« First « Previous Comments 46 - 53 of 53 Search these comments
He's only a farmer with 60+ years in the profession. I guess some of you who I'm assuming know everything there is to know about the business of farming are clearly be specialists in the field.
You haven't explained why an expertise in farming makes him an expert in public policy. How did farmers EVER survive before subsidies? Some of them got rich at it hundreds of years ago, well before the 1920's/30's when many current policies came about. There must have been some lost secret.... Perhaps the Grange/Grangers took it to their graves.
But what do I know I work at an Ag school in the middle of farm country.
Why would he be an expert at these policies? Because he is well-aware of how they work because its an integral part of his business affairs. Incidentally the subsidy program came about during the depression when thousands upon thousands of farmers went bust- the same way that many thousands of ordinary citizens lost all of their money in the banks. The FDIC and farm subsidies are in many ways interconnected, as a sort of government-backed security measure. Without it therein lies the very real possibility that the health of the nation's agricultural sector could be placed into a dire situation without this security.
Because he is well-aware of how they work because its an integral part of his business affairs.
A defense contractor is well aware of how to get Federal contracts for a billion-dollar boondoggle, it is an integral part of their business.
A Walmart greeter is well aware of how to take advantage of food stamps and every other supplement to keep their poverty liveable. Why if they didn't have them, they might have to ..... organize or strike or something. Horrors!
So?
Like I said- subsidies are one of the main reasons you can go to the store and buy a loaf of bread for $1.50 or so. Food in the US is cheap.
You are aware that most of the farm subsidies are to DECREASE production in order to keep prices up aren't you? Follow this link to the St Louis fed article. http://valuingeconomics.blogspot.com/2008/09/some-history-on-farm-subsidies.html Food in the US is so cheap because it is so cheap to produce in the midwest. There aren't many other places on the planet where there is that much land that can be farmed so easily.
You are aware that most of the farm subsidies are to DECREASE production in order to keep prices up aren't you?
Yes, it is well-known that farm subsidies have tended to pay large agricultural companies not to grow stuff over time. There have been some reforms, as the St. Louis Fed article that bob sent points out, although not enough. The prior cap for direct payments used to be for farmers making $2.5M (wow!), and the new cap is still quite high -- certainly in the "job creator" range.
Seasonality on its own is not sufficient to account for this. Other businesses are seasonal too -- that's why fisherman and farmers get to calculate their tax withholding differently from many of us. But that doesn't show why we need a subsidies year after year -- that just shows why we might need to give new farmers a small subsidies loan to get started. How many new farmers do you know who are starting from scratch?
Also, the unpredictability of weather isn't sufficient justification either. Farmers already have crop insurance (see the NYT article for some details), and they can already get disaster pay if there's truly a widespread disaster.
A lot of these subsidies are getting harder and harder to justify (if they were even justifiable to begin with) when we're undergoing austerity measures.
Let's not even get into ethanol. A huge scam forced upon all of us.
That said, if subsidies go away for starters a LOT of farmers would go bust pretty quick.
Why can't commodity prices go up to make up the difference?
bob2356
>Yes but lots more corn gets grown by republican voters in the red states than sugar cane.
I really hate the hypocrisy here with these beneficiaries of federal money.
edvard2 says
>That said, if subsidies go away for starters a LOT of farmers would go bust pretty quick.
I am skeptical about this claim. Data?
I don't know who gave you the "dislike" Thunderlips, but you are right.
« First « Previous Comments 46 - 53 of 53 Search these comments
The US spends $10-$30B/ year subsidizing corn, wheat, soybeans, cotton, sugar, and other crops (even tobacco). Many of the farm are corporate mega farms these days. What do you all think?
Wikipedia gives figures:
Agricultural subsidy
and
Agricultural Subsidies (Cato.org)
I hesitate to use Huffingtonpost as a source anymore, but here goes:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/14/farm-subsidies-politicians-who-get-them-_n_783322.html
Though a few years old, no less relevant today:
How to Spend an Extra $15 Billion (Washington Post interactive)
Newest bad idea:
Farmers Facing Loss of Subsidy May Get New One (NY Times)