Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Billions Wasted In Farm Subsidies

November 15, 2013

Though getting government spending under control often is seen as a Democrats vs. Republicans battle, some of the most egregious waste gets bipartisan support. “Farm support” spending is exhibit No....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(16)

wvhoopie

Nov-15-13 6:15 AM

The govt subsidies received by corporate America dwarfs what individuals receive yet you rarely ever hear a conservative speak the truth here. If conservatives were serious about deficit control they would be asking the hard questions as to why corporate America, swimming in record profits, receive billions and billions in subsidies. Not one word from the conservatives about this topic which tells me all the screaming and yelling about the $17 trillion debt is a total joke!

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

dyingov

Nov-15-13 6:31 AM

Billions Wasted_________ Just fill in the blank!

If the Goberment discovered (as the story tells) people that don't farm or that live in a city and are receiving checks, did they ask for the tax payers money back?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Nov-15-13 6:36 AM

Conservatives are with you on this one, hoopie. Farm subsidies interfere with the economics of the free market. End ALL subsidies. If that makes food prices rise, so be it. That won't affect the poor or middle class any, will it, hoopie? Well, maybe they can eat cake, right hoopie?

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

dyingov

Nov-15-13 7:13 AM

troll, So subsidies are good if they go to the "conservative" farmers that don't farm?

Farmer poverty-"This is the most common-and provably incorrect-justification. The average farm household earns $81,420 annually (29 percent above the national average); has a net worth of $838,875 (more than eight times the national average); and is located in a rural area with a low cost of living. The farm industry's current 11.4 percent debt-to-asset ratio is the lowest ever measured and helps to explain why farms fail at only one-sixth the rate of non-farm businesses."

It's a program that had good intentions that ends-up being goberment handouts with unintended consequences! GOBERMENT IS NOT THE ANSWER!!!

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

LogHog

Nov-15-13 7:16 AM

The "Farm Bill" is so complex that the "law makers" never seem to have time to agree on any cuts item by item. any cuts will undoubtedly make someone made at these so called law makers who worry more about being re-elected. Whenever any real talk of cuts come up, the media brings out its standard talk of $8/gal milk prices and the starvation of the poor. The current system is Trickle down economics at it's worst. The Govt. paying billions of dollars to large corps. to raise nothing to keep the price of crops up, while claiming to keep milk prices down for the poor, while the prices of most food item sky rocket. But, but there is no inflation

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

dyingov

Nov-15-13 7:19 AM

"Nor do farm subsidies contribute to lower food costs. Two-thirds of food production is unsubsidized and thus relatively unaffected by subsidies. Of the remaining one-third, price reductions caused by crop subsidies are balanced by conservation programs that raise prices. Furthermore, food prices are based not only on crop prices, but also on food processing, transportation, and marketing costs. Bruce Babcock, professor of economics at Iowa State University, has calculated that eliminating farm subsidies would have virtually no effect on food prices."

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Nov-15-13 7:21 AM

dyingov, I just said "End ALL subsidies." What do you want, a bow around it? LOL

But you have to admit that when you cut subsidies to farms, prices of their products (food) will rise. And wages and employment numbers for their labor will drop. So hoopie's call for an end to farm subsidies is also a call for higher food prices, lower wages, and higher unemployment. Demorats call that "progress." LOL

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

dyingov

Nov-15-13 7:22 AM

"Two-thirds of all farm production-including fruit, vegetables, beef, and poultry-thrives despite being ineligible for farm subsidies.[11] If any of the five justifications were valid, these farmers would be impoverished, near bankruptcy, or replaced by imports, and both the supplies and prices of fruit, vegetables, beef, and poultry would fluctuate wildly. Clearly, this has not happened."

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Nov-15-13 7:25 AM

dyingov “Of the remaining one-third, price reductions caused by crop subsidies are balanced by conservation programs that raise prices.”

So when they cut the subsidies, will they also be cutting the conservation program requirements? Because, if not, those cuts in crop subsidies but continuation of conservation programs WILL raise prices.

And a full third of the market isn’t just a small fraction. How about if we raise prices on only one third of your household expenses? Would you call that an increase in your expenses?

Maybe Bruce Babcock didn’t take any math courses... LOL

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

dyingov

Nov-15-13 7:33 AM

troll, I got news for you, my electric, gas, cable, phone, water, food, etc. are not getting any less expensive!

Just an example of what happens when the goberment is involved in "programs!" goberment has not friggin clue. The cure to the goberment spending, CUT THEM OFF! "Wealthy heir Mark Rockefeller received $342,000 to NOT farm, to allow his Idaho land to return to its natural state."

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

dyingov

Nov-15-13 7:39 AM

Problem:-3 X -2 = +6

Had a professor once that required the class to explain the provided problem! The results were VERY interesting.

I'm guessing the "Economics" Professor at Iowa State had a few math classes! Iowa State is more about academics than sports....lOL

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Nov-15-13 7:49 AM

dying, you just proved two wrongs make a right. The Demorat Party could use that information right about now...

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

F15Eagle

Nov-15-13 9:00 AM

Corn Hogs.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

dyingov

Nov-15-13 11:42 AM

If your goberment would just control the waste, fraud and abuse the budget might be balanced in 3-5 years! Of course if money is "saved" I'm sure your political peeps will find another "project" for funding!

Federal flood insurance receives 3.6 billion per year in premiums! So FEMA spends it on more employees......Now the peeps are wondering why they have no money to pay claims. You can't give goberment any funding that they can't figure out how to spend....

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

oldsteelmaker

Nov-16-13 9:41 PM

A private insurance company takes the premiums, sets aside a portion to cover short term claims, and invests the rest to make a stream of income back for long term claim reserves. This is called fiscal prudence.

Programs like social Security, Medicare, flood insurance or any of a host of Fed "insurance" programs take the money from us, and give it to someone else. If anyone except the Feds were doing this, it would be called a Ponzi scheme.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

oldsteelmaker

Nov-17-13 12:34 PM

Yes, farm subsidies are mostly a waste of money. Gasohol has been a bust for a number of reasons. The cars are so much better that the basic premise, reduction of air pollution is already happening. So I am fine with cutting them.

Now all you have to do is get Harry Reid to accept that. Wonderful thing about American English, how slim chance and fat chance mean the same thing.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 16 of 16 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

EZToUse.com

I am looking for: