Arguments about subsidys
- Thread starter dun
- Start date
Caustic Burno
Well-known member
dun":3dc523u1 said:
Smart man as usual Dun.
Its funny I don't care who takes the subsidy or not.
Just admit it is a government payout, you didn't earn. People will be ranting about tax dollars going to xyz while signing the subsidy check with the other.
KMacGinley
Well-known member
Yep, I guess that it is our patriotic duty as food producers to forever more get low prices. Never understood Farm groups bragging about how low a percentage of their incomes Americans pay for their food.
I guess that John Deere, Case IH, Monsanto and all the other agribusiness companies feel no compulsion to jump on the bandwagon. When corn is $1.50 combines are still $200,000. :)
My personal favorite was the head of the Indiana Beef cattle assoc. writing in an editorial in the magazine saying that farm beef prices were too high!
I guess that John Deere, Case IH, Monsanto and all the other agribusiness companies feel no compulsion to jump on the bandwagon. When corn is $1.50 combines are still $200,000. :)
My personal favorite was the head of the Indiana Beef cattle assoc. writing in an editorial in the magazine saying that farm beef prices were too high!
Caustic Burno
Well-known member
WORANCH":332furh9 said:
Not in a true free enterpise system. The tractor price hasn't gone down, the fertilizer price either. but we keep ag products depressed.
We gripe about 3.00 gas but keep hauling calf's to the salebarn as when it was a 1.50.
We are not very smart everyone controls our commodity market but us.
The Oil Cartel doesn't like the price of oil they close off the valve, they don't lke the price of gasoline they reduce refining production.
We keep trying to produce more and more on less and less until the farmer can't make it without being on welfare. He has to produce more to pay the bills so he has to buy more land and equipment to produce more sinking further in debt.
It's a death spiral.
U
warpaint
Well-known member
As somebody else has said, to each his own.
I have'nt yet taken any subsidies, but if it will help with the quality of my family's life, you better believe that I will.
Call it welfare or whatever. There is a certain amount availible in my county. If it's not used, it goes to another county that will use it for something else.
I have'nt yet taken any subsidies, but if it will help with the quality of my family's life, you better believe that I will.
Call it welfare or whatever. There is a certain amount availible in my county. If it's not used, it goes to another county that will use it for something else.
Caustic Burno
Well-known member
WORANCH":3gedxorx said:
Not the way I see it and I may be all wrong.
The government is paying the corn farmer to raise corn to feed cows.
Now if he no longer gets money to feed his cows he either has to raise fewer or become more effiecient. If he is not being subsidized to feed his cattle and there are less cattle , demand and price goes up for the rancher that is not being subsidized.
Are you being subsidized to produce hay to feed your cattle?
American taxpayers are paying his feed bill. I have less of a problem if the government wanted to subsidize the feedlot as you are now subsidizing to everones benifit and not that of a few with tax dollars.
The amount of subsidies received by the folks on here are like peeing in the ocean. Just a drop in the bucket.
It's the larger Corporations that are getting most of all the "Welfare" dollars from the USDA.
Cargill, ADM, etc.
That is where the bitching should be done.
Want to find out who gets what in your county?
http://www.ewg.org:16080/farm/
It's the larger Corporations that are getting most of all the "Welfare" dollars from the USDA.
Cargill, ADM, etc.
That is where the bitching should be done.
Want to find out who gets what in your county?
http://www.ewg.org:16080/farm/
warpaint
Well-known member
MikeC":14u89khn said:
Interesting, thanks Mike.
backhoeboogie
Well-known member
KMacGinley":39x3keai said:
If we get rid of subsidies, non-profit farms are out of business. No different than free enterprise. Right now it is pretty much like communism.
If the low profits go out, profitable farms will thrive. People will have to pay the real value of food. Plain ole encomomics.
john250
Well-known member
Because some of my land once grew corn and wheat, I get a check. The land is now in hay and pasture, so my cattle are subsidized, in a way. It isn't much, but I take it. What the heck!
Govt policy on ag has effectively rewarded size, and likely always will. The talk is about keeping people on the land (family farms) but the walk is that the bigger you are the more you get.
Ag production is a brutal business. Price will always rise or fall to near the cost of production. (AG ECON 101) The lowest cost producer gets to stay, the rest are looking for an heiress. :)
Govt policy on ag has effectively rewarded size, and likely always will. The talk is about keeping people on the land (family farms) but the walk is that the bigger you are the more you get.
Ag production is a brutal business. Price will always rise or fall to near the cost of production. (AG ECON 101) The lowest cost producer gets to stay, the rest are looking for an heiress. :)
MikeC":atx14oj0 said:
Am I the only one who typed in my own zip code to see if my neighbors were on the list? :lol: :P 330+ in my zip code area -- I swear I recognize every last one of my neighbors.
No dog in this fight, personally -- I haven't made up my mind on the matter nor do I have an opinion on the subject. Interesting reading on a slow day, though. *pulls out the popcorn*
aplusmnt
Well-known member
I am for getting rid of all Subsidies and Tax breaks for Farmers.
But I am for personally getting all the Tax Breaks and Subsidies you can as long as they are there.
As long as Washington has us all screwed up in the way they use our Tax dollars. A wise man will do all he can to get them back, or pay less in. In a perfect world Washington would let free market decide all of our fates, rather we are a Janitor or Farmer.
But this is not a perfect world, and we pay inflated taxes to cover these programs. So go get them.
One point that separates welfare from Subsidies is what you must have and do to qualify.
In the projects you qualify for Welfare based on the fact you do not work or make any money.
Cost sharing and subsidies you qualify for based on the fact that you do work and own land and are a tax paying individual. And trying to make a living for your family.
But I am for personally getting all the Tax Breaks and Subsidies you can as long as they are there.
As long as Washington has us all screwed up in the way they use our Tax dollars. A wise man will do all he can to get them back, or pay less in. In a perfect world Washington would let free market decide all of our fates, rather we are a Janitor or Farmer.
But this is not a perfect world, and we pay inflated taxes to cover these programs. So go get them.
One point that separates welfare from Subsidies is what you must have and do to qualify.
In the projects you qualify for Welfare based on the fact you do not work or make any money.
Cost sharing and subsidies you qualify for based on the fact that you do work and own land and are a tax paying individual. And trying to make a living for your family.
KMacGinley
Well-known member
Look: Modern ag as it is being practiced in America is unsustainable. It is too dependent on fossil fuels and toxins for its inputs. In the not too distant future, anhydrous from natural gas is going to be too expensive for corn fertilizer. The price is either going to have to go up for commodities a lot. or the government is going to have to really up the subsidies a lot. Or we may have to start growing crops in a sustainable manner.
Food in this country is not cheap. Consumers pay at the store, with their taxes and by the poisons being put on the land to grow continuous corn. (a farm kid within 5 miles of me dead of lymphoma and all the other farmers you and I both know with cancer.)
We will sooner or later be forced back into a sustainable model for agriculture. ie... 4 year rotations. This would immediately reduce corn supplies create a higher price for the corn grown and make a lot more hay and forage available to you. Why is it is our responsibility to feed the world? Why not import only what we can't grow. Let Urugay and Argentina and Australia keep their beef.
But we need the corn to feed our cattle! No we don't, grain feeding in large lots is a post world war 2 invention, previously almost all cattle were grassfed for the most part, with a short, if at all, 30-60 days on grain (ear corn)(no propane for drying) finishing period. Grass feeding is coming back with a vengeance and when properly done provides a quality product. Check out Stockman grassfarmer, some of it is a little out there, but a lot of it is right on the money.
Before you jump in and say that ethanol is going to solve all the problems, they could use every kernel of corn grown in this country to make ethanol with and that would not even put a dent our petroleum demand. When they do go full bore on ethanol, how are the pig boys and you going to afford to buy corn?
We have lost sight of the supply part of supply and demand. We seem to think that we can "Free trade" our way to prosperity. Do we ever stop and think that these countries that we push our products on might want to keep their farmers in business. Maybe they get a little angry about our subsidies that create an artificially cheap product.
Or how about the NCBA that gets so angry that Europe won't take american beef because of the implants. Gee, maybe if we didn't implant the cattle, they might take them: which would open up a huge market and make up for the loss of gain through higher prices, let alone the improvement in quality grade by not implanting. Car makers learned this lesson in the seventies when americans began buying Japanese cars because our car makers were oblivious to the market.
The whole thing comes down, as always to greed. Big agribusiness does not care about you, all they care about is making more and more money. Any way they can. Government officials use subsidies to get votes and to show how much they care about farmers. (Ha) Meanwhile no one is really looking to the future, how we can restore rural communities, make it so you don't have to farm 3000 acres to make a living and reduce land prices so young ambitious people can get started (get rid of 1031 exchanges) and produce safe wholesome food.
We are heading for a cliff at 100 miles an hour. I suggest we use the brakes.
Sorry, but I guess this stuff concerns me a little. :)
Food in this country is not cheap. Consumers pay at the store, with their taxes and by the poisons being put on the land to grow continuous corn. (a farm kid within 5 miles of me dead of lymphoma and all the other farmers you and I both know with cancer.)
We will sooner or later be forced back into a sustainable model for agriculture. ie... 4 year rotations. This would immediately reduce corn supplies create a higher price for the corn grown and make a lot more hay and forage available to you. Why is it is our responsibility to feed the world? Why not import only what we can't grow. Let Urugay and Argentina and Australia keep their beef.
But we need the corn to feed our cattle! No we don't, grain feeding in large lots is a post world war 2 invention, previously almost all cattle were grassfed for the most part, with a short, if at all, 30-60 days on grain (ear corn)(no propane for drying) finishing period. Grass feeding is coming back with a vengeance and when properly done provides a quality product. Check out Stockman grassfarmer, some of it is a little out there, but a lot of it is right on the money.
Before you jump in and say that ethanol is going to solve all the problems, they could use every kernel of corn grown in this country to make ethanol with and that would not even put a dent our petroleum demand. When they do go full bore on ethanol, how are the pig boys and you going to afford to buy corn?
We have lost sight of the supply part of supply and demand. We seem to think that we can "Free trade" our way to prosperity. Do we ever stop and think that these countries that we push our products on might want to keep their farmers in business. Maybe they get a little angry about our subsidies that create an artificially cheap product.
Or how about the NCBA that gets so angry that Europe won't take american beef because of the implants. Gee, maybe if we didn't implant the cattle, they might take them: which would open up a huge market and make up for the loss of gain through higher prices, let alone the improvement in quality grade by not implanting. Car makers learned this lesson in the seventies when americans began buying Japanese cars because our car makers were oblivious to the market.
The whole thing comes down, as always to greed. Big agribusiness does not care about you, all they care about is making more and more money. Any way they can. Government officials use subsidies to get votes and to show how much they care about farmers. (Ha) Meanwhile no one is really looking to the future, how we can restore rural communities, make it so you don't have to farm 3000 acres to make a living and reduce land prices so young ambitious people can get started (get rid of 1031 exchanges) and produce safe wholesome food.
We are heading for a cliff at 100 miles an hour. I suggest we use the brakes.
Sorry, but I guess this stuff concerns me a little. :)
backhoeboogie
Well-known member
Hey Buddy, Can you spare a dime for a cup of coffee?
KMacGinley
Well-known member
WORANCH":3nrr1ap0 said:
Feedlots pay for calves what the market will bear. Corn at $3.00 a bushel is still a bargain feedwise.
