Farm Subsidies

[Bonestorm]

The dots on the above map represent people that received federal agricultural subsidies. The large dots represent people who received more than $250,000. For the geographically challenged, that is a map of Manhattan, where last I checked there weren't too many farms, family or otherwise.

Clearly the agricultural subsidy system is broken and the blame goes a large swath of legislators on both sides of the aisle that represent farm statesand their enablers. What to do about it, I don't know. But something's got to give. That's re-god-damn-diculous.

 

[ib1yysguy]

If these dots represent address of people who received them and not the property that benefitted from it, then this map doesn't mean much.

I did hear Tump got a farm subsidy though.

 

[uscitizen]

Never heard of rooftop gardens ?

 

[ib1yysguy]

It wouldn't surprise me if landowners had a residence in a city. Someone in charge of a big corporate pig farm or something. If Dung actually linked us to the source, we could analyze this a little more. It's more convenient to extrapolate what he wants from it and post it without the opportunity for critique.

How does one imbed an image anyway?

 

[Damocles]

You use the little picture in the reply window, you put the url for the image in and it automatically adds the tags...

It will look like this:

[img]urlforimagehere[/img]

 

[Bonestorm]

It wouldn't surprise me if landowners had a residence in a city. Someone in charge of a big corporate pig farm or something. If Dung actually linked us to the source, we could analyze this a little more. It's more convenient to extrapolate what he wants from it and post it without the opportunity for critique.
How does one imbed an image anyway?

My source came vicariously through the link below. And I understand the criticism, but the idea that someone in charge of a big corporate farm who lives in Manhattan is bad enough off to need federal farm subsidies is absurd:

http://farm.ewg.org/sites/farmbill2007/mappage.php?&lat=40.74569634433956&lng=-73.97335052490234&z=12&type=Satellite

As for embedding images, click that icon with a mountain on it and it takes you through the rest.

 

[LadyT]

Well, since farmers get to pay slave labor prices to illegals, I say we yank them.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I say we yank em either way.

 

[LadyT]

My source came vicariously through the link below. And I understand the criticism, but the idea that someone in charge of a big corporate farm who lives in Manhattan is bad enough off to need federal farm subsidies is absurd:

http://farm.ewg.org/sites/farmbill2007/mappage.php?&lat=40.74569634433956&lng=-73.97335052490234&z=12&type=Satellite

As for embedding images, click that icon with a mountain on it and it takes you through the rest.

I tend to agree with your basic assessment.

 

[Bonestorm]

Well, since farmers get to pay slave labor prices to illegals, I say we yank them.

I'm not necessarily saying they should all be yanked, but a little tighter controls on who get them is an absolute must, particularly in light of this:

Nationwide, the federal government has paid at least $1.3 billion in subsidies for rice and other crops since 2000 to individuals who do no farming at all, according to an analysis of government records by The Washington Post.

Some of them collect hundreds of thousands of dollars without planting a seed.

Here's the source for the quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/01/AR2006070100962.html

 

[Timshel]

If these dots represent address of people who received them and not the property that benefitted from it, then this map doesn't mean much.

I did hear Tump got a farm subsidy though.

Other than they are not likely to be poor farmers.

 

[LadyT]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and do the unthinkable: I'm going to extrapolate my personal experience as an indicator for the country.
By my estimates there are probably more individuals doing what I'd consider abusing farm subsidies than people and/or institutions legitimately using them. I can't tell you how many people I've worked with in suburbia that claim them who don't even eat, use or sell the items that they grow or animals that they raise. Its a huge scam. If you're a corporation or if you can prove that a substantial amount of your income is typically derived from farming then fine, but for the most part, folks like you and me are subsidizing people with huge lots of land and good accountants.

 

[ib1yysguy]

My source came vicariously through the link below. And I understand the criticism, but the idea that someone in charge of a big corporate farm who lives in Manhattan is bad enough off to need federal farm subsidies is absurd:

http://farm.ewg.org/sites/farmbill2007/mappage.php?&lat=40.74569634433956&lng=-73.97335052490234&z=12&type=Satellite

As for embedding images, click that icon with a mountain on it and it takes you through the rest.

Federal subsidies dont exist to keep farms from folding. They exist to prevent price spirals via overproduction.

 

[ib1yysguy]

Other than they are not likely to be poor farmers.

Please see my last reply. Poor farmers? You do you know why they exist, don't you?

 

[Bonestorm]

Federal subsidies dont exist to keep farms from folding. They exist to prevent price spirals via overproduction.

So we're paying people not to farm?

I feel much better about it now!

 

[ib1yysguy]

Federal subsidies dont exist to keep farms from folding. They exist to prevent price spirals via overproduction.

So we're paying people not to farm?

I feel much better about it now!

Yup. You should.

 

[Timshel]

Ok, but that is not the way they are sold.

Can you explain your views on the problems of price spirals unique to farmers? And before you say it, I am familiar, but don't want to put words in your mouth.

 

[ib1yysguy]

Ok, but that is not the way they are sold.

Can you explain your views on the problems of price spirals unique to farmers? And before you say it, I am familiar, but don't want to put words in your mouth.

I don't think they're unique to farmers in a sense that they only happen to the farming industry - they don't. But unlike producing widgets, if someone cranks up their factory to flood the market with beach balls and they go out of business because beach balls start selling for $0.05, that doesn't cause a national crisis.

And we know that it happens. Farmers will produce more food in order to make more money, the market prices fall, and they lose money. Farms go out of business, and there is a crisis. Farm subsidies didn't fall from the sky to piss off Libertarians. They exist to solve a practical problem.

... and they give us a trade advantage globally.

 

[cawacko]

Federal subsidies dont exist to keep farms from folding. They exist to prevent price spirals via overproduction.

What benefits do the taxpayers paying these subsidies get?

 

[ib1yysguy]

That being said, I agree that there is room for improvement in how they're distributed. The system isn't perfect. The answer, however, is not to get rid of the program all together.

Libertarians hate babies as much as they hate bathwater.