Farm Program Pays $1.3 Billion to People Who Don't Farm

Pure boondoggle.
50% MORE then spent on welfare,yet we just vilify those undeserving so and so's
for taking from us.

25,000 million dollars is some serious change,and its HIDDEN in the true cost of what we pay for food.Like click food prices up by 1/3,thats what its really costing.And those of us who pay more in taxes pay more to make up for those who dont pay taxes.

Im tired of being raped in taxes,in this case to pay 'some' huge amounts of money to the very wealthy.

BooBoo

This story would be true.
And it's been going on a lot longer than the year 2000.

For the last 13 years I have been paid at least $2700 a year to leave half my place in grassland.

Another $700 to let 3 acres of woodland stand for habitat.

I have never understood why. But hey its free money and it pays my property tax's on the place. I get to farm the other half.

I can cut hay on the set aside half twice a year too. So its a great deal .

__________________
Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take but by the moments that take your breath away

WVPEACH (paula)

I let the government pay me to plant trees on my property. It has to remain in trees for 15 years. Was planning on planting trees anyway so there was less to mow when we are retired; plus we truly only need 5 acres. Now it is becoming a habitat for wildlife.

This program is HUGE in Missouri. I can't remember what it is called,, exactly...CSA or CSP or something like that. Anyway, if you look at real estate ads in the area a lot of them will mention the program and the number of years left on it.

Ostensibly, it is designed to allow crop lands to revert to its natural state for bird/animal habitat, etc. I suppose it is better than throwing up a subdivision (and I use the term "throwing up" purposly). But considering the state of farming in this country, I'd rather see corn or soy beans than buck brush growing in the countryside.

But you know how the government is. If we have TOO much of some crop they would rather plow it under than lower the price to consumers. I don't know - it's all politics.

donsgal

__________________
Life is what happens while you are making other plans. (John Lennon)

Actually it's called CRP. That's just one subsidy. I use to have a website that showed what every farmer in Iowa got for subsidies. The problem with the whole deal is that American farmers grow too much. I know it's a crock of dung that the government pays farmers not to farm. Even I get 2 grand a year from the government not to farm my land but not to worry. They get it right back in property taxes. And I get the benefit of a natural state of grasses and wildlife. Plus it's been idle for so long it can now be certified as organic if I like.

__________________
We have now officially entered the twilight zone.

Found that website.......

http://www.ewg.org/farm/index.php?key=nosign

__________________
We have now officially entered the twilight zone.

As stated above, CRP paid farmers (Several Years Ago) $70.00 per acre that was signed up for at least 10 years. It was called "Set Aside" and also "The 10 Year Program". It's still being used to take acres out of production, and thereby allow working farmers to earn a living, by keeping down competition.

Again, All of you who say "Away with Farm Subsidies" Just make sure you never complain with your mouth full of cheap groceries and large selections of food...If farmers competed on a completely level playing field, 3 things would happen simultaneously...
1. Many would be forced out of business...especially the smaller guys.
2. Prices would skyrocket and availability and variety would decline.
3. Factory farming (which most of you guys seem to hate, although it's another means to cheap food) would be the only farming done. It would be held in total by probably no more than 4-5 large farming consortiums.

Of course, all you "self reliant" types could survive with your roto-tiller and goats, but it might be a little tougher on the infirm or elderly or unskilled or city-dweller who cannot raise their own food.

Again, Govt. waste is NOT good, and these programs should be re-evaluated and re-vamped...but I really don't think you truly want to see the results of completely cancelling farm subsidies. People need food. A Nation needs food to be economically strong. I'm not convinced it's a bad place to spend a sliver (1.5 billion is only a sliver) of our tax dollars...Better than buying $700.00 hammers IMHO

__________________
"The most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." - Sir Isaac Newton
(A REAL scientist)

I have to agree with Boleyz. With out the subsidies all the small farmers would be out of business. They may not get the subsidies but it does keep them in business.
If you do not like the large factory farms you will need the subsidies.

Is it truly the small farmers that benefit from government agriculture support programs? Do price supports actually keep consumer prices low? Can anyone support those ideas?

__________________
Whether you believe you can or you believe you cannot – you are usually right.

This does not include flying or moving mountains unassisted or attempting to prove the existence of an “afterlife”.

American farmers are the best in the world. Period. No one even comes close to American Farming per acre production yields. Let's say your widowed Aunt Sue has 100 acres of tillable land, but she, herself, is unable to farm due to age and the lack of needed equipment or capital.

Uncle Sam says, sign up your land in the CRP. We'll pay you $70 per acre on your 100 acres every year for the next 10 years. You must sow it in fescue and cannot graze livestock or bale hay. No ag production whatsoever may occur on that 100 acres for the next 10 years.

Every year, Aunt Sue gets paid by Uncle Sam $7000.00 (Almost enough to cover her prescription drug needs for the year).

Why is Uncle Sam paying her? One Reason. She Owns Tillable farmland.

Now, let's take away the CRP program and see what Aunt Sue does now. She still can't farm it herself, but she sure needs more money than her fixed income provides and she's got 100 acres of nice bottomland. What will she do? She'll find a working farmer in the community who will rent her land, either for a dollar amount per acre or for 2/3 of the crop sales (she gets 1/3).

Now, statistically, Aunt Sue will probably still only make around $7000.00. Some years more, some years less, depending on crop quality and prices.

Either way, Aunt Sue is able to buy her needed medicines for the year. So what's the only variable in these 2 scenarios? Crop production.

Now there are another 10,000 bushels of corn or 3,000 bushels of soybeans or whatever, on the market for sale.

This added production creates a glut. America always overproduces and exports it's ag products, but there are only so many markets and so much demand. Since there is a glut, the price of the commodity from Aunt Sue's farm takes a nosedive.

Farmers (who often borrow to plant and repay at harvest) are suddenly forced to sell off equipment or land or go in bankruptcy. The guys operating on the slimmest margin are always the small farmer.

The following year, Aunt Sue's farmer friend is "Cutting Back", because he got creamed the year before. He has no choice. He can't keep farming at the same level of production if the prices won't support it.

Within a few years, the small-timers have given up and sold out. Market share goes to the big guys and they become fewer in number until only a few large consorciums (Factory Farms) are left operating. They're part of large corporations and get Corporate tax breaks which the small-timers can never get.

Now you've got an Oligarchy manipulating prices. Prices will definitely rise, and selection will be only that which is most profitable...

I think it's a MIGHT be a better idea to let Aunt Susie have her CRP and keep the market prices at a place where the small guy has a chance.

Class dismissed...

__________________
"The most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." - Sir Isaac Newton
(A REAL scientist)

I enjoy the justification when people are on the receiving end. Why then doesn't the gov't buy the small shoe store owner a building so he can compete with the factory farm(store) like Wal-Mart? Don't we sympathize with the plight of the small business owner being forced out?

__________________
"Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper or your self confidence"
Robert Frost

You've said a lot to agree with - in principle at the least.

The problem if we pull all the subsidies - ag in the USA wouyld disappear, & the forests of Brazil would be clear-cut even faster, as less-regulated ag in 3rd world countries would take over & we would import all our food.

There are a lot of things wrong with _that_ picture too, so many people end up going back for the subsidies & the stable & controlled food supply that we have now.

It's a big cycle as you say, & the first one to step off will get run over by it..... Everyone hates the cycle - you, farmers, consumers, other countries.... But, there is no graceful way to get out of it - you would have to crush someone to do it......


I'm no big fan of the Post - their reporting lacked a lot of fact. Many of the groups they mentioned were ag coops, which are paid the big payment, but that gets divided to many small farmers that belong to the coop. Many of those farmers don't have much more land than those acres mentioned in this thread, and they are getting something from the govt - not the 'big' coop that Post lumps into their headline.

The govt as well requires a lot from farmers these days - NAIS & the like is small potatoes compared to the wetlands, HEL, fuel, fert handling, manure management plans, using food as a political weapon (tarriffs & embargos over the years) and other manipulation of world trade. Ag in the USA depends upon exports, and it is pretty hard to have a stable 'free trade' ag price when the govt does such games with our world markets.

These ag subsidies are meant, in part, to help level that unfair manipulation of the markets.

None the less, ag has it's issues, and some odd ag programs are among them.

--->Paul

Boleyz..
..you're very good at explaining things. Thanks.

I do wish the government would quit paying for not growing crops. Instead ..I wish they'd pay all these 'non-growers' to grow specific crops.

Like corn for fuel..

Or ..since there are thousands of children around the world that starve to death each day ..pay our farmers to grow foods ..that they can ship to where they don't have enough food.

$10 bread would be great even better if $9 of it was able to get into the farmers pockets.

__________________
marching to the beat of a different drummer

What am I "Justifying"? I've stated repeatedly that these programs need re-evaluated and re-vamped. No one likes Govt. Waste...even people on the "receiving end". All I've done is show the reasoning behind Farm subsidies.

The Govt. does have assistance programs for small businesses. In my town there are at least 3 family shoe stores and 2 family clothing stores and 1 family hardware store AND a Wal-Mart store. The small-timers are doing Very well.

If it chaps your butt that I get a $200.00 crop -loss payment every year, that's your problem. Whether I got it or not, I can still see the original intention of farm subsidies...These subsidies were not enacted with evil intent. By the Way, I never applied for any subsidies. When the ownership of the land was transferred to me, I had to give notice to the local FSA office because we were dividing a working farm.

They notified me that my farm was under the federal program and that I would receive 1/2 the payment, since I bought 1/2 the farm.

It's kind of like the "Earned Income Tax Credit"...you ever get that? Do you gripe about that? It's when the Govt. writes a tax refund check to people who work but make so little that their taxes plus the boondoggle bonus "Tax Credit" is added on. How can you receive more on a tax refund than you paid in...hmmmmm? It's Govt. Subsidy of your family!! Whether you ask for it, want it or not, you get it...

__________________
"The most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." - Sir Isaac Newton
(A REAL scientist)

Not hardly I am sure the vast majority of the $ goes to land rich people who are not farmers,I believe I read a readers digest thats outrageous article about it Ted turner and a bunch of rich folks get big bucks from their estates.

__________________
marching to the beat of a different drummer

Subsidies should be re-vamped, but Ted owns VAST acreage and as an American owner of tillable farmland, he is eligible. It's a sad fact that some Americans are richer than others, but Class warfare doesn't enter into the equation...

Anyway, I've tried to explain (not justify) farm subsidies, their history and the reasoning behind them....I'll be on vacation until next Monday, so I won't be reponding to critics...fire away...Ol' Boleyz can take it....Hope you all have a safe and blessed 4th of July. And take a moment to remember that despite all her faults, She's still the greatest place in the world...and if you don't agree with me on that, please, feel free to exercise your right to leave.

__________________
"The most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." - Sir Isaac Newton
(A REAL scientist)

Thanks I will be working today except for when I go to the mandatory barbecue. Hope you have a blessed 4th of july and a great vacation, go fishing for me. I dont have a problem with Ted being Rich I have a problem with him getting richer off Mightybooboo's tax dollars. Because are grain is subsidized we are able to grow it much cheaper than places like Mexico and now are exported grain is forcing small farmers down south off their farms and to the slums.

__________________
marching to the beat of a different drummer

Yep,corporate welfare.

Sorry,YOU pay YOUR own way,keep your fingers off MY wallet.

Free interprise system.You cant compete,you go under.Im not paying your way,sorry(though I am,and I dont like it,not one bit)

BooBoo

I seriously doubt Ted Turner is getting rich of MBB's tax dollars. Ted got rich via hard work ..taking risks ..having uncanny enterprenuerial vision ..and investing. He probably pays more in taxes and charity in a year than most people will make in their lifetime. He's probably created more jobs in the world than Arkansas has chickens! (..not really ..but you get the point!).

So ..as Boleyz said ..if he owns the land ..he's eligible ..same as the dirt-poor farmer ..and "Class warfare doesn't enter into the equation".