers?
 
2013-03-23 12:49:13 PM

jjorsett: Rugged, independent, small-government farmers

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


Yeah, was going to say that subby has some pretty stupid, wrong conceptions about farmers.  They are all about their subsidies, and vote accordingly.
 
2013-03-23 12:50:29 PM

Mr. Carpenter: About the only thing they have going for them are Ronza's which aren't even Ronza's even more. I guess they got sued and have to call them Palonzas now.


That's too funny. I always ordered from them, but that's because the only other options were Pizza Hut and Papa John's and they didn't deliver to campus as late as Pagliai's did. It was pretty average stuff.

But I could never call it a Palonza. That's like calling the Sears Tower the Willis Tower.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-23 12:51:17 PM

c4rr0tc4k3: 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.


Except that they don't do that.  Crop insurance protects farmers, not consumers.

If the government wanted to do that it would subsidize food in times of shortage.  this is nothing but a hand out to people with a strong lobby.
 
2013-03-23 12:52:26 PM

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

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

Yeah, was going to say that subby has some pretty stupid, wrong conceptions about farmers.  They are all about their subsidies, and vote accordingly.


so farmers voting to protect their subsidies are bad...but corporations and rich folks voting to protect their subsidies are....what?  bad?  good?  help me out here.
 
2013-03-23 12:52:34 PM

drjekel_mrhyde: Just don't you call it WELFARE, because only a inner city black and illegal alien thing


Bingo. I'm from a bootstrappy Real American town where they lined up for farking milesfor a Sarah Palin book signing. They hate welfare and the gubbmint. They hate welfare. They hate the 47%.  The city isbased on government money from the AEC->ERDA->DOE to the military. Outside town it's all farm subsidies, crop insurance and water projects.

Try telling them they're welfare queens suckling off the government teat and see how far you get.
 
2013-03-23 12:53:38 PM
Let's see here...

Gov't farm subsidies means low food costs.
Low food costs means low wages.
Low wages means necessity of low cost food.

And somewhere in the circular logic pattern of relying on the government for necessities is the tax burden that gets spread among the entire population.

And since any disruption of the delicate system can have dire consequences, more gov't regulation gets piled on existing regulations which validates the need for the Commerce Clause which prevents you from being self-sufficient because you grew too much wheat or corn and prices fluctuated.

It's a complex problem that sure-as-shootin' ain't getting solved in a FARK thread.
 
2013-03-23 12:53:38 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.

Right.. because when FEMA gave people who were displaced by Katrina $2000 cash cards so they could buy food without a lot of bureaucratic overhead, those people totally used the money to buy necessities, not designer purses and expensive shoes.

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.


WTR the original subject, let's make a deal:  the govenment can stop giving farmers crop subsidies if it stops taxing them at something like $1200/acre for arable land.. regardless of whether that land produces crops or not.

IIRC, Iowa farmers pay something like $3 billion in taxes annually.
 
2013-03-23 12:53:59 PM

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.
 
2013-03-23 12:55:18 PM

vpb: 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.


Farmers wouldn't farm if they didn't have a financial incentive. I get the feeling that you are fairly clueless about what goes on behind the scenes as far as how your food gets to your plate.

And they do pay for crop insurance, and in most years they don't collect a penny from it. Those that do usually have zero govt. dollars involved. The govt. only gets involved when the amount paid out goes over a certain overall amount and that only happens in situations where there's a widespread problem like massive flooding (farms have to be on or near flood plains, that's how the rich dirt got there in the first place) or drought.
 
2013-03-23 12:55:21 PM

Weaver95: so you're ok with regulating the f*ck outta wall street and bankers?


Yeah. They already are.

When you say "the f*ck outta" though, it sounds punitive.

Regulation =/= destruction.
 
2013-03-23 12:57:15 PM
I live in an agricultural area and there are plenty of farms with McMansions on them.
And they all grow corn and soybean which get processed into high fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated soybean oil. The rest produce chicken feed for Perdue.
The chemicals they put on their fields end up in the Chesapeake Bay where they kill the crabs and oysters and everything else.
There is nothing noble about it. It's all about profits.
 
2013-03-23 12:57:55 PM

yingtong: 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.

Right.. because when FEMA gave people who were displaced by Katrina $2000 cash cards so they could buy food without a lot of bureaucratic overhead, those people totally used the money to buy necessities, not designer purses and expensive shoes.


well....when we bailed out AIG the guys who tanked the company gave themselves pay raises and bonuses, along with spa treatments and 1st class flights around the country.  As I recall, most GOP types around here either defended AIG's actions or got very quiet for a while.  I see both situations as identical - we gave the rich folks free money and they behaved badly.  But nobody seemed to really care.  so why not give poor people free money?  I mean we can't really complain if they behave badly with it.  we certainly didn't complain when AIG abused their free money, right?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-23 12:59:40 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.


Total nonsense.  Crop insurance protects farmers not consumers.  Farmers charge what the market will bear now.  They aren't going to take less than the market rate for their crops in good years because they got some crop insurance.

Crop insurance does nothing to help the poor at all.
 
2013-03-23 01:00:09 PM
Speaking of irony, I bet Subby supports this program.
 
2013-03-23 01:01:50 PM
END ALL SUBSIDIES!


/except mine
 
2013-03-23 01:01:54 PM

vpb: What a bootstrap looks like:

[www.godirect.org image 600x243]


Well, considering a tax refund is money that you already paid to the government, you might want to find a better image.  But I see your point, insurance is totally the same thing as welfare.  Premiums, how do they work?
 
2013-03-23 01:02:24 PM

CruJones: 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.


dustydavis.com What a  farm McMansion may look like.
 
2013-03-23 01:02:26 PM

TomD9938: Weaver95: so you're ok with regulating the f*ck outta wall street and bankers?

Yeah. They already are.

When you say "the f*ck outta" though, it sounds punitive.

Regulation =/= destruction.


If we're already regulating wall street and regulation is destruction then...how do you explain this? wall street has had a VERY good year so far, and bonuses are up 15%. I can only think of two things: either regulation ISN'T destruction...or that we're not actually regulating wall street. the facts do not support your viewpoint.

not that it matters. you said that if we (the public) fund something then we have the right to control it. so lets control wall street. YOU said we can, right? so lets control wall street and level the playing field for the rest of us.
 
2013-03-23 01:02:31 PM

PapaChester: END ALL SUBSIDIES!

/except mine


END ALL SUBSIDES!

Including mine.
 
2013-03-23 01:02:39 PM
You're arguing over crumbs while Big Agribusiness gets the lions share of the Farming Welfare.
It's just one more way to divide Americans, that way they can't get it together to protest in cities and state capitols.
Nothing succeeds like suspicion.
 
2013-03-23 01:03:35 PM
Banks won't loan money to farmers without insurance.

Govt takes over farmers insurance program and farks it up.

profit?
 
2013-03-23 01:04:05 PM

Weaver95: regulation is destruction


TF?
 
2013-03-23 01:04:28 PM

Weaver95: so farmers voting to protect their subsidies are bad...but corporations and rich folks voting to protect their subsidies are....what?  bad?  good?  help me out here.


Bad.  Everyone who wants to create or continue any subsidy is bad.  Any other questions?
 
2013-03-23 01:10:24 PM
I need a subsidy just to fill the tank of my SUV. Thanks government.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-23 01:13:42 PM
Weaver95:

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

Nothing, because they only spike to unbearable levels in the imagination of people who don't have a basic grasp of economics, or who like the false dilemma fallacy.

Even if farmers were passing the subsidies they receive on to consumers, and it cost nothing to administer the program, and none of the subsidies were going for things like animal feed or ethanol, all subsidies would do is transfer the cost from our grocery bills to our tax bills.
 
2013-03-23 01:14:13 PM

TomD9938: CruJones: And McMansions on farmland? That doesn't even make sense.

You could write on one hand what I know about agriculture, but I've seen this as well in my travels on the backroads of the upper Midwest.

I'm guessing it's corn money, mostly.


Again, no.  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.

A big house on a farm is just a big house.  And as someone who has many friends in cotton and soybean and corn farming, that's the exception.  But again, think how cheap it is to build a large house in the Mississippi delta.   It probably costs approximately the same as a 1,000 sq ft loft in Chicago.  And a lot less than a two story home in the Chicago suburbs.  It's relative.
 
2013-03-23 01:15:45 PM

vpb: Total nonsense. Crop insurance protects farmers not consumers. Farmers charge what the market will bear now. They aren't going to take less than the market rate for their crops in good years because they got some crop insurance.

Crop insurance does nothing to help the poor at all.


If farmers go under and stop producing food then the remaining farmers who are lucky enough to not be as affected by whatever the problems are will jack up their prices (supply and demand). The poor would be the first ones to starve in that situation. See the depression, the dust bowl and soup kitchen\bread lines stretching for blocks in some cities for what can happen as a result.

That's why we have farm subsidies, to manage farming as an overall system instead of a haphazard system where the farmers are completely on their own. The subsidies are an incentive for farmers to join that system by smoothing out their revenue stream. If not they would be jacking up prices even in plentiful years, in the past (with no subsidies) farmers have actually destroyed produce to artificially boost the price on what remained. With subsidies the prices that they can charge are restricted by the govt. and they have to follow a master plan on managing farming across the country.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-23 01:16:27 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.


No, we could buy in food from Mexico or Argentina just as easily as from Iowa.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-23 01:18:17 PM
Bastard Toadflax:

I think subby's point is that it's a myth that farmers are the self-reliant, bootstrappy, rugged individualists that conservatives make them out to be. "Real Americans" as Sarah Palin put it. Those who complain the loudest about welfare and government aid are the ones who receive it most.

Of course it is.  Farm subsidies are one of the reasons red states mostly get more federal spending than they pay in taxes.
 
2013-03-23 01:18:38 PM
Weird, Democrats are all for 60 billion bailout for Sandy "victims".
 
2013-03-23 01:20:02 PM
"Ah, so THIS government entitlement program is ok...Hypocrisy! Just another example of how big business is not actually for a free market. What they really want is to socialize the risk of business while keeping the profits private. "

well said
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-23 01:20:22 PM
Mr. Carpenter:

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.

Yes, and if we got rid of farm subsidies we could subsidize food for the poor and in times of shortage at a much lower price than handing out money to farmers.
 
2013-03-23 01:21:37 PM

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.
 
2013-03-23 01:23:03 PM

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


Why is victims in quotes?
 
2013-03-23 01:24:14 PM

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'.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-23 01:24:56 PM

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.
 
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)
 
2013-03-23 10:42:09 PM

Burr: That is for 200 acres of corn, 200 head of hog, 20 head of cattle, and 5 sheep (damn grandfather and his damn sheep).


Maybe they should try raising the rest of the hogs and cattle too; I can't imagine you can get much meat off just the heads.
 
2013-03-23 11:45:29 PM

Mr. Carpenter: 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.


So basically the USA in another 50 years or so...
 
2013-03-24 12:40:52 AM

BarkingUnicorn: Make every farm worker buy i


See. can't let someone make a choice. You must MAKE them buy it. That is the problem.if they do not buy it then they go to jail or lose their property or get a "fee or fine" ,but to hell with ...wait...is someone playing a fife? Lisa, is someone playing a fife?
 
2013-03-24 01:04:18 AM

Rent Party: asparagus or brussel sprout subsidy


Here is the subsidy bill secured through the Dept. of Agriculture:

The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) proposes regulations to implement the new Asparagus Revenue Market Loss Assistance Payment (ALAP) Program authorized by the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 Farm Bill). The purpose of the program is to compensate domestic asparagus producers for marketing losses resulting from imports during the 2004 through 2007 crop years. Payments will be calculated based on 2003 crop production. Through the ALAP Program, CCC is authorized to provide up to $15 million in direct payments to asparagus producers. This rule proposes eligibility requirements, payment application procedures, and the method for calculating individual payments. This rule also proposes new information collection for the payment application.

Link here:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?granuleId=2010-1 740 7&packageId=FR-2010-07-16&acCode=FR" title="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?granuleId=2 010-1740 7&packageId=FR-2010-07-16&acCode=FR" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?granuleId...
 
2013-03-24 01:05:53 AM
Not getting a GD dime out here. Wouldn't take it if offered. Would throw the GD government man off the property.

____ the government.
 
2013-03-24 01:14:33 AM

Rent Party: green bean subsidy


either directly or through regulation they are.
 
2013-03-24 01:27:55 AM

swangoatman: Rent Party: asparagus or brussel sprout subsidy

Here is the subsidy bill secured through the Dept. of Agriculture:

The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) proposes regulations to implement the new Asparagus Revenue Market Loss Assistance Payment (ALAP) Program authorized by the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 Farm Bill). The purpose of the program is to compensate domestic asparagus producers for marketing losses resulting from imports during the 2004 through 2007 crop years. Payments will be calculated based on 2003 crop production. Through the ALAP Program, CCC is authorized to provide up to $15 million in direct payments to asparagus producers. This rule proposes eligibility requirements, payment application procedures, and the method for calculating individual payments. This rule also proposes new information collection for the payment application.

Link here:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?granuleId=2010-1 740 7&packageId=FR-2010-07-16&acCode=FR" title="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?granuleId=2 010-1740 7&packageId=FR-2010-07-16&acCode=FR" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?granuleId...


Interesting!

This is a subsidy to replace revenue lost to imports, though, so it's not quite what I'm looking for.  I want to see healthy foods subsidized because we want them to beaffordable for consumers.  That is the point of dairy and corn subsidies, which is why we are fat.

Asparagus farmers have to compete with imports and this is supposed to help them.  Maybe it does.  I think we should subsidize it to the point where, like corn, it is far cheaper to buy than it is to grow.   It should be 25 cents a pound at the grocery, and corn should be at what the market will bear.
 
2013-03-24 01:35:41 AM

swangoatman: Rent Party: green bean subsidy

either directly or through regulation they are.


That is a fascinating article, but it doesn't say what you're implying it says.  It says that 90% of subsidies go to four crops;  corn, soy, cotton, and wheat.   Fresh fruits and vegetables are called "specialty crops" and receive next to nothing if they receive anything at all.

We should change that.  Which is exactly what I and the article are talking about.
 
2013-03-24 02:26:01 AM
This is kind of a dicey issue. On the one hand, we need our farmers profitable or our food supply will be vulnerable; on the other hand, paying farmers for failure just motivates farm development in risky areas that shouldn't necessarily be developed. Maybe to get your farm insurance, you should have to have at least x average crop yields for the same area over the previous ten years? But this isn't the real issue. The real issue is massive farm subsidies. We are currently subsidizing corn by like 35%, and soy nearly as much, which causes large surpluses of corn and soy, which are then used to slowly poison us to death in the form of sugar and soy additives. Meanwhile, regular vegetables are subsidized more like 10%. Everything is backwards, and it's destroying our crop diversity and killing vast numbers of people. You wouldn't need a Bloomberg big soda ban if that soda cost 30-40% more.
 
2013-03-25 08:58:56 AM
Yeah. What a bunch of freeloaders.
It's amusing that subby thinks he has some clever point here.
 
Displayed 160 of 160 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report