Farm Bill hypocrisy

[kallend 2,180]

So now that the House has passed the Farm Bill it's interesting to note that while cutting the SNAP (food stamp) program, they are giving even more to large corporations and agribusiness.

One vocal proponent of cutting food stamp assistance (Rep. Fincher, R, Tennessee) turns out to have received $millions in subsidies over the years. www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/us/politics/farm-subsidy-recipient-backs-food-stamp-cuts.html

To fully appreciate the GOP hypocrisy consider the line conservatives often use to justify eliminating safety-net programs. It goes something like this: “You’re personally free to help the poor. But the government has no right to take people’s money” — frequently, at this point, they add the words “at the point of a gun” — “and force them to give it to the poor.”

It is, however, apparently perfectly O.K. to take people’s money at the point of a gun and force them to give it to agribusinesses and wealthy farmers.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[oldwomanc6 60]

AFAIK, Farm subsidies were instituted in order for them (small farmers) to be able to "compete" with larger farming enterprises, and stabilize prices (during times of "excess"). I am interested in hearing otherwise regarding the history of this.
IMO, there is no reason, now (beyond the political) for large corporations to receive them.

Let them sink or swim. It will sort itself out.

I know, wishful thinking that capitalism would be left to flourish.

lisa
WSCR 594
FB 1023
CBDB 9

[jclalor 12]

Quote

It is, however, apparently perfectly O.K. to take people’s money at the point of a gun and force them to give it to agribusinesses and wealthy farmers.

What's even more ironic? Is that it even encourages some farmers not to work.

[lawrocket 3]

I'd like to see farm subsidies ended. That way people can see what food really costs.

Then I'd like to see the estate tax ended. Then mom and pop farms can be passed down to kids without having to be sold to corporations to avoid paying a tax bill.

Then I'd like to see deregulation of farms. If farms can only operate with dedicated accounting, payroll, and compliance departments that only large corporations can afford, then we'll see more mom and pop farmers.

The modern agribusiness is the response to the New Deal.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[oldwomanc6 60]

lawrocket

I'd like to see farm subsidies ended. That way people can see what food really costs.

Then I'd like to see the estate tax ended. Then mom and pop farms can be passed down to kids without having to be sold to corporations to avoid paying a tax bill.

Then I'd like to see deregulation of farms. If farms can only operate with dedicated accounting, payroll, and compliance departments that only large corporations can afford, then we'll see more mom and pop farmers.

The modern agribusiness is the response to the New Deal.

lisa
WSCR 594
FB 1023
CBDB 9

[jclalor 12]

Then I'd like to see the estate tax ended. Then mom and pop farms can be passed down to kids without having to be sold to corporations to avoid paying a tax bill.

Can't mom and pop farms be passed down to their children with just a little estate planning, such as a living trust?

[mpohl 1]

Next, I'd like to see tort-reform.

So we can cut off the lawrockets. Make them stand on their own two feet, instead. Earn a living every day...

lawrocket

I'd like to see farm subsidies ended. That way people can see what food really costs.

Then I'd like to see the estate tax ended. Then mom and pop farms can be passed down to kids without having to be sold to corporations to avoid paying a tax bill.

Then I'd like to see deregulation of farms. If farms can only operate with dedicated accounting, payroll, and compliance departments that only large corporations can afford, then we'll see more mom and pop farmers.

The modern agribusiness is the response to the New Deal.

[champu 1]

jclalor

***Then I'd like to see the estate tax ended. Then mom and pop farms can be passed down to kids without having to be sold to corporations to avoid paying a tax bill.

Can't mom and pop farms be passed down to their children with just a little estate planning, such as a living trust?

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4359028#4359028

[turtlespeed 226]

jclalor

Quote

It is, however, apparently perfectly O.K. to take people’s money at the point of a gun and force them to give it to agribusinesses and wealthy farmers.

What's even more ironic? Is that it even encourages some farmers not to work.

A lot like welfare and food stamps.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[lawrocket 3]

jclalor

Then I'd like to see the estate tax ended. Then mom and pop farms can be passed down to kids without having to be sold to corporations to avoid paying a tax bill.

Can't mom and pop farms be passed down to their children with just a little estate planning, such as a living trust?

No. Passing the farm down to a trust is not the same thing as passing down the farm to the children. Similar but not the same.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,132]

>I'd like to see farm subsidies ended.

Agreed there.

>Then I'd like to see the estate tax ended.

Also agreed there. Raise business taxes to make up the difference.

>Then I'd like to see deregulation of farms.

Can't agree there. We have enough food-safety issues as it is.

[GeorgiaDon 385]

oldwomanc6

AFAIK, Farm subsidies were instituted in order for them (small farmers) to be able to "compete" with larger farming enterprises, and stabilize prices (during times of "excess"). I am interested in hearing otherwise regarding the history of this.
IMO, there is no reason, now (beyond the political) for large corporations to receive them.

Let them sink or swim. It will sort itself out.

I know, wishful thinking that capitalism would be left to flourish.

AFAIK your history is on the right track, albeit simplified a lot, leaving out certain economic speed bumps such as the great depression.

One problem is that farming today is not the (relatively) simple enterprise it was in the 1800s, where your typical farmer operated 40 acres (maybe) with the use of a mule or two. Equipment costs (all that specialized machinery) costs as much or more as what it costs to set up a DZ. Seed stock costs a fortune and all that cost has to be put in at the start of the season, as does fertilizer, herbicides, insecticides, etc, all in anticipation of a payoff at harvest time. The whole industry runs on an economy of scale that dictates that you have to plant huge acreages because the return/acre is so low, except for a few specialty crops. Then, one late hard freeze or hailstorm can wipe out your whole crop, and your entire up-front investment is lost. This is different from the day when farmers could save seed over from the previous year, and hand plant/harvest a few acres. It was a very hard way to make a living, even then, but farmers didn't have to bet their life savings (and much more) every single season.

Now, one approach would be to say let individual farmers bear the entirety of that risk themselves. That way, the taxpayer would avoid the expense of subsidizing or insuring farming. However advocates of that choice should at least recognize that the consequence will be the gradual loss of smaller and medium-sized farms that are owned by actual farmers, as it is inevitable that sooner or later a bad season will wipe out a crop and that will be that for such farmers. Large corporations, on the other hand, have both large cash reserves and geographically widespread operations, so they can withstand a failed crop here and there. Some may say fine, small farms should go extinct then. Well, the cost there is that the large corporate farms will always follow the crops that are amenable to mechanized production and that return the most money, which may not be crops for human consumption. These days corn production for ethanol, for example, takes a lot of acreage out of production in regard to food. Large corporations have no responsibility to feed the planet, they are only interested in profit. Having lots of small, individually owned farms means lots of farmers willing to chase smaller "niche" markets, which means you and I have the opportunity to buy foods that are not amenable to large-scale highly mechanized production. Look at it this way, when you go to your local farmer's market how often do you see a Tyson Foods booth selling organic broccoli or rhubarb?

I agree that the subsidy program needs serious house cleaning. I'd just argue that decisions should be based on a rational discussion of what intended goal is. Do we want a diverse food supply, in terms of both variety of foods and variety of food producers? Or are we content to have the entire food production system in the hands of a half dozen giant corporations, and have our choices limited to what they think they can produce most profitably? Will short-term tax savings be overwhelmed by higher food prices as fewer and fewer producers control more and more of the market? Once we decide what we want re food supply, we can rationally discuss the most efficient way to achieve that.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[kallend 2,180]

So why aren't the conservatives on here jumping in to defend the House bill to deny food stamps to the poor while increasing subsidies to the wealthy?

Surely you can find some reason why this is a great idea.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

kallend

So why aren't the conservatives on here jumping in to defend the House bill to deny food stamps to the poor while increasing subsidies to the wealthy?

Surely you can find some reason why this is a great idea.

It doesn't always work that way, John. But we're also talking about farm subsidies. Althought food stamps have some similarities. Whereas the government will pay farmers to not farm, it also pays people to not work.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,180]

lawrocket

***
So why aren't the conservatives on here jumping in to defend the House bill to deny food stamps to the poor while increasing subsidies to the wealthy?

Surely you can find some reason why this is a great idea.

It doesn't always work that way, John. But we're also talking about farm subsidies. Althought food stamps have some similarities. Whereas the government will pay farmers to not farm, it also pays people to not work.

That's NOT the way the House GOP voted.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Bertt 0]

Let me take a crack at that one. Poor people tend to vote Democrat; rich people tend to make campaign contributions to Republicans.

You don't have to outrun the bear.

[kallend 2,180]

Bertt

Let me take a crack at that one. Poor people tend to vote Democrat; rich people tend to make campaign contributions to Republicans.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

That's why the GOP are dunces. They could have cut farm subsidies and food stamps. Coulda cut a bunch of other stuff, too.

Democrats and GOP both like giving other peoples' money to their favorite causes. Hence the massive debt. Pass payment down to the next couple of generations, too.

My wife is hotter than your wife.