NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090301/us_nm/us_obama_farm

The gist of it is the AP interviewed a bunch of farmers about Obama's plan to cut farm subsidies. And, obviously, they piss and moan and make excuses why the government should keep giving them large amounts of money.

My favorite part is this:
Gregory Guenther, a farmer from Belleville, Illinois, said the "agribusinesses" are actually family operations.

"Brothers or a father and son or whatever have combined their resources, their acreage, into one big operation in order to capture volume discounts on seed, fertilizer, chemicals, or things like that which make them more efficient," he said.

"Each of those individuals that are involved in this so-called corporate farm, they only have the income off of a few hundred of those acres," said Guenther.

So the farmers all band together in order to act like a corporation and get the benefits thereof and then demand to not be treated like a corporation so they can get greater handouts. Who wants to place bets on the percentage of these people who listen to Rush Limbaugh and rail against "welfare queens" for taking all their hard earned money.

Call me crazy, but having a secure food supply seems like it should be one of the nations highest priorities. Risking the food supply doesn't seem like such a good idea. So perhaps the subsidies should stay. Maybe they could be made more efficient, but having well to do farmers means having plenty of food.

Call me crazy, but having a secure food supply seems like it should be one of the nations highest priorities. Risking the food supply doesn't seem like such a good idea. So perhaps the subsidies should stay. Maybe they could be made more efficient, but having well to do farmers means having plenty of food.

SOunds like socialism to me. ;)

Call me crazy, but having a secure food supply seems like it should be one of the nations highest priorities. Risking the food supply doesn't seem like such a good idea. So perhaps the subsidies should stay. Maybe they could be made more efficient, but having well to do farmers means having plenty of food.

The problem is the government pays to grow things which don't need to be paid for such as tobacco and corn. The corn lobby is already earning them an assload of money by pushing through the bs of ethanol as a way to ween ourselves off gas, and tobacco is obvious.

SOunds like socialism to me. ;)

The US does have a bit of socialism in it. This is one part that should probably stay.

The problem is the government pays to grow things which don't need to be paid for such as tobacco and corn. The corn lobby is already earning them an assload of money by pushing through the bs of ethanol as a way to ween ourselves off gas, and tobacco is obvious.

Uh...

Tobacco is a NECESSARY crop to grow. Tobacco products generate tons of money. And tobacco is heavily taxed, earning the government a pretty penny.

(Plus, I smoke, so I love tobacco!)

Though the ethanol bit is ridiculous. It isn't really that efficient, and won't be the next source of fuel. Its a waste of money.

Coming from a rural area, farms like the one you are complaining about, are most of the farms. And Farm subsities are the a major factor in what allows our nations farmers from having most of their assests being repossesed.

its not the family farms that are the problem in farm subsidies. the family farm by and large can use the money.

its big time agribusiness that takes massive amounts of subsidy money then uses that money to buy the votes that keep subsidies going. they use our own cash to get more of our own cash.

One person can be a corporation. My family business was a subchapter S-corporation, with three of us running it. Farm subsidies ought to take yield and number of personnel into account, rather than corporate status, I think. Let the family farms qualify that way.

its not the family farms that are the problem in farm subsidies. the family farm by and large can use the money.

its big time agribusiness that takes massive amounts of subsidy money then uses that money to buy the votes that keep subsidies going. they use our own cash to get more of our own cash.

You don't get it.

Family farms are joined together to form big argibusiness.

Call me crazy, but having a secure food supply seems like it should be one of the nations highest priorities. Risking the food supply doesn't seem like such a good idea. So perhaps the subsidies should stay. Maybe they could be made more efficient, but having well to do farmers means having plenty of food.

Only trouble is, consolidation kills biodiversity. It's cheaper to buy one type of seed in massive bulk, especially if you own the patent to it, than to plant three dozen types of crops. That's probably why we grow almost nothing but corn in this country, and only occasionally rice (see: Arkansas) and soybeans, etc. That's why subsidies of large concerns ought to end.

Do you know what they do with the surplus food? Most of it is destroyed in one way or another and the remainder is dumped on to the market driving farmers around the world out of business. In some cases, we're talking milk literally poured down the drain...it produces nothing but waste on a terrifying scale. The developing world in particular would benefit immensely from eliminating agricultural subsidies and we could put that money towards more agricultural research and infrastructure investment.

Agricultural subsidies are insane. They should be ended. Yesterday.

You don't get it.

Family farms are joined together to form big argibusiness.
They don't get it. Most, if not all, that object to subsidies haven't got the first idea what risks farmers take. Making sure that farms stay in business needs to be as, if not more, important than making sure that Lawanda and her eight kids get that monthly check.

What happens with most legislation that is that the conditions are poorly defined. I have no doubt that there are a few corporations that don't need subsidies, but that those are in the extreme minority. I also notice that the legislation calls out "sales" rather than profit. But that doesn't matter because most of the objectors don't know a profit margin from a gross margin, anyway.

"Most full-time farmers, commercial farmers ... it looks to me like they're going to get hit," said Daryll Ray, a University of Tennessee agricultural economist.

though, of course, the epa says (http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/ag101/demographics.html) that only 3% of farms have sales on that level.

I have no doubt that there are a few corporations that don't need subsidies, but that those are in the extreme minority.

and they produce the vast majority of the food. and get most of the subsidy money. that's sort of the problem.

Do you know what they do with the surplus food? Most of it is destroyed in one way or another and the remainder is dumped on to the market driving farmers around the world out of business. In some cases, we're talking milk literally poured down the drain...it produces nothing but waste on a terrifying scale. The developing world in particular would benefit immensely from eliminating agricultural subsidies and we could put that money towards more agricultural research and infrastructure investment.

Take that surplus; turn it into corn meal/flower/etc. and send it to the places that actually need it.

Agricultural subsidies are insane. They should be ended. Yesterday.

if not sooner

Take that surplus; turn it into corn meal/flower/etc. and send it to the places that actually need it.

So you can underprice poor farmers in developing countries and ruin their livelihoods?

So you can underprice poor farmers in developing countries and ruin their livelihoods?

So you can feed people who don't have food at all. I'm not talking about selling it, I'm talking about using the surplus to feed starving people.

I'm not talking about selling it, I'm talking about using the surplus to feed starving people.

Which amounts to the same thing.

It makes more sense to provide food aid via local farmers, not through agricultural subsidies to US farmers... who need the money much less.

Which amounts to the same thing.

It makes more sense to provide food aid via local farmers, not through agricultural subsidies to US farmers... who need the money much less.

And what about places where there simply is no local food supply? You haven't considered that have you? What about places where the local food supply is not enough to meet demand? What about places where the local food supply isn't varied enough and doesn't provide proper nutrition to people? What about places that ordinarily have enough food but are suddenly affected by drought or famine out of the blue?

Do you see what I mean yet? Places where the food is needed not places where the food can be dumped off!

And what about places where there simply is no local food supply? You haven't considered that have you? What about places where the local food supply is not enough to meet demand? What about places where the local food supply isn't varied enough and doesn't provide proper nutrition to people? What about places that ordinarily have enough food but are suddenly affected by drought or famine out of the blue?

Do you see what I mean yet? Places where the food is needed not places where the food can be dumped off!

Soylent Green. :)

Soylent Green. :)

I hear thats harvested off the bottom of the sea.

Eliminating all farm subsidies doesn't sound like a particularly good idea to me. Getting rid of or reducing payments to farmers with large incomes has merit, but sales and income aren't the same thing. A secure food supply is important as well. I am interested to see what the Democrats in farm states decide to to with this though.

I hear thats harvested off the bottom of the sea.

Soylent Green! Our quality comes from our people. So choose SOylent Green! We're made from the best stuff on Earth: People! :D

So you can feed people who don't have food at all. I'm not talking about selling it, I'm talking about using the surplus to feed starving people.

The problem with this is that it discourages locals from farming, so it becomes international welfare. I think we should just end subsidies and let the market conditions starve the unfortunate. Makes the world a little better without the numbers of people artificially inflated by welfare.

And what about places where there simply is no local food supply? You haven't considered that have you? What about places where the local food supply is not enough to meet demand? What about places where the local food supply isn't varied enough and doesn't provide proper nutrition to people? What about places that ordinarily have enough food but are suddenly affected by drought or famine out of the blue?

Do you see what I mean yet? Places where the food is needed not places where the food can be dumped off!

The problem is that sort of practice did kill off agricultural concerns. Haiti's local agriculture went down in flames when foreign import of grain turned out to be hugely cheaper than locally produced stuff. Giving it away for free does the same thing, more or less. You can't give away free food and expect an self supporting agricultural business to come up to and take care of things once you stop giving away the free food.

If you want to put a stop starving populaces, you could give away some free food, but until you make their local agriculture worth doing again, they'll be stuck. Even farmers have to make a living you know.

The problem is that sort of practice did kill off agricultural concerns. Haiti's local agriculture went down in flames when foreign import of grain turned out to be hugely cheaper than locally produced stuff. Giving it away for free does the same thing, more or less. You can't give away free food and expect an self supporting agricultural business to come up to and take care of things once you stop giving away the free food.

If you want to put a stop starving populaces, you could give away some free food, but until you make their local agriculture worth doing again, they'll be stuck. Even farmers have to make a living you know.

amen

The problem is that sort of practice did kill off agricultural concerns. Haiti's local agriculture went down in flames when foreign import of grain turned out to be hugely cheaper than locally produced stuff. Giving it away for free does the same thing, more or less. You can't give away free food and expect an self supporting agricultural business to come up to and take care of things once you stop giving away the free food.

If you want to put a stop starving populaces, you could give away some free food, but until you make their local agriculture worth doing again, they'll be stuck. Even farmers have to make a living you know.

Well sense its apparently not possible to do that, giving them food is the next best thing. We use farming practices here in the US that if we would take the time to teach to some of these starving nations could turn the Sahara Desert into a place that can feed the whole planet (I am exagerating a slight bit) but we won't because its costly, too costly. Until someone can take up that cost burden we might as well give them something to live on.

Or you know what, fuck 'em all its thier own fault for not being born American.

And what about places where there simply is no local food supply? You haven't considered that have you? What about places where the local food supply is not enough to meet demand? What about places where the local food supply isn't varied enough and doesn't provide proper nutrition to people? What about places that ordinarily have enough food but are suddenly affected by drought or famine out of the blue?

Do you see what I mean yet? Places where the food is needed not places where the food can be dumped off!

The problem is that sort of practice did kill off agricultural concerns. Haiti's local agriculture went down in flames when foreign import of grain turned out to be hugely cheaper than locally produced stuff. Giving it away for free does the same thing, more or less. You can't give away free food and expect an self supporting agricultural business to come up to and take care of things once you stop giving away the free food.

If you want to put a stop starving populaces, you could give away some free food, but until you make their local agriculture worth doing again, they'll be stuck. Even farmers have to make a living you know.

Well sense its apparently not possible to do that, giving them food is the next best thing. We use farming practices here in the US that if we would take the time to teach to some of these starving nations could turn the Sahara Desert into a place that can feed the whole planet (I am exagerating a slight bit) but we won't because its costly, too costly. Until someone can take up that cost burden we might as well give them something to live on.

Or you know what, fuck 'em all its thier own fault for not being born American.

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll sit in a boat and drink beer all day. ;)

Well sense its apparently not possible to do that, giving them food is the next best thing.

Bollocks to that. All your method of dumping does is ruin any chances of local agriculture from springing up. Sure, food aid is all nice and tingly, but it only continues to exacerbate the problem that dumping did in the first place. These people survived for centuries on their own until foreign agribusinesses decided that these people could do with some ultra cheap grain they couldn't dispose of in their local markets.

Instead of putting more holes in the sinking ship, it would be better to encourage local agriculture with infrastructure and agricultural assets for the cost that food aid would have covered. Shipping in tractors, seed stock and modern farming techniques will do far more in feeding these people than dumping cheap grain on them whenever you feel like doing a bit of generosity.

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll sit in a boat and drink beer all day. ;)

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Bollocks to that. All your method of dumping does is ruin any chances of local agriculture from springing up. Sure, food aid is all nice and tingly, but it only continues to exacerbate the problem that dumping did in the first place. These people survived for centuries on their own until foreign agribusinesses decided that these people could do with some ultra cheap grain they couldn't dispose of in their local markets.

Instead of putting more holes in the sinking ship, it would be better to encourage local agriculture with infrastructure and agricultural assets for the cost that food aid would have covered. Shipping in tractors, seed stock and modern farming techniques will do far more in feeding these people than dumping cheap grain on them whenever you feel like doing a bit of generosity.


Ok Great I agree, who's going to pay for all of that? They certainly can't! Find somene who will and we're in business until then we should take responsibility and feed them something.

read the rest of what I said in that same post.

Do you know what they do with the surplus food? Most of it is destroyed in one way or another and the remainder is dumped on to the market driving farmers around the world out of business. In some cases, we're talking milk literally poured down the drain...it produces nothing but waste on a terrifying scale. The developing world in particular would benefit immensely from eliminating agricultural subsidies and we could put that money towards more agricultural research and infrastructure investment.

^This.

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll sit in a boat and drink beer all day. ;)
Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Build a man a fire, and he'll eat for a day. Teach him to set fish on fire, and you've mixed a metaphor.

Ok Great I agree, who's going to pay for all of that? They certainly can't! Find somene who will and we're in business until then we should take responsibility and feed them something.

read the rest of what I said in that same post.

How are you going to convince them to start growing their more expensive crops locally if you're giving them free food all the while? Where's the incentive for them to start growing their own crops if they can get food for free from you by NOT growing? You're just creating a culture of dependency.

^This.

^Not this.

How are you going to convince them to start growing their more expensive crops locally if you're giving them free food all the while? Where's the incentive for them to start growing their own crops if they can get food for free from you by NOT growing? You're just creating a culture of dependency.

Thats easy, tell them plain and simple that the food will stop coming; they need to learn to fend for themselves. Give them starter seeds to set off on thier own and teach them how to take care of thier crops and land.

Or just fuck 'em all and let them starve its all thier fault we did it to them.

How are you going to convince them to start growing their more expensive crops locally if you're giving them free food all the while? Where's the incentive for them to start growing their own crops if they can get food for free from you by NOT growing? You're just creating a culture of dependency.
Some sort of matching system, then, where if a farmer produces 20 pounds of wheat, he is provided with another 20 pounds of foreign grain. Effectively doubles their yields, while requiring continued work to maintain.
Probably the system wouldn't work for some reason or other, but it would be amusing to try.

Thats easy, tell them plain and simple that the food will stop coming; they need to learn to fend for themselves.

Or just fuck 'em all and let them starve its all thier fault we did it to them.

Contrary to popular conceptions, farming is not a cost free business in most of society. A farmer has to be able to sell his crops if he intends to be able to run his farm. If you're shipping in free food, that farmer will simply go out of business, unless you propose that he sustains himself by robbing banks. At the very best, he will be able to sustain himself only by working on untaxed land and growing just enough to feed him and his family, an unrealistic proposal at best.

That is the economic reality of it.

All you're doing is making people move to the top of a tower that's burning up and then telling them that they should have learned to run through the 3,000C fire when there's no more place to run.

Very heartless of you.

Some sort of matching system, then, where if a farmer produces 20 pounds of wheat, he is provided with another 20 pounds of foreign grain. Effectively doubles their yields, while requiring continued work to maintain.
Probably the system wouldn't work for some reason or other, but it would be amusing to try.

This might work. It puts the grain in the hands of the farmers and at least encourages the industry to grow locally. It wouldn't guarantee that they'd grow enough to feed themselves once the exchange comes to an end, but it's a start.

Thats easy, tell them plain and simple that the food will stop coming; they need to learn to fend for themselves. Give them starter seeds to set off on thier own and teach them how to take care of thier crops and land.

Or just fuck 'em all and let them starve its all thier fault we did it to them.

When do you cut off the free grain? Because if you set a specific date to cut off the free food supply, then you're effectively arguing for the same thing that we are, just a later date. If you intend to provide free grain indefinitely, then why would they try to grow more of the grain that they get for free from you?

Contrary to popular conceptions, farming is not a cost free business in most of society. A farmer has to be able to sell his crops if he intends to be able to run his farm. If you're shipping in free food, that farmer will simply go out of business, unless you propose that he sustains himself by robbing banks. At the very best, he will be able to sustain himself only by working on untaxed land and growing just enough to feed him and his family, an unrealistic proposal at best.

The free food stops coming as soon as farms are sustainable, do you think I'm a moron or something? I wouldn't keep shipping the food to them I'd find something else to do with it like prepare for worlwide appocolaypse or hang on to it in case famine breaks out elsewhere.


That is the economic reality of it.


Its the reality of life; I want to give them a fighting chance but it seems like nobody else appreciates THAT.


All you're doing is making people move to the top of a tower that's burning up and then telling them that they should have learned to run through the 3,000C fire when there's no more place to run.


Thats exactly whats happening already.


Very heartless of you.


Well I could let them starve.

When do you cut off the free grain? Because if you set a specific date to cut off the free food supply, then you're effectively arguing for the same thing that we are, just a later date. If you intend to provide free grain indefinitely, then why would they try to grow more of the grain that they get for free from you?

I don't know, when does it get cut off, as soon as the farms are suatainable sounds pretty good to me, does anyone have a better idea? Rather than harass me about it?

The free food stops coming as soon as farms are sustainable, do you think I'm a moron or something?

I'm trying to explain why the free food idea prevents sustainable farms to begin with, but if you keep insisting on it, you might persuade me believe that there is some truth to the latter part of your question.

Fiddlebottoms had a better idea.

I don't know, when does it get cut off, as soon as the farms are suatainable sounds pretty good to me, does anyone have a better idea? Rather than harass me about it?

You're not answering the question. If you're giving them free grain, why would they grow that crop? What's the incentive?

I'm trying to explain why the free food idea prevents sustainable farms to begin with, but if you keep insisting on it, you might persuade me believe that there is some truth to the latter part of your question.

Fiddlebottoms had a better idea.

I'm what you call exhausted, like every other Sunday at 10:30 pm, hell like every day of the week.

Yeah he did, I agree but I'm too concerned with doing my own job right now so that I myself can continue to eat than analyze the situation in any measure of depth, I don't have that luxury right now, yet people insist on asking me for more and more.

You're not answering the question. If you're giving them free grain, why would they grow that crop? What's the incentive?

I love how everyone assumes anyone who posts something has a complete idea and not just an opinion.

I asked you how you think someone should go about doing it, whats your idea for balancing the concept of feeding starving people and teaching them how to take care of themselves if mine is so flawed?

I already said I don't have all the answers.

I love how everyone assumes anyone who posts something has a complete idea and not just an opinion.

I asked you how you think someone should go about doing it, whats your idea for balancing the concept of feeding starving people and teaching them how to take care of themselves if mine is so flawed?

I already said I don't have all the answers.

Then you came to the right place. We have all the answers. Just ask us. :cool:

I love how everyone assumes anyone who posts something has a complete idea and not just an opinion.

its more of a method for thinking ideas through than assumption that you already have the answers in mind. blame socrates.

I love how everyone assumes anyone who posts something has a complete idea and not just an opinion.

I asked you how you think someone should go about doing it, whats your idea for balancing the concept of feeding starving people and teaching them how to take care of themselves if mine is so flawed?

I already said I don't have all the answers.

Do what we already often do (I wouldn't have believed it possible, but, for once, the hamfistedness of our government may actually have been overstated - yes, "over"-stated - by a few people here): send aid in the form of agronomists, agricultural advisors, and farm technology. That's what we (and others) did in India, most notably. Perform studies to see which crops are most viable and what types of nutrition are lacking in the population. Send food aid when absolutely necessary, but not more often than is necessary. The idea that the government is taking grain and dairy surplusses and destroying them to drive market prices up while ignoring the poor as it did, famously, during the Depression, hasn't been a fact in a long while.

The corn lobby is already earning them an assload of money by pushing through the bs of ethanol as a way to ween ourselves off gas, and tobacco is obvious.

Wrong.

While ethanol did cause the price of corn to go up dramatically, the high price of oil (which allowed the ethanol to be profitable in the first place) cut away the gains farmers in the US would have made. American farming is almost totally oil dependent. We paid over $25,000 for gas on our farm this year. Used to be $5,000. The price of fertilizer (oil product) soared, the price of insecticides and herbicides (also oil based) soared. The cost of tires skyrocketed. Do you have any idea of how many tires a farm goes through? The cost of transporting the corn went way up. And the seed companies more than doubled the price of seed corn.

We actually took a loss this year. And we don't have any debt on our small farm. Those making payments on their land or equipment (a combine harvester will run you $300,000 to $500,000) were totally screwed. The only ones to benefit (as usual) were the huge factory farms.

And who gets the big subsidies? Not the small farmers. The largest 10% of farms took in 73% of all the subsidies. The bottom 80% only took in 12%.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Agriculture/BG1542.cfm

"In 2001, Fortune 500 companies and large agribusinesses shattered previous farm subsidy records, while small family farmers saw their share of the subsidy pie shrink."

"Thus, large farms and agribusinesses--which not only have the most acres of land, but also, because of their economies of scale, happen to be the nation's most profitable farms--receive the largest subsidies. Meanwhile, family farmers with few acres receive little or nothing in subsidies. In other words, far from serving as a safety net for poor farmers, farm subsidies comprise America's largest corporate welfare program."

And who gets the big subsidies? Not the small farmers. The largest 10% of farms took in 73% of all the subsidies. The bottom 80% only took in 12%.

its almost as if the big agribiz firms are creating some sort of 'protect family farms' smokescreen to confuse the issue and protect their free money...

its almost as if the big agribiz firms are creating some sort of 'protect family farms' smokescreen to confuse the issue and protect their free money...

Exactly.

Wrong.

While ethanol did cause the price of corn to go up dramatically, the high price of oil (which allowed the ethanol to be profitable in the first place) cut away the gains farmers in the US would have made. American farming is almost totally oil dependent. We paid over $25,000 for gas on our farm this year. Used to be $5,000. The price of fertilizer (oil product) soared, the price of insecticides and herbicides (also oil based) soared. The cost of tires skyrocketed. Do you have any idea of how many tires a farm goes through? The cost of transporting the corn went way up. And the seed companies more than doubled the price of seed corn.
Then the price of oil goes down and I am pretty sure the corn farmers arn't giving up all that nice money they are getting for the lie that ethanol is the future.


And who gets the big subsidies? Not the small farmers. The largest 10% of farms took in 73% of all the subsidies. The bottom 80% only took in 12%.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Agriculture/BG1542.cfm

"In 2001, Fortune 500 companies and large agribusinesses shattered previous farm subsidy records, while small family farmers saw their share of the subsidy pie shrink."

"Thus, large farms and agribusinesses--which not only have the most acres of land, but also, because of their economies of scale, happen to be the nation's most profitable farms--receive the largest subsidies. Meanwhile, family farmers with few acres receive little or nothing in subsidies. In other words, far from serving as a safety net for poor farmers, farm subsidies comprise America's largest corporate welfare program."

I don't think you read the topic post.

unless you're talking about organic hippies at your local farmer's market, the euphamism "family farm" has meant corporate agribusiness that practices nepotism for at least the last 40 years, if not 80.

Then the price of oil goes down and I am pretty sure the corn farmers arn't giving up all that nice money they are getting for the lie that ethanol is the future.

When oil dropped, ethanol collapsed and corn prices dropped. It all balances out. There is no "nice money" for most of us to give up. And despite oil going down, the prices on fertilizer, etc. aren't going down by the same percentage. And seed corn is still at it's new price and won't come down.

Both my partner and I believe ethanol is a boondoggle. It is going to screw the small farmer, those conned into investing in ethanol plants (often small farmers), and the American tax payer. All we can do is brace ourselves for the ride and prepare for the losses that all of us (except the agribusiness big wigs and their paid lackeys in congress, of course) will have to endure.

I don't think you read the topic post.

The one where you whine about farm subsidies? I read it and expanded on it.