Taxpayers Turn U.S. Farmers Into Fat Cats With Subsidies

T

Timshel

New member
You hardly ever hear Republicans and/or fake libertarians like grind complain about this sort of welfare. For them it' okay or at least not very offensive since it benefits rich white people. Why is that?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...enue-sowing-subsidies-for-crop-insurance.html

A Depression-era program intended to save American farmers from ruin has grown into a 21st-century crutch enabling affluent growers and financial institutions to thrive at taxpayer expense.

Federal crop insurance encourages farmers to gamble on risky plantings in a program that has been marred by fraud and that illustrates why government spending is so difficult to control.

And the cost is increasing. The U.S. Department of Agriculture last year spent about $14 billion insuring farmers against the loss of crop or income, almost seven times more than in fiscal 2000, according to the Congressional Research Service.

The arrangement is a good deal for everyone but taxpayers. The government pays 18 approved insurance companies to run the program, pays farmers to buy coverage and pays the bills if losses exceed predetermined limits.
 
So do you know how much profit the farmer's make from the subsidiaries? Or their total expenses? Their net profits?
 
Yes, each farmer makes 14 billion dollars a year, and there is absolutely zero risk to them.

On a more serious note, This is your 1(.4) percent:

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0835.pdf

In 2007 2.5% of farms made more than half of the money in the industry. These large farms also consist of over half of the current farmland.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0829.pdf

Farming, yield, and profit has traditionally been fickle, and subject not only to the markets but the climate as well.
http://www.agriculture.com/farm-management/crop-inputs-vs-profit-margins_298-ar18957

Corporations are increasingly becoming involved in farming and farming production, and they not only offer more reliable employment for workers but also more reliable profit and production.

http://www.jobmonkey.com/farming/independent-corporate.html

'Independent farms', or farms that are under no obligation to corporations, are under increasing pressure. However, with subsidiaries and corporate contracts these farms even tend to thrive, becoming some of the largest farms in the US.

http://findourcommonground.com/food-facts/corporate-farms/


What we are witnessing is the Corporatism of farms. Just as our society has moved from the organic agrarian society, farms are moving from it into a more profitable model.
 
the insurance program works as follows.....farmers pay a premium to obtain the insurance of their choice....options include either replacement (funds to plant next years crop) or replacement plus income.....low income farmers are eligible for premium assistance on replacement insurance (not replacement plus income)......the government acts as a second insurer in the event of wide-spread disaster such as drought.....

for example, two years ago my brother in law had 160 acres receive 100% damage due to a hail storm.....he had replacement insurance......he received funds to cover the cost of replanting the crop on those 160 acres.......however, he had paid premiums to cover 2000 acres.......land at other locations had no hail damage......

losses nationally have been higher than average because of two successive years of drought......
 
pisskop said:
What we are witnessing is the Corporatism of farms. Just as our society has moved from the organic agrarian society, farms are moving from it into a more profitable model.
Click to expand...

Um - but IT'S AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE. If farms become corporations - that's their choice. Why are we subsidizing them?
 
tekkychick said:
Um - but IT'S AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE. If farms become corporations - that's their choice. Why are we subsidizing them?
Click to expand...

in 2013 the Department of Agriculture reports we are scheduled to spend $30 billion on agricultural subsidies.....the House of Representative voted to cut that by $20 billion.....the Senate has not voted on it.....since 2008.......
 
pisskop said:
Yes, each farmer makes 14 billion dollars a year, and there is absolutely zero risk to them.

On a more serious note, This is your 1(.4) percent:

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0835.pdf

In 2007 2.5% of farms made more than half of the money in the industry. These large farms also consist of over half of the current farmland.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0829.pdf

Farming, yield, and profit has traditionally been fickle, and subject not only to the markets but the climate as well.
http://www.agriculture.com/farm-management/crop-inputs-vs-profit-margins_298-ar18957

Corporations are increasingly becoming involved in farming and farming production, and they not only offer more reliable employment for workers but also more reliable profit and production.

http://www.jobmonkey.com/farming/independent-corporate.html

'Independent farms', or farms that are under no obligation to corporations, are under increasing pressure. However, with subsidiaries and corporate contracts these farms even tend to thrive, becoming some of the largest farms in the US.

http://findourcommonground.com/food-facts/corporate-farms/


What we are witnessing is the Corporatism of farms. Just as our society has moved from the organic agrarian society, farms are moving from it into a more profitable model.
Click to expand...

It is subsidies. Subsidiaries are something very different. The first time I just assumed it was autocorrect but twice?

Of course, they did not each get 14 billion.

So half of the current farmland earned half of the profits. What a shock!

Free market enterprises are NOT certain to be profitable! Wow! You really need to put all of these shocking discoveries into a book or something.
 
Professor Baxter said:
You hardly ever hear Republicans and/or fake libertarians like grind complain about this sort of welfare. For them it' okay or at least not very offensive since it benefits rich white people. Why is that?

I could dive so deep into this topic it would make others sick. I'm from a Farming territory.

But it's this basic. Corporate farmers make it and local farmers don't. It's EXTREMELY basic.

The sad part is Farmer Welfare is in place and Farmers who don't work hard can exploit this. Lazy farmers can get funding/assistance to ensure that America is creating food.

The "ObamaPhone" was originally created by Bush for Farmers and later exploited by blacks and only then deemed the "Obamaphone".......It's only racist if you stated it was an Obamaphone without research kids.
Click to expand...
 
pisskop said:
So do you know how much profit the farmer's make from the subsidiaries? Or their total expenses? Their net profits?
Click to expand...

You can't be "just a farmer" anymore. You have to be a big money Corporate Farmer. Just like Bass Pro is selling "Country" to city people, you have to prove you are worthy as a Corporation today.
 
tekkychick said:
Um - but IT'S AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE. If farms become corporations - that's their choice. Why are we subsidizing them?
Click to expand...

No offense but Farms are all Corporations already. And I've heard first hand that there is no need to "try" to keep products sell worthy because the Government will back them if it fails.

The Farms in control today are all Corporate Farms where the owner is never there and the workers get paid next to nothing. I CONSTANTLY see posts of these farmers screaming about the importance of food. "If you don't eat, you don't live"

But the Right fights off the importance of Manual Labor and we see the biggest wage gap between the rich and the poor America has ever seen.

Anyone with a brain knows that the people controlling food should be paid more than the people controlling the superficial price of a purse.........(wait, America is still waking up to this?)
 
I was once the Parts and Service Asst. Manager (re: secretary) at a small Mississippi farming town Buick/Cadillac/Pontiac/GMC dealership. I really felt for those crying farmers that came in telling us that they were receiving government $'s to plant certain things, government $'s to not plant certain things, getting government funding to put certain acreage into reserve and wildlife refuge then renting it out to hunting clubs and whining that their wives were bitching them out because they haven't had a new Cadillac in the last 6 months or so. Kinda breaks your heart, doesn't it?

Petula
 
Farm subsidies are for proles. When the idea was first debated and passed into law it was by necessity and for the greater good of the health of the country. Unsubsidized and relatively cheap crop, livestock and futures insurance replaced all that decades ago but the farmers aren't going to give up free money from the governmental entities they love to hate.

Other subsidies remain very valuable to the health and future of this country. Energy resource research and development cannot survive without present subsidies. Environmental considerations demand subsidization. New and efficient transportation requirements are also presently dependent on subsidies. In the long run all this and much more will prove to be for the better interests of our society and nation. To think otherwise is simply ignorant or a complete misunderstanding of what national benefits can be realized without the profit motivations of the jerkwad capitalists that think it's all a waste. Maybe it's threatening their bottom lines or causing them to change their business models? I think so.

Petula
 
Wow, too bad Grind is banned from this thread so that he can't respond to being called a "fake libertarian."

String can be quite the coward. As for subsudies - yeah, they are a form of welfare, and real libertarians oppose them. Since Stringy is a poser, who knows where he actually comes in...



#Axe to grind
 
Professor Baxter said:
It is subsidies. Subsidiaries are something very different. The first time I just assumed it was autocorrect but twice?

Of course, they did not each get 14 billion.

So half of the current farmland earned half of the profits. What a shock!

Free market enterprises are NOT certain to be profitable! Wow! You really need to put all of these shocking discoveries into a book or something.
Click to expand...

My point is you banned half the board. And I think you just posted the first hipster thing you saw. I don't think you really care about this at all.
 
Anti-Party said:
No offense but Farms are all Corporations already. And I've heard first hand that there is no need to "try" to keep products sell worthy because the Government will back them if it fails.

The Farms in control today are all Corporate Farms where the owner is never there and the workers get paid next to nothing. I CONSTANTLY see posts of these farmers screaming about the importance of food. "If you don't eat, you don't live"

But the Right fights off the importance of Manual Labor and we see the biggest wage gap between the rich and the poor America has ever seen.

Anyone with a brain knows that the people controlling food should be paid more than the people controlling the superficial price of a purse.........(wait, America is still waking up to this?)
Click to expand...

Good point, most farms are corporations because it's so hard to make a living farming otherwise.

And farmers get a pretty small piece of the food dollar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top