Cut back farm subsidies

The News-Sentinel (Fort Wayne) ^ | 10. February 2005 | Leo Morris

[1rudeboy]

Found this through the Heritage website. Governmental policy always has unintended consequences . . . if you are interested in more about the same, try Big Shrimp: A Protectionist Mess.

[Toddsterpatriot]

But Willie Green says subsidies make our sugar cheaper.

[Protagoras]

The government should stick to defending the rights of the citizens and stop interfering in businesses of any kind.

[martin_fierro]

Your thoughts, please.

[Mase]

"” Since farming households in general have higher incomes, greater wealth and lower consumption expenditures than most households, this creates a perverse anti-Robin Hood effect: The poor (relatively speaking) are being robbed to pay the rich."
______________

It will be interesting to follow this thread to see if any of the crowd who believes the American farmer cannot compete anymore and is living on the edge of financial ruin will, finally, offer some evidence to refute the Heritage Foundation's claim.

[curlewbird]

Get rid of the Chicago Board of Trade and the speculators in the market and you won't need gov. payments. As long as the producers can't set the prices they need for their crops, they most likely aren't going to be profitable.

[bahblahbah]

Bush's proposal will do nothing to hurt 99% of the family farms.

[junta]

Harangue the farmers if you must, but these bills ought to be labled, "Save the Farmland Banking Industry." In my No. Illinois area family corparations have led the farm consolidation and they have done it with the help of institutions willing to lend money rather freely. Take away the government juice and we will need John "Cougar" to do his first Bank Aid concert.

[1rudeboy]

Clearly, we need more subsidies in order to drive prices even lower. [chuckle]

[junta]

Wrong without the dollars of these city slickers the production channel will be controlled by way too few industrial consumers who in the end would decimate what is left of the small farmers. Soon after your plan went into effect mega corps would move in and farm mega sized farms would be rule and rural people would be in the same boat as 19th century coal miners.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Get rid of the Chicago Board of Trade and the speculators in the market and you won't need gov. payments. As long as the producers can't set the prices they need for their crops, they most likely aren't going to be profitable.

Absolutely!! You wouldn't want the consumers to have any say in the price of crops.

[followerofchrist]

Whatever the case, farmers in my neck of the woods are selling prime ag land to developers. Unfair trade practices undercut U.S. farmers. That's an issue.

[Dave Olson]

Bull. We've heard the same dire warnings before about the demise of the telephone company, airlines, trucking... if they had to get by without good ol' Uncle Sugar's help too.

I was raised on a farm, so I know how much hard work it takes. But I'd like to see all crop subsidies, not just cut, but ended. If that means some farms sink, tough rocks.

[The Great RJ]

Where do I sign up to get paid $12 so I don't have to mow my lawn?

[curlewbird]

Your right! Especially when most consumers don't have a CLUE how much it actually costs to produce the crop in the first place!!!!!!! By the way, most average consumers aren't the ones with the extra cash to play the commodities market. Consumers shouldn't have a say in the price of crops, they should have a say in the price of the food they purchase from the BIG corporations who really rack up the $$. Do you really think that when the price at the grocery store goes up, it's the farmer who is getting that cash?????? Lamb is not traded on the mercantile and the price stays affordable at the market, as well as being profitable for the producers. It can be done!!

[curlewbird]

The vast majority of trader on the board ARE the big industrials!! They already control the prices!!

[1rudeboy]

I don't think it likely that unfair trade practices result in developers buying land. There's more to it . . . .

[Toddsterpatriot]

Consumers shouldn't have a say in the price of crops, they should have a say in the price of the food they purchase from the BIG corporations who really rack up the $$.

Yes!! Why should the big corporations have a say in the price of the goods they buy? I think the government should tell them what to pay.

And those brokers on the Board of Trade floor are just a bunch of leeches. The government should take all their money and give it to the farmers.

[eeriegeno]

But I'd like to see all crop subsidies, not just cut, but ended.

I agree with that statement 100%.....

[curlewbird]

"And those brokers on the Board of Trade floor are just a bunch of leeches. The government should take all their money and give it to the farmers."


I never said that! Believe me, I would like nothing more than to NOT have to deal with the government when it comes to my farming practices. But I get really annoyed when I see all these posts about how 'Rich' the farmers are getting at the expense of the taxpayers. The vast majority of us are not 'rich' by any means. We work hard for a living and just want to be able to make a profit at what we love to do. It is hard work for little return. I apparently am a little less tolerant than normal on this subject. I have spent most of the last two weeks trying to line up the financing for next years operations. I wish I was as rich as everyone claims. But honestly, I think the farmers get a lot more of the spite and hatred from people than most of them deserve. I know farmers who are like the ones talked about in the articles. They split into 3 or 4 corporations to max on payments and then outbid smaller farmers for rent of farm ground. Most of the farmers I know are not like that and it really annoys me when people say nasty things about what we do.