Proof Republicans don't give a rats ass about government spending

[EagleKeeper]

Or how about no subsidies for farms whatsoever. There's hardly any small time farmers left.

Besides, subsidies for farms hurts people in the 3rd world who export food to us. With programs like SNAP, money goes back to food producers anyway.

What do you call a small farm? Acreage # please?

Being a displaced farmer, I know few that are land rich and cash poor. Many inherited land from successive generations. Crop fails and they are out $is of investment on seed fertilizers, insecticides as of needing to still make payments/repairs on machinery.

So what is the acreage size that should be cut off.

For many,, the farm acts as their SS

 

[EagleKeeper]

That may have been true in the past but I doubt it is true anymore.

The price of animal feed can vary 50% or more. Stable crop prices remove the swing.

Any ideas why meat and dairy prices oscillate? Cost of feed. Cost goes up,herds are thinned.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Funny, since that is exactly what farm subsidies accomplish.

Subsidies helped the nation's food supply to be stabilized and endured that quality farmland would not be lost by a bad year.

Multiple bad hears encourage the sale of a farm. That is where the big corp farms developed from.

Again same question.

What is the acreage that should be used to have subsidies for family farm to ensure that food is available in tbe nearby town.

Then consider the other government bailouts spun by Obama and predecessors over tbe years.

This at least benefits a large segment of the population.

Define amount on acreage for subsidies. Then expect tbe large farms to be subdivided on paper.

 

[Phokus]

There's your answer right there. The conservative viewpoint on welfare like food stamps is that people aren't earning it because they aren't working for it (which is generally untrue, but whatever). Farm subsidies are (theoretically) going to farmers who are actually doing work. There's no hypocrisy in their position. Do I agree with it? No. But saying "OH HO, THEY SUPPORT WELFARE FOR THEMSELVES" is just asinine. They think that farmers are hard-working individuals and deserve a bone to help make ends meet and people who can't afford food are lazy moochers. It may be inaccurate, but it's not hypocrisy.

I have a job, where's my subsidy? What a load of shit.

And as long as you're working it's ok to spend public dollars? Ok then, i guess the GOP shouldn't have a problem with government workers then. Hypocrisy found.

 

[Phokus]

What do you call a small farm? Acreage # please?

Being a displaced farmer, I know few that are land rich and cash poor. Many inherited land from successive generations. Crop fails and they are out $is of investment on seed fertilizers, insecticides as of needing to still make payments/repairs on machinery.

So what is the acreage size that should be cut off.

For many,, the farm acts as their SS

There should be no cutoff because there should be no farm subsidies.

 

[dank69]

Subsidies helped the nation's food supply to be stabilized and endured that quality farmland would not be lost by a bad year.

Multiple bad hears encourage the sale of a farm. That is where the big corp farms developed from.

Again same question.

What is the acreage that should be used to have subsidies for family farm to ensure that food is available in tbe nearby town.

Then consider the other government bailouts spun by Obama and predecessors over tbe years.

This at least benefits a large segment of the population.

Define amount on acreage for subsidies. Then expect tbe large farms to be subdivided on paper.

I am not informed enough to offer you any answers. All I am saying is that it seems likely that even though subsidies were a good thing in the past maybe their usefulness has come to an end. I justify this position (again, mostly from complete ignorance) by saying that it seems likely to me that big agriculture can respond to fluctuating supply and demand all on its own with today's super seeds and other technology. I mean, last year all I heard about was drought and how much impact it would have on our food prices and I really don't see much change at all. Do you? Is this because subsidies have a bigger effect on food supply than nationwide drought?

 

[Wreckem]

SNAP is just an excuse so he can post a misleading thread.

When the Dems have been in control; there have been no reduction of subsidies.

Neither party will do anything about subsidies. But that doesnt mean his point wasn't valid. The people he pointed out want their handouts but don't want other people to get handouts.

The reason no one will touch ag subsidies is because there are many many ag districts. The party that touches them will lose house seats. Although Republicans have more to lose. That said farmers are getting mighty restless with the GOP at the moment.

Two crops with the biggest subsidies, cotton and corn, do NOT need subsidies.

The only subsidies that should exist are federally backed crop insurance and disaster relief(which is tied into crop insurance). Outside that all the other subsidies and tariffs on imported goods need to go.

 

[EagleKeeper]

There should be no cutoff because there should be no farm subsidies.

So you are willing to let good farm land be lost?

At what point will the cost of food top out when there is no farmland?

There is many economic areas that ate dependent on tbe family farmer. Cut them out and you will generate ghost towns.

Small farms spend money locally not buying items made in China.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Neither party will do anything about subsidies. But that doesnt mean his point wasn't valid. The people he pointed out want their handouts but don't want other people to get handouts.

The reason no one will touch ag subsidies is because there are many many ag districts. The party that touches them will lose house seats. Although Republicans have more to lose. That said farmers are getting mighty restless with the GOP at the moment.

Two crops with the biggest subsidies, cotton and corn, do NOT need subsidies.

The only subsidies that should exist are federally backed crop insurance and disaster relief(which is tied into crop insurance). Outside that all the other subsidies and tariffs on imported goods need to go.

Harrods on imported goods compensate for the subsidy from a country.

This year the weather has screwed up the corn crop in dome areas.

That is causing prices to fluctuate.
When it is not profitable to harvest/sell the corn it is not on Markey. Yet that corn is needed further down the food chain and to the consumi.

 

[werepossum]

No one with eyes open could believe either of our corrupt and morally bankrupt parties cares about anything other than perpetuating the growth of the Federal leviathan and their control over each and every one of us. The only thing either group really fights for is who gets to pull the levers.

QFT

SNAP is good because as a first world nation we don't like to see poor children starving in the street.

Quite true as well. There's a very legitimate need to prevent people from taking welfare (of any sort) as a lifestyle, but that must be done without starving children.

Farm subsidies are good because stable commodity pricing prevents farms from going broke becoming unable to grow food and causing children to starve in the street.

See where we're going here?

You're absolutely right, but I suspect that most of the subsidies are gravy. For instance, under Carter we began paying farmers to not grow corn. I had an uncle (long since dead) who had never raised much corn (only enough for his dairy) but had a lot of land on which he COULD have raised corn. So he began to not grow corn professionally. What money he didn't need to live on, he spent to buy more land so that he could not grow even more corn. Within a few years he was not growing so much corn that he no longer had to run his dairy at all. In fact, he had time to run for office and became County Court Clerk, since corn will pretty much not grow itself once you get it started. Now, in theory the system is set up to not allow that, but in practice government bureaucrats face almost no risk for allowing payments they should not and potential risk from not allowing those payments. A turned down person is a pissed person who may well have connected relatives who will make the bureaucrat's life markedly less pleasant, whereas the victims of paying people who should not be paid are faceless taxpayers. I suspect much of the farm subsidies programs are similar, just on a much larger scale.

Also, coming from a farming family I've seen that most of the programs are useless for the small farmer. With a couple hundred acres a particular subsidy might not be worth the time required to do the paperwork, but if you're a giant agricorp with a couple hundred million acres that small subsidy adds up to a very large sum.

 

[Jhhnn]

SNAP is good because as a first world nation we don't like to see poor children starving in the street.

Who says that the billionaire financiers of the Repub Party care about that?

Starving children didn't bother 'em a bit 100 years ago, and it doesn't bother 'em today, either.