Do "Farm Subsidies" prove the GOP base are dupes?

[Sonny Clark]

News flash. It doesn't require subsidies in order to have farmers. Farmers have been around for many thousands of years. Where there's a demand, someone will fill that demand. Someone will always farm in order to provide food. It's been that way from the beginning of man. How long have subsidies been around? What did we do for food from farmers before subsidies?

Instead of getting rid of farm subsidies why not allocate to the ones who need it to stay afloat, and the big Gov. and Gov. backed farms, get less or none?
And no they won't keep farming if there is a need. They will sell and retire in the subdivision they just created. Food is going to get expensive and scarce, and Monsanto will come up with a genetically engineered food substitute for your culinary needs.

If they need subsidies to stay afloat, then they should go out of business.

In any other business maybe, but farming has to rely on things that they have no control over. For instance, farmers are at the mercy of weather. They can lose all of there crops due to drought, or too much rain one year and have a good crop the next. It's not that they are bad farmers. It's that they have to plant and hope for the best. Will there be enough bees to pollinate the trees this year, will an early frost kill their produce, will there be a new blight this year..........

All people in business take risks, it comes with the territory. Nothing is guaranteed, nothing. By the way, weather affects many businesses.

Not like farmers. A good rain may effect a golf course for a day or two. It can wipe out a year's worth of crops.
A farmer takes a risk with every single spring plant. There isn't a risk or two, it's a plethora of risks every spring that can effect the productivity of the farm through no fault of the farmer. Can you tell me how well the soy crop will do this year? Why not?

Farmers chose that life. Weather comes with the territory. Farmers are paid very well for the risks they take. They are greatly rewarded. And, they have plenty of money to hold them over should something happen to their crops. Also, they have crop insurance. They are not living on nickels and dimes. Have you seen their homes? Have you seen their airfields and private planes? I worked for the U.S.D.A. for ten years. I know how wealthy they are. Subsidies have made many of them very rich. And, many of them use cheap illegal immigrant labor. How many For Sale signs have you seen outside farm homes and farm land? Most of the land is handed down from generation to generation. Some of it is owned by large corporations. Farmers are NOT poor.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Oh whatthefuckever...

 

[The Irish Ram]

You may have worked for the gov. but I was born and raised in the Midwest, and am sitting between two huge family farms right now. One had to take out a loan to pay the inheritance tax on the farm that has been in his family for 150 years. He works two jobs to stay afloat, and rents out his fields because he has a loan to pay off. The other works his farm after he gets home from work, because the farm, in his family since the 1800's, doesn't make him rich. He got lucky. The gas well paid for his barn. Farmers here in the corn belt, farm because they love it, not because it is profitable. No planes, no airstrips, no Lamborghinis, no big diamond rings and fur coats........
Just hard work as far as the eye can see.

 

[Sonny Clark]

You may have worked for the gov. but I was born and raised in the Midwest, and am sitting between two huge family farms right now. One had to take out a loan to pay the inheritance tax on the farm that has been in his family for 150 years. He works two jobs to stay afloat, and rents out his fields because he has a loan to pay off. The other works his farm after he gets home from work, because the farm, in his family since the 1800's, doesn't make him rich. He got lucky. The gas well paid for his barn. Farmers here in the corn belt, farm because they love it, not because it is profitable. No planes, no airstrips, no Lamborghinis, no big diamond rings and fur coats........
Just hard work as far as the eye can see.

Very good. Yes, there are exceptions to everything. I have no doubt that some farmers are small, run their farms on year to year income, and receive no farm subsidies. Not every farmer collects subsidies. I wasn't speaking of the small family owned and operated farms. I was speaking of the huge operations that collect multi-$millions in subsidies.

 

[The Irish Ram]

So, that takes us back to the op.
Hugh operations don't need subsidized. Monsanto doesn't need to be subsidized. Private farms do. What do you think a better solution would be?
Give to those who need it to compete, and withhold it from those who don't. The OP didn't make the distinction as to who needs or does not need to be subsidized, just should it be done away with altogether. The answer is no. For sales signs aren't as rare as you think. It is Gov. mismanagement that is the problem, not helping farms.

 

[bripat9643]

Every Country on Earth subsidizes its Farmers. At least, the intelligent ones do.

Here's a news flash for you STUPID fucking dimocrap scumbags.....

We can live and do very well without our iPhones, iPads, and Colleges. Might actually be better off without them. debatable

We can live without cars, without washers and dryers and blue jeans and expensive shampoo and coffee and underwire bras and virtually everything else that you've come to expect from a modern civilization (brought to you by Conservatives; you are NOT welcome)

But one thing we can NOT do without is Farmers.

That is why every Country on Earth subsidizes Farms and Farmers

You dims are seriously too stupid to live. Honest to God, you really are

News flash. It doesn't require subsidies in order to have farmers. Farmers have been around for many thousands of years. Where there's a demand, someone will fill that demand. Someone will always farm in order to provide food. It's been that way from the beginning of man. How long have subsidies been around? What did we do for food from farmers before subsidies?

Instead of getting rid of farm subsidies why not allocate to the ones who need it to stay afloat, and the big Gov. and Gov. backed farms, get less or none?
And no they won't keep farming if there is a need. They will sell and retire in the subdivision they just created. Food is going to get expensive and scarce, and Monsanto will come up with a genetically engineered food substitute for your culinary needs.

If they need subsidies to stay afloat, then they should go out of business.

In any other business maybe, but farming has to rely on things that they have no control over. For instance, farmers are at the mercy of weather. They can lose all of there crops due to drought, or too much rain one year and have a good crop the next. It's not that they are bad farmers. It's that they have to plant and hope for the best. Will there be enough bees to pollinate the trees this year, will an early frost kill their produce, will there be a new blight this year..........

None of that matters. Every business has its own special problems. There's no justification for farmers who often own millions of dollars in real estate to be subsidized by middle class people in living in the cities. If they can't make their farm a profitable operation, then they should find another way to make a living. Someone who can make a profit off the farm will buy it.

 

[bripat9643]

News flash. It doesn't require subsidies in order to have farmers. Farmers have been around for many thousands of years. Where there's a demand, someone will fill that demand. Someone will always farm in order to provide food. It's been that way from the beginning of man. How long have subsidies been around? What did we do for food from farmers before subsidies?

Instead of getting rid of farm subsidies why not allocate to the ones who need it to stay afloat, and the big Gov. and Gov. backed farms, get less or none?
And no they won't keep farming if there is a need. They will sell and retire in the subdivision they just created. Food is going to get expensive and scarce, and Monsanto will come up with a genetically engineered food substitute for your culinary needs.

If they need subsidies to stay afloat, then they should go out of business.

In any other business maybe, but farming has to rely on things that they have no control over. For instance, farmers are at the mercy of weather. They can lose all of there crops due to drought, or too much rain one year and have a good crop the next. It's not that they are bad farmers. It's that they have to plant and hope for the best. Will there be enough bees to pollinate the trees this year, will an early frost kill their produce, will there be a new blight this year..........

All people in business take risks, it comes with the territory. Nothing is guaranteed, nothing. By the way, weather affects many businesses.

Not like farmers. A good rain may effect a golf course for a day or two. It can wipe out a year's worth of crops.
A farmer takes a risk with every single spring plant. There isn't a risk or two, it's a plethora of risks every spring that can effect the productivity of the farm through no fault of the farmer. Can you tell me how well the soy crop will do this year? Why not?

Crab fisherman can go an entire season without catching a single crab. Should we give them subsidies as well? Bad weather can hold up construction projects for weeks. Should construction companies get subsidies?

 

[Kosh]

FDR was a GOP dupe?

Who knew, I guess the hero of the far left often get over looked for religious propaganda..

 

[Sonny Clark]

So, that takes us back to the op.
Hugh operations don't need subsidized. Monsanto doesn't need to be subsidized. Private farms do. What do you think a better solution would be?
Give to those who need it to compete, and withhold it from those who don't. The OP didn't make the distinction as to who needs or does not need to be subsidized, just should it be done away with altogether. The answer is no. For sales signs aren't as rare as you think. It is Gov. mismanagement that is the problem, not helping farms.

When you have multi-$billions flowing to farmers in the form of subsidies, and those farmers are very wealthy, is that a wise use on taxpayers' hard earned money? The same goes for big oil. Subsidies make the rich richer.

 

[bripat9643]

So, that takes us back to the op.
Hugh operations don't need subsidized. Monsanto doesn't need to be subsidized. Private farms do. What do you think a better solution would be?
Give to those who need it to compete, and withhold it from those who don't. The OP didn't make the distinction as to who needs or does not need to be subsidized, just should it be done away with altogether. The answer is no. For sales signs aren't as rare as you think. It is Gov. mismanagement that is the problem, not helping farms.

If a farm is too small to make it without subsidies, then the owner needs to sell it to someone else who has a big enough farm.

 

[eagle1462010]

Not sure if this has been commented on but 67 percent of all farmers and ranchers do not collect government subsidy payments in United States, according to USDA. Recipients in the top 10% averaged $36,290 in annual payments between 1995 and 2006. The bottom 80 percent of the recipients saw only $731 on average per year.

EWG Farm Subsidy Database

Did you check out that link? Thanks. California has over 81 thousand farms and only 9% receives money? In fact, look at the other states. Especially the Red States. Look at Iowa. A whopping 81% receives free government money. 83% in North Dakota. Obama's home state 2%.

Which states get the free money tells the story.

The retarded broken record of the RED STATE RANT...............Who denies or ignores that all Federal Spending is included including military bases and NASA.............................etc...................

It's a BS RANT that ignores the real facts of the issue and dumb asses keep bringing it up.

 

[eagle1462010]

You may have worked for the gov. but I was born and raised in the Midwest, and am sitting between two huge family farms right now. One had to take out a loan to pay the inheritance tax on the farm that has been in his family for 150 years. He works two jobs to stay afloat, and rents out his fields because he has a loan to pay off. The other works his farm after he gets home from work, because the farm, in his family since the 1800's, doesn't make him rich. He got lucky. The gas well paid for his barn. Farmers here in the corn belt, farm because they love it, not because it is profitable. No planes, no airstrips, no Lamborghinis, no big diamond rings and fur coats........
Just hard work as far as the eye can see.

I have long argued that the inheritance tax.........AKA DEATH TAX is BS..............

It has cost farmers greatly, even those that have been in the family forever................

It should end...................we should be able to pass on our wealth to our kids without the Gov't getting a dang cut of it............Hell we paid dang taxes on it all our life, and want to tax us after we are dead..............BS.

 

[The Irish Ram]

What happened to the farm that was handed down from fathers to sons for several hundred years was that this generation had to, in essence, buy their own farm back from the government, which took control of it by way of a tax, and then make enough money for their children to buy it back from the gov. when he dies. It is wrong on so many levels.....

 

[eagle1462010]

What happened to the farm that was handed down from fathers to sons for several hundred years was that this generation had to, in essence, buy their own farm back from the government, and then make enough money for their children to buy it back from the gov. when he dies. It is wrong on so many levels.....

The whole family works the farm all their life most of the time................only to fight to keep it when the tax comes up which is large as farms have a lot of expensive equipment..............and acreage............the family doesn't actually always make a lot of money.......they scrap by in a lot of ways.................

Only to have it taken by a BS Tax.

 

[rdean]

Every Country on Earth subsidizes its Farmers. At least, the intelligent ones do.

Here's a news flash for you STUPID fucking dimocrap scumbags.....

We can live and do very well without our iPhones, iPads, and Colleges. Might actually be better off without them. debatable

We can live without cars, without washers and dryers and blue jeans and expensive shampoo and coffee and underwire bras and virtually everything else that you've come to expect from a modern civilization (brought to you by Conservatives; you are NOT welcome)

But one thing we can NOT do without is Farmers.

That is why every Country on Earth subsidizes Farms and Farmers

You dims are seriously too stupid to live. Honest to God, you really are

News flash. It doesn't require subsidies in order to have farmers. Farmers have been around for many thousands of years. Where there's a demand, someone will fill that demand. Someone will always farm in order to provide food. It's been that way from the beginning of man. How long have subsidies been around? What did we do for food from farmers before subsidies?

Instead of getting rid of farm subsidies why not allocate to the ones who need it to stay afloat, and the big Gov. and Gov. backed farms, get less or none?
And no they won't keep farming if there is a need. They will sell and retire in the subdivision they just created. Food is going to get expensive and scarce, and Monsanto will come up with a genetically engineered food substitute for your culinary needs.

If they need subsidies to stay afloat, then they should go out of business.

In any other business maybe, but farming has to rely on things that they have no control over. For instance, farmers are at the mercy of weather. They can lose all of there crops due to drought, or too much rain one year and have a good crop the next. It's not that they are bad farmers. It's that they have to plant and hope for the best. Will there be enough bees to pollinate the trees this year, will an early frost kill their produce, will there be a new blight this year..........

Funny, when minimum wage workers without health care get sick, Republicans just say "let the die".

 

[The Irish Ram]

Funny, when minimum wage workers without health care get sick, Republicans just say "let the die".

Sort of off topic and definitely full of shit. Republicans said our minimum wage worker's insurance was either paid for by their employers or they have access to a gov. backed card that enables them to go to their dr. or hospital and the gov. pays for it. The democrats said, we need Obamacare. Show up now and get turned away...

 

[Shrimpbox]

Go away rd, you bring nothing but whining monotony to every thread.

Ram I am with you 1000 per cent on the inheritance tax. And I would like the smaller farms to be able to compete on a level,playing field. Actually many of the people you are talking about are the middle class folks who are tending to a gigantic nest egg cultivated as you say over generations. I worked and lived on both a dairy farm and a small beef operation farm growing up and loved it. Could,I have made some real money I would still be there. But alas all that land I worked turned into malls and McMansions, there was no stopping development in the area around Baltimore.

Warren Buffet said American farmland may be the best investment you can make and prime dirt in the corn belt has gone up astronomically, but so have the costs and the magnitude of farms today. Travel,through South Georgia and you will find tractors and combines worth more than a fancy house. Irrigation systems everywhere, and fertilizer and seed bills that are unimaginable. So even on family farms crops are big business and while I am as nostalgic as anyone, reality is that we all have to learn how to cope with the new normal.

I think reducing the subsidies going to corporate farming is one way to level the playing field. As you have already pointed out Ram, very few people will work as hard and for as little as small farmers do. But the economies of scale favor the increased mechanization of agriculture, and big money has the ear of politicians. Iowa gets all that largesse cause it is the first primary in the presidential race and I would feel a lot more kinship with the farmers there if they would admit that the ethanol scam is ripping off taxpayers to enrich themselves.

I wish you and your family the best and hope you find a way to deal with the govt and big AG trying to steal your heritage.

 

[rdean]

Funny, when minimum wage workers without health care get sick, Republicans just say "let the die".

Sort of off topic and definitely full of shit. Republicans said our minimum wage worker's insurance was either paid for by their employers or they have access to a gov. backed card that enables them to go to their dr. or hospital and the gov. pays for it. The democrats said, we need Obamacare. Show up now and get turned away...

You said: Republicans said our minimum wage worker's insurance was either paid for by their employers or they have access to a gov. backed card that enables them to go to their dr. or hospital and the gov. pays for it.

When did Republicans say that? Any actual quotes or links?

The only health care I remember the GOP supporting was "Emergency Rooms" at 10 to hundreds of times the cost of having insurance. And the tax payer foots the bill.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Before Obama stole our health care system and turned it into a tax, employers usually paid employees health care, or a major part of it. A lot of people worked more for the benefits than the paycheck. Healthcare for the poor was paid for by the government. No one was turned away from an emergency room.

You can kiss all of that goodbye, thanks to Democrats who were afraid to stand up and say, "Obama, we can't afford your Omamacare tax."

 

[Kosh]

Before Obama stole our health care system and turned it into a tax, employers usually paid employees health care, or a major part of it. A lot of people worked more for the benefits than the paycheck. Healthcare for the poor was paid for by the government. No one was turned away from an emergency room.

You can kiss all of that goodbye, thanks to Democrats who were afraid to stand up and say, "Obama, we can't afford your Omamacare tax."

Well that is what got Carter in trouble with the far left in the late 70's he said "NO"..