Tuesday January 01, 2002
I appreciate your response, but you are incorrect about a couple of items, and let me correct them. There were over 30 farms receiving more than $1 MILLION dollars in subsidies in North Dakota. This is not an extreme example...this is a list of MANY examples.
In order to receive these subsidies, they had to produce one or more of the 8 favored crops.
In your response, you stated something about the price of milk or hamburger. Neither of these items/products are in this program...and we can afford them, can't we? Neither are vegetables, nuts and several other products. When's the last time you saw people starving for a lack of cucumbers?
I appreciate the response that it helps keep prices low...but the misconception is that it is on ALL food products...and that's not true.
You say that many of these farmers wouldn't survive without these subsidies. I'm at a loss to understand why a farmer needs $1 MILLION dollars to survive...and someone on welfare only gets $400 a month. They fact is they would survive just fine without the money. Would they go broke? What difference does that make? Since when did the federal government get in the business of keeping people from going broke? Why can't I get a million dollars to keep from going broke?
Ah, but you say, they produce something that is necessary for living. Well, so is gasoline...and cars. But it's food were talking about? well again, VERY few FOODS actually are included in this plan. I believe I read last night that 43% of these 8 crops end up being exported ANYWAY. So it's not exactly a national hunger crisis we are dealing with.
In the last part of your response, you ask:
<< Let me ask you; who would you rather see your money go to - our farmers or to overseas interests or military growth (I am a veteran), or any of a million other interests.>>
I think I have already proved that a significant portion of this crop is exported, so some it is already going overseas, anyway. Military growth is another matter. (I support it.)
But plainly the answer to the question "..who would I rather see the money go to..." is simple for me.
The answer is NOWHERE. It's my money. I want to keep it.
Now, Mike, I'm certain there is far more to this story than meets the eye...and I am willing to be convinced. However my research shows a significant amount of my federal taxes going to select few farms, to produce a select set of products. And the amount of money is HUGE. If THEY don't get the money...as you suggest...then it's really not helping them, is it? And it's just hurting people like me.
(As a quick caveat, none of these monies include ANY insurance settlements...so not even disaster insurance is included. This is cash, folks.)
Tuesday January 01, 2002
Scott - I am not a farmer, but work with farmers. I find it interesting that in most conversations, people use extreme examples to make their point. I know nothing about the guy from Walhalla. I do know, however, many Minnesota farmers that receive gvt payments that might average from $5,000 to $100,000.
Scott, many of these farmers wouldn't survive if they didn't get gvmnt payments. That is what some of them live on. You can make the arguement that if they can't be profitable, they should go out of business, just like the store on main street. Well, how much do you pay for a loaf of bread, a gallon of milk, or a pound of hamburger? Very little of that goes to the farmer - most goes to the middle-men or the ADM's and Cargills of the world. Would you be willing to pay more for those products? Well, guess what. You are. In the form of gvt payments. Believe me, most farmers would much rather get a better price than a gvt payment. I hear people complain when gas prices go up a dime, but you seldom hear complaints about the prices in grocery stores.
OK. Maybe you say; 'let them go out of business'. Tell that to the merchant, or school teacher, or retired farmer who would see his small town in MN or ND grow even smaller than they are today. I can tell you that many people that live near the small town I live by, do so because of quality of life issues including having their children grow up and attend school in those small towns. No(fewer) farmers, less business. I'd also ask you - who plants the shelter belts and farms around the sloughs that support our wildlife. Is it the mega-farmer, or the small guy, who just likes to see deer or pheasants in his grove. That answer is pretty clear to me, when I see the groves plowed under and the ditches planted in MN by those guys who just want to plow more acres in less time.
Let me ask you; who would you rather see your money go to - our farmers or to overseas interests or military growth (I am a veteran), or any of a million other interests. The answer is pretty clear to me.
I tend to lurk on web-sites and very seldom put in my 10 cents worth. Thanks for listening.
Monday December 31, 2001
Here's something to 'chew on'
This is a link to the subsidies that farmers have received in North Dakota over the past 5 years. That's right. Farmers get paid money from OUR taxes.
Take a GOOD HARD look at the amounts of money these farmers in North Dakota are receiving from OUR tax money. I mean that. From OUR TAXES, WE pay!
I'm sorry if this ticks off some of you farmers...but it ticks ME off. I don't take pleasure in the fact that I work MY butt off to give YOU a subsidy.
(Beside the fact that this IS the Hot topic forum...)
And PLEASE, if you are a farmer...don't think you will get your post deleted because you disagree...this is your chance to enlighten me why I should be working my butt off to PAY YOU?
Silence is approval on this issue, folks.
3.4 MILLION (yes...MILLION!) dollars for a farmer in Walhalla? That's not his INCOME, that's the money they received from US! That's right...I paid that money to this farmer through my federal taxes.
It ticks me off to no end when people get these hand-outs. 3.4 MILLION dollars? C'mon....