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 42
    More: Ironic, crop insurance, Jeff Flake, farmers, crops, federal government, payments  
•       •       •

3640 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-03-23 12:09:47 PM
4 votes:
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 12:16:05 PM
3 votes:
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.
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-23 12:01:30 PM
3 votes:
What a bootstrap looks like:

www.godirect.org
2013-03-23 01:01:50 PM
2 votes:
END ALL SUBSIDIES!


/except mine
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-23 12:51:17 PM
2 votes:

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 12:30:40 PM
2 votes:
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 12:28:02 PM
2 votes:

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 12:24:41 PM
2 votes:
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 12:14:54 PM
2 votes:

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 12:13:31 PM
2 votes:
Headline reads like those "smart, independent" women that demand guys should "be a man" and pay for their meals and bills.
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-23 12:07:02 PM
2 votes:
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?
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-23 11:55:34 AM
2 votes:

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 11:21:51 AM
2 votes:
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.
2013-03-23 07:18:28 PM
1 votes:

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 03:58:00 PM
1 votes:

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.
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-23 03:03:20 PM
1 votes:
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.
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-23 01:13:42 PM
1 votes:
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 01:02:24 PM
1 votes:

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 01:01:54 PM
1 votes:

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 12:57:15 PM
1 votes:
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 12:55:18 PM
1 votes:

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 12:53:38 PM
1 votes:
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 12:52:34 PM
1 votes:

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 12:45:57 PM
1 votes:

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 12:45:35 PM
1 votes:

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 12:43:08 PM
1 votes:
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 12:42:06 PM
1 votes:
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.
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-23 12:39:50 PM
1 votes:
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 12:37:47 PM
1 votes:
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 12:37:41 PM
1 votes:
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 12:36:28 PM
1 votes:
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 12:33:08 PM
1 votes:

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 12:29:23 PM
1 votes:

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 12:28:39 PM
1 votes:

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 12:28:00 PM
1 votes:

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 12:27:47 PM
1 votes:
Just don't you call it WELFARE, because only a inner city black and illegal alien thing
2013-03-23 12:25:11 PM
1 votes:

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 12:20:06 PM
1 votes:

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 12:11:58 PM
1 votes:

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 12:11:39 PM
1 votes:

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 12:00:48 PM
1 votes:

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.
NFA [TotalFark]
2013-03-23 08:04:11 AM
1 votes:
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.
 
Displayed 42 of 42 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report