patrick.net

I think we need import tarrifs, not subsidies.

I nominate a massive cut in these subsidies on behalf of the Tea Party.

http://patrick.net/?p=612733

In days gone by, this would have been a Democrat & citizen thing. Your chances were more reasonable then. However nowadays the primary beneficiaries are corporate farms, who will fight in the smoky back rooms to which you have no access. Talking about ending this is like ending oil subsidies. Not gonna happen.

>However nowadays the primary beneficiaries are corporate farms,

Exactly... Just wondering where all that pent up Tea Partier anger is...

American in Japan says

>However nowadays the primary beneficiaries are corporate farms,
Exactly… Just wondering where all that pent up Tea Partier anger is…

As per Rick Santelli opening rant:

"How many of you want to pay your neighbor's mortages?"

Tea Party ire is largely directed at envy of fellow peasants, not at the corporate structure. They firmly believe that corporations should be allowed all kinds of gimmes. Did they respond to GE getting a tax refund of 5 BILLION? Nope.

We need the opposite not only should we stop subsidies, but we should limit trading agricultural commodities to those only capable of taking delivery with redistribution channels(in other words only players in the food supply chain), and the same goes for Oil and Gas. Of course this would also require a crack down on monopoly business practices, and keeping an eye for such companies cornering a market.

I don't want to see small farms go out of business because they can't compete with large farms.

These subsidies have been working really well for this nation. If we didn't have them, than large corporations can just run small farmers out of business up and food prices would go up a lot.

I've lived out in the country for a long time when I was younger. It's fairly easy to put someones farm out of business if you have the money. All you have to do is grow the same stuff and undercut your neighbor by practically giving your crops away for free. Small farmers can't compete with that so they go out of business within a year. Subsidies help keep them afloat in this world, and create huge competition lowering prices overall.

As long as subsidies go out to small farmers it should be there. If our nation can't feed itself that would be a scenario far worse than what APOCALYPSEF has been talking about. Subsidies going to arge corporate farms I'm not crazy about.

Farmers are doing quite well and don't need subsidies. Food prices are going up. Farm land prices are skyrocketing. Why should we subsidize them?

Why?

Strong lobbying...the irony is that many who receive these subsidies support the Tea Party view on cutting the budget.

ChrisLA says

I don’t want to see small farms go out of business because they can’t compete with large farms.

These subsidies have been working really well for this nation. If we didn’t have them, than large corporations can just run small farmers out of business up and food prices would go up a lot.

That's a nice thought but almost all farm subsidies go to large corporate farms. Don't believe for a second the red state hype about saving family farms, it's just smokescreen to cover up political payoffs to large political contributors like Archer Daniels Midland. Look up environmental working group (EWG)'s data base, it lists all the subsidies.

Thanks Bob, can you post some links when you get some time?

bob2356 says

ChrisLA says

I don’t want to see small farms go out of business because they can’t compete with large farms.
These subsidies have been working really well for this nation. If we didn’t have them, than large corporations can just run small farmers out of business up and food prices would go up a lot.

That’s a nice thought but almost all farm subsidies go to large corporate farms. Don’t believe for a second the red state hype about saving family farms, it’s just smokescreen to cover up political payoffs to large political contributors like Archer Daniels Midland. Look up environmental working group (EWG)’s data base, it lists all the subsidies.

Interesting database.

Poking around a bit:

Texas, the #1 recipient of subsidies:

http://farm.ewg.org/top_recips.php?fips=48000&progcode=total&yr=2009&regionname=Texas

Iowa:

http://farm.ewg.org/top_recips.php?fips=19000&progcode=total&yr=2009&regionname=Iowa

CA:

http://farm.ewg.org/top_recips.php?fips=06000&progcode=total&yr=2009&regionname=California

I'm confused.... where are the big corporate names? I don't see a single one. Just tons of little companies getting well under $1M.

MarkInSF says

I’m confused…. where are the big corporate names? I don’t see a single one. Just tons of little companies getting well under $1M

Poke around in the ownership section. There is an amazing amount of interlocking trusts and corporations many of whom are pretty opaque in terms of ownership. Not the stuff of mom and pop farming.

Look at the database's section on top ten recipients for 1995-2009. Number one is Riceland Foods with sales of 1.3 billion for the current year. Not a mom and pop family farm in my opinion. Pilgrams Pride is at 8 billion in sales this year, they certainly aren't out there riding a tractor in the field. How about #4 Harvest States Coop which is a subsidy of CHS with sales of 25 billion. Just go down the list, there are lots more. Maybe these aren't big corporate names but 25 billion is a big corporation in my book. ADM, Cargil, etc. also have their fingers in the pot, they have ownership interest in plenty of ag operations.

Ecocurious pointed out that $1 billion of taxpayer money for farm payments has gone to people (I certainly hope we are talking farm owners that lease their farms) living in Beverly Hills 90210. Interesting.

@Bob,

Thanks! I only more wish Americans were aware of this corporate welfare!

With all the talk of necessary budget cuts and a shutdown, are these subsidies under consideration?

The Republicans are worthless here:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Republicans-dodge-farm-apf-1568302140.html

I wonder if the Democrats are any better?

http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/14/news/economy/ethanol_subsidies/index.htm?iid=HP_LN

American in Japan says

I wonder if the Democrats are any better?

No they aren't any better.

Clearly the problem here is the Democrats, right?

I always consider the source, when a pretty picture is presented with out a spread sheet and facts.

The point is, THIS IS THIS, and this is now. And as of Yesterday, our Democrat dominated Senate said they will keep imposing economic hardship on the American motorist and the worlds food consumption.

Besides that picture is Fraudulently suspect.

112th Congress Duration: January 3, 2011 – January 3, 2013

Vinnie's funny picture says,

"112th Congress:1995-2009"

I just talk funny I'm not stupid.

Tenouncetrout says

Besides that picture is Fraudulently suspect.
112th Congress Duration: January 3, 2011 – January 3, 2013
Vinnie’s funny picture says,
“112th Congress:1995-2009″
I just talk funny I’m not stupid.

I think the point of the chart is to show how much the members of the 112th Congress had received in subsidies in the past (from 1995 to 2009)

Oh sorry you want fuller information so you can find some nitpick to disbelieve it?

http://www.ewg.org/agmag/2011/03/farm-subsidies-paid-to-the-members-of-the-112th-congress/

Probably there's a missing apostrophe in there somewhere so you can wave it away as "Democrats are worse or at least as bad". Indeed this is covering their recent "benefits gained" prior to THIS congress. Don't you agree if I'd been benefitting from something for many years it might affect my voting on it?

Yeah but the Devil is in the details.
And the biggest determining fact right now, is...
It's not a republican controlled Washington, just a big ole cozy king size heart shaped rotating bed, that all of them are lying in.

The recovery is down for the count, and the President is Laughing about the lack of Jobs.

Blaming the republicans and finding pictures to make the case, isn't helping things. Where's the names and numbers? And a half a million(the Democrat share) is too much if you think about it.

Tenouncetrout says

just a big ole cozy king size heart shaped rotating bed, that all of them are lying in.

As I said, the hoary argument that "they're all corrupt".

Teabaggers rail about waste, yet are themselves beneficiaries and vote for same. Time to throw some stones at that glass house.

E.g. Vicki Hartzler, for whom ALL spending cuts should be considered, except......

“Everything should be on the table,” she says. While she says some agriculture programs represent a “national defense issue” because they help guarantee that “we have a safety net to make sure we have food security in our country.”

@Vicente

Thanks for the graph!

What Vicente's graph says is important. It is a giveaway to Republicans.

But look at the big picture:

Why should anyone be deeply worried about "10 to 30 billion" worth of farm subsidies when you look at the size of the defense budget, which was $685B in 2010? We are talking between 1.5% and 4.4% of the defense budget here.

To expand and what someone said earlier, $10B for farming could be considered a very cheap defense budget.

If you were going to look for budget items to cut, I'd start by bringing the boys and girls home from war. It would be much cheaper to subsidize them and let them do some peaceful farming.

Hooray, a big picture thinker. SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and defense are the only items that really matter in the budget, everything else is at best a rounding error. As of this time SS and Medicare have nothing to do with debt or deficit. So fixing the budget AT THIS TIME (ss/mc will have to be dealt with also) has only 2 possible solutions, cutting defense and medicaid or raising taxes. Or both. Everything else is just an ideological smokescreen.

thunderlips,

I have to say I don't see much use of most of the items on your wishlist. Patriot missiles around big cities?? What for??

>>Every country in the world uses the military to patrol their own borders.

I suppose most armed forces around the world do"patrol the borders" in some sense, and I think we do as well.

But I have never seen a country except a totalitarian one or an immediate neighbor of same that has soldiers lined up along every mile of border unless in a state of ongoing war.

For me, that is food for thought.

Thunderlips11.

After reading your thoughts I'm even more convinced that using armed forces for domestic policing duties in peacetime is a thoroughly bad idea.

Can you imagine what might happen when you get a bunch of battle-scarred and armed Marines manning our borders and airports?

People think TSA is bad, imagine veteran Marines and just be careful what you wish for.

Here is an example: 4 Marines shot a 15-year old Mexican goat herder

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esequiel_Hern%C3%A1ndez_Jr

If you read the story and the background it will become quite apparent that these Marines were just trigger happy idiots.

There are also many other weaknesses in your view of national defense. For example,

1. A long-range enemy bomber would be tracked and intercepted long before reaching the continental US.

2. The reason we do not much hunt for submarines along the costs is that it is not effective. Instead we try to find them on the near Murmansk, on the way in or out of base.

3. Shooting down suspect airliners with Patriot missiles is just an all-around bad idea. After 9/11 we have better routines for scrambling an interceptor jet if needed. With your thinking, any stray jet with engine problems would be suspect if straying off course. Think about the jet that landed in Hudson River.

I think you should rethink what you are saying here. I don't have the time and inclination to discuss this at length but some of the above points ought to give you pause.

justme says

What Vicente’s graph says is important. It is a giveaway to Republicans.
But look at the big picture:
Why should anyone be deeply worried about “10 to 30 billion” worth of farm subsidies when you look at the size of the defense budget, which was $685B in 2010? We are talking between 1.5% and 4.4% of the defense budget here.
To expand and what someone said earlier, $10B for farming could be considered a very cheap defense budget.
If you were going to look for budget items to cut, I’d start by bringing the boys and girls home from war. It would be much cheaper to subsidize them and let them do some peaceful farming.

Ron Paul is promising to cut military, not sure if he'll have much change of winning though. Our nation has lost a lot of it's true American conservatism in exchange for bipolar left and right.

thunderlips11 says

So every single Russian Sub is tracked 24-7, 365, from port to every waypoint on patrol, and back again without ever being lost?

Like I said, I don't have time for this, but the level of argumentation you are presenting here is very weak.

Here 's another example:

I did not make the claim that you put in my mouth above, and it is disingenious on top of that.

What I said is that it is more EFFECTIVE to track them from Murmansk than it is to hunt for them at random outside our coasts. That's like looking for a needle in a haystack. And you are completely missing the point: The Russian subs carry ICBMs, INTERCONTINENTAL ballistic missiles. They don't need to be near our coast to conduct their mission. Most of them are hiding in other locations, not near a coast somewhere.

Enough. And stop putting words in my mouth. Done.

Wasteful Corn for ethanol subsidies (at least they may be cut greatly)...
Completely wasteful subsidies Steven Rattner slams-govt-support of corn

Sugar cane is much more efficient for producing ethanol.

Yes but lots more corn gets grown by republican voters in the red states than sugar cane.

@Shrekgrinch,

All I can say is that your idea above makes as much sense as anything else you have said this year...

HousingWatcher says

Farmers are doing quite well and don’t need subsidies. Food prices are going up. Farm land prices are skyrocketing. Why should we subsidize them?

This could also be due to Bernanky's easy money policy. It has to go into speculation since speculation provides more financial benefit due to its preferred tax treatment.

What ever...in this budget crisis, there was talk of cutting this and cutting that. These were barely touched.

shrekgrinch says

I think that to end unemployment, farms should be required to sow their fields with people using spoons.

They should be required to use Americans for labor. Just cut off their welfare or unemployment and we won't "need" Mexicans for this any more.

Tenouncetrout says

Yeah but the Devil is in the details.
And the biggest determining fact right now, is...
It's not a republican controlled Washington, just a big ole cozy king size heart shaped rotating bed, that all of them are lying in.

The recovery is down for the count, and the President is Laughing about the lack of Jobs.

I'm TOT and I still approve this message!

More welfare for big agriculture corporations.

when-one-farm-subsidy-ends-another-may-rise-to-replace-it

Again, who really supports these?

Let me put it to you this way: My Uncle has been a dairy farmer his entire life. The farm was handed down to him from his Father and so on. Thus the land was paid for long ago. That said, if subsidies go away for starters a LOT of farmers would go bust pretty quick. When that happens your food prices will skyrocket. Americans are sort of ignorant about food. Compared to the rest of the world we pay a pittance for our food. Take away those subsidies and kiss those cheap prices buy-bye.