Hey Rube ! . . .

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
Go piss up a rope

Must be those 'Moral Values' comming through.

Do you really think that 'Agri-Business' is going to take the hit on this ?

<NY Times>

President Bush will seek deep cuts in farm and commodity programs in his new budget and in a major policy shift will propose overall limits on subsidy payments to farmers, administration officials said Saturday.

Such limits would help reduce the federal budget deficit and would inject market forces into the farm economy, the officials said.

The proposal puts Mr. Bush at odds with some of his most ardent supporters in the rural South, including cotton and rice growers in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana and Mississippi.

The new chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, and more than 100 farm groups are gearing up to fight the White House proposal. The administration's willingness to push the proposal, despite such protests, suggests how tight the new budget will be.

Most of the subsidies are paid to large farm operators growing cotton and rice and, to a lesser degree, corn, soybeans and wheat.

Mr. Bush would set a firm overall limit of $250,000 on subsidies that can now exceed $1 million in some cases.

The proposal comes as the administration is seeking significant changes in other programs long considered sacrosanct, with the proposed revamping of Social Security to allow personal investment accounts and a move to shake up the Civil Service system.

Mr. Bush's farm proposal found support from some people who frequently criticize his policies.

For example, Kenneth Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, a research and advocacy group, said that it would reduce payments to large agribusiness operations and that the savings would reduce pressure on Congress to cut conservation programs.

"This proposal is a very big deal," Mr. Cook said. "I am stunned and impressed. The Bush administration is opening the door to reform on the most contested issue in agriculture policy today. Taxpayers will no longer have to subsidize every bushel of grain or bale of cotton. They will no longer have to subsidize the demise of the family farm."

In the past, when Congress considered limits on payments, Mr. Cook said, the administration took no position. The Senate approved a $275,000 limit in 2002 but dropped it in negotiations with the House.

Agriculture Department officials said Mr. Bush's proposals would cut federal payments to farmers by $587 million, or about 5 percent, next year and would save $5.7 billion in the coming decade. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they did not want to upstage release of the president's budget, scheduled for Monday.

The budget includes other proposals intended to produce large savings in farm programs, the officials said, but they refused to give details.

In theory, the maximum payment to a farmer, through multiple entities, is now $360,000 a year. But Keith J. Collins, chief economist at the Agriculture Department, said that growers had found many legal ways to get around the limit and that some growers received several times that amount. One type of aid, which involves marketing assistance loans, is not subject to any limit, he said.

In setting a firm overall limit of $250,000, the president's plan would tighten requirements for the recipients of such payments to be "actively engaged" in agriculture, and it would generally prevent farmers from claiming additional payments through multiple entities.

Farm subsidies have been a major issue in global trade talks, as poor farmers in the developing world demand that the United States and other wealthy countries cut back subsidies for their domestic producers.

Efforts to cap farm payments have produced odd alliances. Fiscal conservatives like the Heritage Foundation have joined some environmental groups and family farmers in the Midwest in supporting stricter limits. Opponents include the American Farm Bureau Federation. the nation's largest farm organization, as well as many commodity groups and politicians of both parties from rice and cotton states.

Mr. Cochran, the former chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said he would "work as hard as I can to oppose any changes" in current payments limits, set by Congress three years ago.

Speaking this week to the National Cotton Council, a trade group, Mr. Cochran said he knew that some people wanted to reduce farm program payments.
 

Spamela

Diamond Member
Oct 30, 2000
3,859
0
76
Mr. Bush would set a firm overall limit of $250,000 on subsidies that can now exceed $1 million in some cases.

reduce it to zero & it'll be a great idea.
 

beer

Lifer
Jun 27, 2000
11,169
1
0
Originally posted by: arsbanned
HAHAHAHA! All those red-staters who elected him have to take it from behind too! Nice.

sweeeeeeeeeeeeeet
way to go bush :)
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: beer
Originally posted by: arsbanned
HAHAHAHA! All those red-staters who elected him have to take it from behind too! Nice.

sweeeeeeeeeeeeeet
way to go bush :)
Right, like they all were Farmers:roll:
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Right, like they all were Farmers:roll:
Majority of the central US states are farm driven economies.

I think the farm subsidies could be taken down a notch :)
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
Move the farm into a consumer driven market & you will see major rises in the cost of food, dairy, & all related agricultural commodities.

Clip from the article:

Exhibit # 1: Thad Cochran of Mississippi, and more than 100 farm groups are gearing up to fight the White House proposal.

Exhibit # 2: Mr. Bush would set a firm overall limit of $250,000 on subsidies that can now exceed $1 million in some cases.

Exhibit # 3: In theory, the maximum payment to a farmer, through multiple entities, is now $360,000 a year

Now if I'm not mistaken the difference between 360,000 & 250,000 = 110,000 is it not ?
Multiply 110,000 X 100 Farm Groups (In Mississippi) and you have 1.1 Million in one sample. Much more if they have their 'Ambulance Chasin' Lawyers' figuring out the loopholes around the
$ 360,000 and the difference to over a million - It gets steep real quick, dosen't it ?
Before you know it, you're looking at maybe as much as 100 Million in substancies to the 'Agri-Business' sector, cause Joe Farmer doesn't have a staff of $ 110K a year & up 'Bambilance Chasin' Lawyers looking for - and advising them on the loopholes that are there.
Take that accross the country, at a sample of 100 per state & you cans easily exceed 500 million in Federal Monies - take that away & it has to be made up from somewhere.
They aren't goimg to give up their profits now, are they ?

Now riddle me this: you as a taxpayer have already paid a share of your money - either through the Fed, State, or Sales Tax routine,
and this is the cash that funds the Farm Subsidies. If the funding is stopped, you're NOT getting any more money back.
The difference is going to come out of your pocket - it's your expense now.
The 'little token' from your tax portion that used to go into the pool is no longer used to offset the market price.

A dozen eggs, that's $ 3.99. Gallon of milk ? Try $ 5.00. It will cost so much more in the long run and you will have a couple hundred bucks more a month per family to shell out just to get the equivalent qantity or quality. Dumb move.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Well, maybe this is one of the 150 programs Bush is going to cut. We're supposed to hear about that on Monday.
 

Kibbo

Platinum Member
Jul 13, 2004
2,847
0
0
It's about time.

Farm subsidies in the EU and the US substantially inhibit the ability of third world economies from growing out of poverty.
 

PatboyX

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2001
7,024
0
0
anyone ever read hunter thompsons column called hey rube! on espn.com?
its great.
 

Kerouactivist

Diamond Member
Jul 12, 2001
4,665
0
76
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I never liked farm subsidies much, but I like corporate welfare even less...

funny how we are not seeing any article's about cutting corporate welfare....

I do agree with cutting farm subsidies as long as it doesn't give unfair adavantages to corporations over the little guy...

 

arsbanned

Banned
Dec 12, 2003
4,853
0
0
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Right, like they all were Farmers:roll:
Majority of the central US states are farm driven economies.

Thank you for not being dumb like Red Dawn. :D

Originally posted by: Kibbo
It's about time.

Farm subsidies in the EU and the US substantially inhibit the ability of third world economies from growing out of poverty.

Yeah instead we're going to take those subsidies and blow up "ragheads" and develop new and better weapons systems for doing more of the same. You OK with that?
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: Kibbo
It's about time.

Farm subsidies in the EU and the US substantially inhibit the ability of third world economies from growing out of poverty.

i've heard that too. Plus fat govt loans for $500,000 tractors a they can't get/

I have mixed feelings about this. Food supply is nessesary to us. If lots of farmers go under due to Bush's cuts and we are on edge of supply/demand curve we in big trouble should mother nature take a nasty course.
 

Kerouactivist

Diamond Member
Jul 12, 2001
4,665
0
76
Originally posted by: arsbanned
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Right, like they all were Farmers:roll:
Majority of the central US states are farm driven economies.

Thank you for not being dumb like Red Dawn. :D

Originally posted by: Kibbo
It's about time.

Farm subsidies in the EU and the US substantially inhibit the ability of third world economies from growing out of poverty.

Yeah instead we're going to take those subsidies and blow up "ragheads" and develop new and better weapons systems for doing more of the same. You OK with that?


I for one am all about taking that money and giving it to health care but, I am but, a minority...living under a tyranny of the majority thus apparently under this administration I have no rights.

 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Originally posted by: Kibbo
It's about time.

Farm subsidies in the EU and the US substantially inhibit the ability of third world economies from growing out of poverty.
Ditto

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
I personally know many farmers who think subsidies should be be reduced(eliminated). Ofcourse any change needs to be gradual so as not to hyper-inflate raw product cost or cause mass devastation of agri-business(farmers specifically).

As a Red Stater :D I don't believe in subsidies - never have as I've alluded to here many times. Subsidies however need to be done away with WHILE allowing marketable products/business avenues to fill in.

CsG
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I personally know many farmers who think subsidies should be be reduced(eliminated). Ofcourse any change needs to be gradual so as not to hyper-inflate raw product cost or cause mass devastation of agri-business(farmers specifically).

As a Red Stater :D I don't believe in subsidies - never have as I've alluded to here many times. Subsidies however need to be done away with WHILE allowing marketable products/business avenues to fill in.

CsG


I'm pretty much with the CAD on this, but I don't think that "Family Farm America' should be the ones who take the brunt of the cutbacks.

Corporate AgriBusiness, on the other hand have been leaching off the taxpayer for way too long.

Unfortunately it's the 'Family Farm' that will get crushed on the cuts, not Corporate Farming.
They're the ones who are paid the muili-millions to NOT grow the products for market while the farming families are the ones who actually take the risk of growing produce who are subjected to drought, weather hazards and possible crop failure.

Why take a risk when you can just take the dole for NOT growing 500 acres of corn, and duplicate the paperwork for NOT growing the same 500 acres of wheat,
triplicate forms for not growing rye, quatriplicate for the barley, etc. . etc. ad naseum . . .

Family farming (not ranching) used to be limited to 60 acres under cultivation for any given registered name. Bought out by Corporate Agri-Business, they tend to leave the acquired land under the name of the original owner, and let their lawyers muddle up the chain of ownership so the corporate gets the bennefits, while the hard working individual is the one subjected to all the risk and potential failures and bankrupcies - while they (Corporate) pocket the cash for doing nothing.

It's bait & switch at the highest level.
 

catnap1972

Platinum Member
Aug 10, 2000
2,607
0
76
Originally posted by: arsbanned
HAHAHAHA! All those red-staters who elected him have to take it from behind too! Nice.

Looks like the poor farmers right up the road got hoodwinked...guess that "B/C Farm Ranch Team" sold your asses out once they got your vote.

HAHA!
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
well lets get this straight...they voted republican...while bush talks of less gov't / budget cuts...

They seriously expect no cut in subsidies?...no offense...but that's just plain stupid.