# USDA Farm Subsidies & 3rd World Relief



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Maybe this should be under Tailgater, but I thought that more people would read it here. If so Mr./Ms Moderator go ahead and move it.

The minister at church is going to give a sermon basically stating that the subsidies paid to the biggest agricultural commodities would be better spent on providing relief to people in need overseas.

This doesn't have anything to do w/ honey producers. It has to do w/ wheat, cotton and others. This also supposedly only pertains to Mega Farms, Agri Businesses.

I maintain that one should find out the circumstances of the individual recipients of these subsidies. What is their standard of living? What do these subsidies mean to their bottom line? Will subsidised farmers cut back or stop farming w/out these subsidies? What would make one think that the monies would go to the needy overseas? 

Another point about the USDA Subsidies is that it is felt that they keep forgien farmers from getting a fair price for their commodities. I wonder if this true. Maybe there are other things that keep them from getting paid a fair wage, like poor roads, weather or who knows.

Does anyone know anything about this idea? Where can I find out more about this subject?

Thanks.


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

I don't know where you would find any info on this. I think this idea should be flushed....right along with the aid to these countries that fail to make any progress in dealing with their problems, but instead look for us to continue to hand out year after year. Most of the money or products sent over doesn't get to the people who really need it, instead it sits in some government warehouse.

Our farmers continue to recieve the same prices they recieved during the 80's, unadjusted for inflation or anything else. They need what little the government hands out in subsidies just to survive. While farmers in other countries sell their products at the world trade price, and then get large payouts from their government for doing so. Some of this has been straighten out in the world trade talks, but we still work on an unlevel playing field when it comes to exporting our ag products.


----------



## Brent Bean (Jun 30, 2005)

If you think it bad for the US to be dependant on foreign oil what would it be like if we became as dependant on foreign food? Seems like people get more fired up when they hear of a farmer getting subsidies to keep them above water but the same people won’t say a peep when we subsidize the oil companies that are making jaw dropping profits. To me this doesn’t even pass the red face test. Thousands of farms go belly up every year and thousands get turned into sub-division for homes, some day people will be surprised to find out that there food don’t come from Wal-mart, but by then it will be to late. Perhaps then we will finally lose our status as the fattest county in the world.


----------



## Limey (Feb 10, 2007)

Nearly all farm subsidies go to the big corporations, not to the small farmers.

.. and don't get me started on tax breaks for the oils companies that made $39 BILLION PROFIT. THAT, is why you have the 2nd amendment.. Why you people have not marched on the capital and taken out the government is beyond me..


----------



## Brent Bean (Jun 30, 2005)

Limey when your refer to you people do you include yourself?


----------



## Limey (Feb 10, 2007)

Being a non citizen, I wholly support the wonderful US government in all that they do


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Limey said:


> Nearly all farm subsidies go to the big corporations, not to the small farmers.


This is one point my Minister made to me too. And also the idea that if some of the commodities weren't subsidised at market value then perhaps there would be a more level playing field.

Perhaps so, but I wondere if this isn't wishful thinking.

I also wonder about the quality issue. I assume that our own ag products are superior in quality though I may be wrong.

I agree w/ those who worry about being agriculturally dependent on forgien sources of food and fibers. But aren't we already somewhat dependent that way? Out of season fruits and vegetables from the Southern Hemisphere?


----------



## leafcutter (Mar 16, 2006)

Kudo's to your pastor for making us scratch our heads and consider the morality of our policies. Thats what they are supposed to do...

However, dont be suprised if he gets a tongue lashing if he proposes doing something (Biblically guided or not) that could even be perceived as harmful to the US economy. Jesus would NEVER have recommended anything that might hurt business.  If you haven't seen the film "Amazing Grace", do - for years, the majority argued against ending slavery because it would weaken the economy, morality be darned. Some things never change.

It is my understanding that subsidies do mainly benefit Agribusiness, because the subsidies are per ACRE, so by definition the small guys dont get much. Which drives the big guys to get bigger, and push more little guys out. Here's a few links to read.

Green Acre$: How the taxpayers are subsidizing the demise of the family farm
http://www.ewg.org/reports/greenacres/pr.html
This one is how the farm bill promotes obesity and bad health. Them's my medicare dollars...
http://www.michaelpollan.com/article.php?id=88
Oxfam has a lot of material if you search through their site
www.oxfam.org

Even though I do believe your pastor has a good case from a moral standpoint, I'll make the argument that our economy and national security would be a lot healthier if we didn't have the current subsidy system even if you ignore the moral aspects.

Brent Bean is right:
>>>>If you think it bad for the US to be dependant on foreign oil what would it be like if we became as dependant on foreign food?

I shudder at the thought, particularly after the Chinese melamine poisoning thing (read about the recent pet deaths). Your point is another great reason to overhaul the farmbill. Small farms are 2-10x more productive than agribusiness farms. They also use crops with more genetic diversity. They do so using less pesticide (petroleum based) and causing less erosion. So, if we want to cultivate energy independence (use less oil to farm), maintain our own food independence from other nations (grom more food, more securely), and have a hedge against ever-increasingly weird weather patterns (another huge problem)... we need to support the little guys and decrease our support for the big ones. So why don't we? Agribusiness has the cash to lobby K street and make sappy TV commercials, and the little guys don't.

And all that without even considering the benefit to overseas farmers - the original reason for this thread. I wonder if we didn't subsidize the mega farms, we wouldn't even need to send the savings overseas... they'd be able to help themselves since we would not be undercutting their prices.

Sorry for the rant. My uncle lost his farm to the big guys back in the 70's.


----------



## Barry Digman (May 21, 2003)

"Does anyone know anything about this idea? Where can I find out more about this subject?"

Google "U.S. Farm Bill" to get started. Nearly every mainline denomination in the US has criticized the latest incarnation of our policy.


----------



## MarkR (Mar 25, 2007)

Leafcutter, you are my kind of person.  

Mark


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

limey sezs:
THAT is why you have the 2nd amendment..

tecumseh replies:
and why the powers that be have invented 2nd amendment zones so that YOUR opionion will never be heard or noticed. go to crawford texas and if so inclince scream at that blank wall on that back street surrounded by a ten foot chain link fence all you want brother...

gosh... I wish I had kept track of the number of times I have had conversations with very larger farmers (at one time in my little life I was a banker) and when I would ask them about a government check they recived as a subsidy payment (most typically only obtainable by grain farmers) or hail damage check the 'fat cat' in question would almost always say... oh, we don't count that....

if you are not informed about how these government monies are distributed primarily based upon local political connections then you really need to become better informed about how this system works..

to sqrcrk:
the real problem with the idea of redistributing food product to third world countries is (and will continue to be) the distribution infrastructure (movement and storage) which NEVER exist in these third world countries. we as americans typically assume these thing to be inplace, but almost by definition they are never in place in these impoverished places. so you can send food stuffs to this or that third world countries and there is NO way for those places to move the product to where it is needed or to store the product along the distribution routes. in the end a great quantity of the food stuff either get stolen or consumed by vermin (quite typically about half is lost to bugs, mice and rats).

lastly there is a higher moral question which revolves around the idea that by providing food, clothing, medical care or what ever... you are encouaging a system that allow more individual to survive to child bearing age which makes the problem even larger 20 years down the road and at the same time lulls the locals into thinking they need to do nothing to confront this primary question about a social structures carring capacity.

just my two denairo...


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

leafcutter said:


> Kudo's to your pastor for making us scratch our heads and consider the morality of our policies. Thats what they are supposed to do...
> 
> Oxfam has a lot of material if you search through their site
> www.oxfam.org
> ...


Thanks leafcutter and all others. 

It was after visiting the oxfam headquarters in Wash., DC that Wade, one of my ministers, was inspired to address this subject. When he announced it as one of his future sermons it got me on the defensive. Because of the way he put it I felt like he was going after me, probably the only farmer in the congregation. Though maybe I shouldn't have taken it so personally.

I do believe that his, and oxfam's, point is that if Agri Business wasn't subsidised the forgien competitors would have it somewhat easier.

Perhaps the bottom line is that without the subsidies we won't have the farmers, Agri Business Mega farms or otherwise.

Making the playing field more level may be the morally correct thing to do, but can we afford to do it?

I believe that Wade needs to get the farmers perspective from more than just oxfam and me. So I will be passing some of your comments on to him. If you don't mind.


----------



## Jethro (Oct 22, 2006)

One thing to think about is that the "Farm bill" is funding low income housing among other things. I always hear about the farmers getting big subsides but you never hear how most (over half) of the money is spent. Last year in Effingham at the housing complex there was a sign stating your tax dollars at work $200,000 renovation funded by USDA. The county got more money for the housing than all conservsation work and subsides together.


----------



## Robert Hawkins (May 27, 2005)

"Kudo's to your pastor for making us scratch our heads and consider the morality of our policies. Thats what they are supposed to do..."

That's not what the pastor is supposed to bee teaching. If mine did, I'd bee church hunting.....

Hawk


----------



## Albert (Nov 12, 2006)

I know this is gonna get heated but quick...

Subsidized housing; there's something that never seems to work right. Why should anyones hard personal effort be usurped for the benefit of another?

Notice that the demise of the small farmer, family, community, you name it, accelerated with the introduction of the welfare state.

Note too, that the cutting of said benefits also coincided with an dramatic increase in home ownership.

Big corporate agri-business gets the lions share of subsidies. How would you like a check for several hundred thousand dollars and not have to do anything for it? Plenty of cattlemen get them, as do grain farmers. Don't have to believe me just check out the Wall Street Journal.

I for one believe that voting rights should be tied to property ownership. Sounds extreme? Well those who own property have a vested interest in what happens around them. Those who don't, well... just take a look around.

And before anyone calls me some nasty undeserved name, I also believe that university level educations should be available to everyone, FREE. I think educational funding in this country is abyssimal. Our infrastructure is the pits, and our medical care system is busted beyond belief. Why the hell aren't we invested in breeder reactor technology and renewable energy sources. Ohh, thats right, we let anyone vote. Even convicted felons.

Now that I have soapboxed....

Regards,
Albert

PS: And don't get me started on fast food.


----------



## Limey (Feb 10, 2007)

Albert said:


> Why should anyones hard personal effort be usurped for the benefit of another?
> 
> I also believe that university level educations should be available to everyone, FREE.


You can't really have it both ways.. If someone has no children, why should they have to pay for others to be educated? I do not think there is anything in the Bill of Rights about free education to all or subsidized housing or even that taxes go to support a welfare system etc.


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

Limey said:


> You can't really have it both ways.. If someone has no children, why should they have to pay for others to be educated? I do not think there is anything in the Bill of Rights about free education to all or subsidized housing or even that taxes go to support a welfare system etc.


Why can't we have it both ways? If you have no children but help put other's children through college, you might be educating the doctor who save's your life, or cures cancer, or a host of other things......


----------



## Albert (Nov 12, 2006)

Limey,

I suppose you are right with respect to that.

On the other hand, I think that most problems in the USA could be solved if the level of education was better than it is. Perhaps I should have said that education per se needs to be improved. I didn't learn anything in college that my 17 year old can't learn right now. And another thing, if you have no children, you are still a product of the system, now its your turn to ante up. Here in Florida we have the problem that the retirees refused for years to allow any property tax increases, so the schools are atrocious, plain and simple. Then they complain that today's generations don't have morals, ethical grounding, or manners. Well their parents didn't either so what do you expect? Is that the schools fault? No it is the fault of the parents that are so wrapped up in "getting theirs", because their parents had it, that they don't have time, much less know how to maintain a certain level of civility.

I think it was Benjamin Franklin that said, "An educated populace is easy to govern, but impossible to tyranize." Or something to that effect. I don't second guess the Founding Fathers. Nor should anyone else for that matter.

Even though I was a soldier by desire and vocation, when I think that the money spent on the Iraq adventure could have supplied the USA with enough alternative energy infrastructure to supply 150% of our energy needs, I get pissed that elected officials conduct themselves as they do.

I for one, think that the Iraq war should be solved the way the Romans dealt with Carthage.

Good thing for them I'm not the President. But that's another subject alltogether!

Please someone pull me off the soapbox!!!

Regards,
Albert


----------



## Limey (Feb 10, 2007)

peggjam said:


> Why can't we have it both ways? If you have no children but help put other's children through college, you might be educating the doctor who save's your life, or cures cancer, or a host of other things......


I would be ok with that if their future services were free. Ahh but wait, wouldn't that be bordering on Socialism ?


----------



## Ann (Feb 18, 2006)

Limey said:


> You can't really have it both ways.. If someone has no children, why should they have to pay for others to be educated? I do not think there is anything in the Bill of Rights about free education to all or subsidized housing or even that taxes go to support a welfare system etc.


Someone paid for your public education - why don't you have to pay for the next generations? I agree with Peggjam, too - children are our future.


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

albert adds:
Subsidized housing; there's something that never seems to work right. Why should anyones hard personal effort be usurped for the benefit of another?

tecumseh replies:
it is called expanding the demand function and lowering the supply function (ie reducing long term variable cost)... the ultimate immediate ($$) benefit is acquired by the developer and land speculators. as a secondary benefit you get the warm fuzzy feelin' that some impoverished child is not living in a dumpster.

in political speak this is call privatizing the benefit and socializing the cost.

then albert adds:
Notice that the demise of the small farmer, family, community, you name it, accelerated with the introduction of the welfare state.

tecumseh replies:
nonsense. the realitive number of small farms and small communities has been declining since the contries formation... this decline (rate of) increased as the effects of the industrial revolution came into effect.... ie machinery replaces manpower which then translocate to the city in order to feed themselves. the formation of what is often called the modern welfare state was a mean to keep the unemployed rabble from burning the machinery and the cities down. it is pretty cheap insurance for the speculator and developers (once again privatize the profits, socialize the cost). 

then albert adds:
Big corporate agri-business gets the lions share of subsidies. How would you like a check for several hundred thousand dollars and not have to do anything for it? Plenty of cattlemen get them, as do grain farmers. Don't have to believe me just check out the Wall Street Journal.

tecumseh replies:
well albert the wall street journal is most times correct about as often as fox news (studies suggest that the majority of fox new listeners are incorrect in significant news detail at about an 85% rate). I am not certain where you might obtain the information that cattlemen receive subsidys... but at least over the time frame of the modern day farm program (ie from 1930 forward) this is quite incorrect. There are of course indirect subsidy which the cattlemen do benefit.... ie lower feed cost via subsidized grain and rental of government properties (primarily in the western us of a) for cattle grazing at extremely low rates. at one time bee keepers and diary men received direct subsidys, but that part of the farm program has been gone for quite some time. 

albert adds:
I for one believe that voting rights should be tied to property ownership. Sounds extreme? Well those who own property have a vested interest in what happens around them. Those who don't, well... just take a look around.

tecumseh responds:
well that sure sounds pretty undemocratic to me... and we (at least at one time) expect you to protect our freedoms? I guess you had no problem in taking 'that' government check?

then albert replies:
And before anyone calls me some nasty undeserved name, I also believe that university level educations should be available to everyone, FREE. I think educational funding in this country is abyssimal. Our infrastructure is the pits, and our medical care system is busted beyond belief. Why the hell aren't we invested in breeder reactor technology and renewable energy sources. Ohh, thats right, we let anyone vote. Even convicted felons.

tecumseh replies:
it is quite evident that the effects of 40 years of seriously underfunding education has begun to show albert. examples... 1)why do we (that being the good old us of a) pay twice as much (% of gnp) for health care as the remainder of the industial world? and 2) how can it take 5 years (about the time to win the second world war) to remake a new and improved hummer?

it is my understanding of the law (I am not a lawyer) that a felon can vote only if this civil liberty has been reinstated by the state. of course in florida you are not so much concerned (if past and recent history is any measure) about even thowing out legal votes... so why would a random felon voting here and there really bother ya' bro?

and here is a little number for you albert... last year there was approximately 250000 children born in texas.... 53% of those births was paid for from funds from medicare/medicaid. now why is a program designed to look after the aged being utilized to bring children into the world?


----------



## Limey (Feb 10, 2007)

Ann said:


> Someone paid for your public education - why don't you have to pay for the next generations? I agree with Peggjam, too - children are our future.


Were discussing university level education.. In which case I paid for it, and I worked my a$$ off doing it. I believe that made me a much better person (I'm not going to debate this point  ) and someone who appreciates the things I have in my life.

I don't agree with spreading my wealth to the betterment of others outside my family since most times, the spreading is only 1 way. That doctor we are discussing will not go on to give me free service one day. If they did, then I would have a different opinion. This is the USA were discussing, not Europe.. big difference.


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

limey sezs:
Were discussing university level education.. In which case I paid for it, and I worked my a$$ off doing it. I believe that made me a much better person (I'm not going to debate this point ) and someone who appreciates the things I have in my life.

tecumseh replies:
well limey I kind of know exactly what you are sayin' bro since I quite typically worked two jobs during my undergraduate education and saved up enough money after my military tour to pretty much self finance my graduate education. this effort did not make me stupid to the fact that my financial contribution to my education was in fact subsidized by the state (which typically pays anywhere from half to one-third of a state institutions cost). of course if I had obtained a private school education this would not have been true... but then again given the cost of a private university would have required that I have worked 10 jobs.

limey then adds:
I don't agree with spreading my wealth to the betterment of others outside my family since most times, the spreading is only 1 way.

tecumseh replies:
quite the naval gazer huh? a bit self pocessed? another me, me, me type?

so limey was this massive accumulation of wealth you speak of purely a function of your effort or did the society that you were born into have some effect on the outcome?

hopefully limey when you run head long into your first major health problem and that pile of wealth you have accumulated dissolves almost overnight perhaps then you will come to understand that the spreading is not just one way.


----------



## Robert Hawkins (May 27, 2005)

Well, well, well. A chance to highjack a thread. Since we're improving the almost perfect Us of a let's eliminate the conflict of interest. Everyone who recieves a govt check can no longer vote. That includes all military, State and municiple employees, congressmen, teachers, etc.

Hawk


----------



## Limey (Feb 10, 2007)

tecumseh said:


> limey then adds:
> I don't agree with spreading my wealth to the betterment of others outside my family since most times, the spreading is only 1 way.
> tecumseh replies:
> quite the naval gazer huh? a bit self pocessed? another me, me, me type?


Not at all.. I have given a great deal of time and money to many organizations over the years. I just prefer it to be my choice as opposed to being taken from me and distributed to areas I don't agree with. 

Tell me.. do you honestly agree with even half of the ways that the government spends taxes? Foreign aid? Money for weapons to both foreign governments and those opposing foreign governments? Rebuilding Iraq? Feeding Africa? Our current welfare system? etc.. Just look into any emergency appropriations bill and look at the massive amount of waste and pork that gets attached every time. 



tecumseh said:


> so limey was this massive accumulation of wealth you speak of purely a function of your effort or did the society that you were born into have some effect on the outcome?


I have not spoken of any massive accumulation of wealth. I work hard and struggle like most people. Which is why I am against increasing taxes to pay for more Socialistic programs. What I was born into was the product of what my parents worked hard to create. What area's are you thinking about?



tecumseh said:


> hopefully limey when you run head long into your first major health problem and that pile of wealth you have accumulated dissolves almost overnight perhaps then you will come to understand that the spreading is not just one way.


How would paying for a doctor to be educated solve this issue? In the US, he goes on and charges for his services. Even if I personally paid for his education, I am still going to be screwed the first major health problem I have. I have moderate health insurance coverage like most people, but that would still leave me short in the even of a major health issue. I do not understand how paying for a potentials doctors education would change that unless we switched to a free health care system.. which is a different topic altogether.

I was under the impression that most Americans are against Socialism..


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

There have been cases where towns have donated money to a students education (doctor) and the student agreed to come back to that town and open their practice....and they still charged, maybe just not as much . This has happened in more than one case....


----------



## leafcutter (Mar 16, 2006)

Peggjam writes: There have been cases where towns have donated money to a students education (doctor) and the student agreed to come back to that town and open their practice....and they still charged, maybe just not as much .

Well sure they still charge. Having gotten a free education doesn't mean you never have to eat another meal or change the oil in your car or save for your retirement. Even in Europe where education is free, plumbers and physicists and writers still get paid when they start work.

Even if doctors did work for free its not like healthcare would be free, since docs are just one part of a huge interconnected dysfunctional system. Last summer a gastroenterologist agreed to see a friend of mine back east who could not afford to pay and had no insurance (a very nice gesture). And while yes, she did not get a bill for the 200$ consultation fee.... the hospital still charged her 1200 dollars for the overhead for the 2 hours she was there: RN time, the operating room time for the colonoscopy, the time for the tech to clean the scope afterwards, the sedatives they gave her, etc. 

Thanks to Tecumseh and Albert for your service. Talk about government checks and handouts... how about we divert some public funds to pay the troops more? If you're gonna take a bullet for the team, you ought to be able to afford to feed your kids.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Interesting thread, and interesting ideas, sqkcrk. I'm a "latecomer" to this thread, but I'd like to go back to this comment for a bit:



> I agree w/ those who worry about being agriculturally dependent on forgien sources of food and fibers. But aren't we already somewhat dependent that way? -sqkcrk


I submit that our agricultural system currently is very dependent on foreign sources, not of food or fibers, but of energy. Consider how much fossil fuels are consumed to grow and distribute the agricultural commodities produced in this country. I've read estimates of something like eight calories of fossil fuels burned on average for each calorie of corn produced. Most other commodities are similar, with almost nothing grown or produced agriculturally in this country that yields more energy (calories) than is consumed in production and distribution.

Think of all the fossil fuels burned to move bee hives, check hives, haul supplemental feed to bees, transport honey, ship woodenware and bees and queens and all the other paraphernalia used by beekeepers.

And a good chunk of that fossil fuel comes from foreign sources.

As far as government subsidies, then, should money spent fighting in the Persian Gulf to protect oil interests be considered a "subsidy" to producers relying on that fossil fuel to grow and ship commodities?


----------



## leafcutter (Mar 16, 2006)

Kieck -

Your line of thinking "follows the money" as they say, all the way to the bottom and has led you to the reason why a lot of folks view the current war in Iraq (not Afghanistan) as 'being all about oil.' Everything about our economic system depends on oil, even the parts no one thinks of as you point out, and we'd be in trouble without a cheap supply of it.

To take the subsidy idea in a slightly different direction, since every gallon of gas or oil we buy puts money indirectly into the hands of the terrorists (the 911 hijackers were Saudi's, studies show a lot of the suicide bombers in Iraq are Saudi's, Osama is a Saudi, the Iranians fund the Iraqi insurgency, etc).... isn't our own consumption of oil then a "subsidy" to terrorism?

How counterproductive are we, anyway? 

There's 18 people running for president. The one who lays out the best "Marshall Plan" for American energy initiatives may get my vote. It'd be great to cut revenue flowing to the middle east, be more self sufficient.... and we'd cut CO2 emissions to boot.


----------



## Limey (Feb 10, 2007)

Spot on leafcutter.. 

We could have done a lot more good with 500 billion dollars in regards to oil dependency as opposed to ensuring a continued supply.


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

Limey said:


> Spot on leafcutter..
> 
> We could have done a lot more good with 500 billion dollars in regards to oil dependency as opposed to ensuring a continued supply.


Yea, like solved CCD, provided our own dogfood ingredants, beefed up our border security, developed affordable altenative fuels....the list goes on and on....... .


----------



## Albert (Nov 12, 2006)

Tecumseh,

You make some good points. Thanks for the correction on the figures.

I'm not sure I understood what you meant, but I disagree with you on the point of me recieving a govt check. Allow me to remind y'all that the check I recieved was a payment by the People of the USA for services rendered. I'm proud of my service to this fine Nation and I willingly put myself at grave risk to perform my duties. I don't consider my pay to be a handout.

(BTW I probably would have done it for nothing. I loved that life and I would still be there if not for an unfortunate incident that almost tore my leg off, crushed one foot, and left me a tad bit less handsome than before.)

And as to the ownership/voting right point. I don't think that's undemocratic. The Romans, Greeks, English, and our Forefathers did it that way. And as a Western Nation created under Greco/Roman, Cristian/Judeo ideals and laws, I once again fall back to "If it worked for them, it'll work for us."

There is an interesting article in Fine Homebuilding's Houses issue that deals with home ownership and low income communities. In essence the statistics are that when sweat equity, access to financial instruments, and economic incentives are available, the net result is an improvement in quality of life, an improvment in property valuation, and an step up into the middle class. Communities prosper, crime goes down, and the pride of ownership creates a culture of civility.

Anyway, I don't suppose any of my ideas will occur anytime soon, so I just keep plugging away at raising my kids to be good, honorable men, raising my bees to be tough and productive, and raising my vegetables to be tender and good to eat!

Regards and good discourse!
Albert


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Robert Hawkins said:


> "Kudo's to your pastor for making us scratch our heads and consider the morality of our policies. Thats what they are supposed to do..."
> 
> That's not what the pastor is supposed to bee teaching. If mine did, I'd bee church hunting.....
> 
> Hawk


My minister is bringing to the attention certain ideas about how we, in America, interact w/ the rest of the world especially in regards to our federal agricultural practices and "Free Trade Agreements". He is bringing this to the attention of the congregation to raise awareness of something which may or may not be morally wrong. If not him, then who?

You really aught to read some of the things from the USDA, Oxfam and other sources previously note earlier in this thread. You may learn something that could enlighten you on how we impact economies of other countries. I found it interesting.

President Bush's 2007 Farm Bill and Oxfam are of similar mind about some farm subsidies. Especially as it pertains to specialty crops, like vegetables and fruits. Honey probably qualifies as a specialty crop. I haven't looked it up yet. Check it out.

p.s. Hawk,

Do you only go to church to hear about things other than what goes here and now? I'm just curious.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Albert said:


> Big corporate agri-business gets the lions share of subsidies. How would you like a check for several hundred thousand dollars and not have to do anything for it? Plenty of cattlemen get them, as do grain farmers. Don't have to believe me just check out the Wall Street Journal.
> 
> Regards,
> Albert
> ...


One quote I came across on the USDA site and the Oxfam site spoke about how in 2004 "38,000 'farmers' who had AGIs(Adjusted Gross Incomes) of $200,000.00 or more received $400 million in subsidies". 

My first reaction was, "So what? That's about $10,000.00 per qualifying farmer w/ AGI of $200,000.00. Or 5% of their AGI. But what were their Profit and Loss from Farming Statements like? What was their Profit and Loss? They qualified under the guidlines. So if this is wrong, change the guidelines. But I bet you will still have examples like this unless you do away w/ all supports.

I'm reminded of a Wall Street Journal from 15 or more years ago about Horace Bell. The author thought that it was wrong for one man to get a really large percentage of the honey subsidy. THE MAN OWNED 100,000 COLONIES. The difference between the loan and the payback, .06/ lb., probably didn't cover his extracting costs.

The whole thing isn't black and white, by no means simple.

I'm going for a Big Mac. Not really. Just poking fun. Ha, ha.


----------



## John F (Dec 9, 2005)

sqkcrk said:


> Does anyone know anything about this idea? Where can I find out more about this subject?
> 
> Thanks.


_Economics in one Lesson _by Henry Hazlitt

read it free here
buy it at amazon here
super quicky wiki here


----------

