Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

(Farm) Subsidies on the table

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
deminks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 07:47 AM
Original message
(Farm) Subsidies on the table

If everything is now on the table for federal budget cuts, that includes payments to those who put food on our tables.

The deficit debate could be a turning point for Kansas lawmakers on Capitol Hill, whove long seen agricultural subsidies as essential to protect the nations farm families and food production.

To get serious about the debt is to tackle entitlement reform, and that includes the farm bill, Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., recently told the Agribusiness Club of Washington.

Just as he was as chairman of the House Agriculture Committee for the 1996 farm bill, Roberts will be a key player in writing the 2012 farm bill (his seventh as a lawmaker) now as ranking Republican on the Senate Agriculture Committee.

(end snip)

The question is which subsidies is he talking about, the $30 million in grants to small and mid-sized farmers, or the $15 billion given out to agribusiness corporate welfare.

Small farms get small help compared to subsidies for agribusiness


In 2009, Congress doled out $15 billion in farm subsidies. According to Food First, 90 percent of that sum went to the production of five crops - corn, wheat, rice, soy and cotton.

"Most of that 90 percent went to the large farming corporations," Shattuck said. "Much of those commodities were not used for food, but for animal feed and industrial applications. Cotton is not even a food."

The subsidy system primarily assists agribusiness, firms like Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill. Mid-sized farms, although they often appear to make a great deal of money, often and the year in the red because of costs.

"A mid-sized farm will typically have $500,000 in sales and $600,000 in costs," she said. "At the same time, ADM, with the aid of their farm subsidy, will buy corn for cheaper than it cost the mid-sized farmer to produce it."

(end snip)

It will be important to know which subsidies are being cut. Somehow this all fits into their "prosperity for me, austerity for you" theme, I am certain.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 08:05 AM
Response to Original message
1. Subsidies...
.... would be ok with me as long as they were limited to actual family farms. Any operation with over a million dollars a year is not a family farm and should not get one dime of my tax money.

But you watch, Obama isn't going to do anything to stop corporate welfare, only the little guy will get squeezed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
greymattermom Donating Member (680 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 08:09 AM
Response to Original message
2. a good thing
that rural Kansans will see their subsidies considered as contributing to the national debt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
SpiralHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Socialism for Republicons
I reckon...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 08:11 AM
Response to Original message
4. It'll be the little guys who get the shaft, err cuts
The fatcats might loose 1 percent while the little guy gets cut to the bone to the tune of 50 to 75 percent. My numbers :-) Is what I expect to see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Motown_Johnny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 08:14 AM
Response to Original message
5. Then ethanol subsidies need to be the first ones to be cut

Corn based ethanol is an experiment that has failed. Continuing to throw good money after isn't helping.

Let's start using that farmland for things people can eat and increase the supply to help keep the costs from skyrocketing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ThomWV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 08:16 AM
Response to Original message
6. Food prices, which are already rising faster than general inflation, would go insane
Food prices are already rising rapidly and if you dump the subsidies they will skyrocket. Then the Republicans will come back and claim that it was the removal of the subsidies, and that alone, that caused the rise - that it was all the Democrat's fault. Never mind that food prices are already being driven up by other forces, not least among them the collapsing Dollar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
spedtr90 Donating Member (459 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 08:16 AM
Response to Original message
7. corporate farms will come out fine-they can hire the newly busted family farmers at subsistence wage
This is the real trickle down. The loss of funding, services, and basic humanity keeps trickling down from republicans in federal, state, and local governemnt. This is what gotcha politics gets ya. This is what voting against someone rather than for something you believe gets ya.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Mnemosyne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 09:26 AM
Response to Original message
8. I am in rural PA, most of the small-mid size farms here are run by reich-wingers that complain
about welfare for the poor.

Fuck 'em all. Let them get by without their fucking welfare program.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
WatsonT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 09:37 AM
Response to Original message
9. Good
long overdue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Andy823 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 10:03 AM
Response to Original message
10. Well...
Edited on Sun Apr-24-11 10:06 AM by Andy823
I know wheat farmers who haven't raised a crop in over a decade, and yet get hundreds of thousands of dollars to do "NOTHING" but pick up their "welfare" checks! They drive expensive cars, have nice homes, and complain all the time about people who "don't work" and yet get "welfare checks" from the government! Now this is just plain wrong and needs to be stopped, period!

If a person farms and has a bad year because of natural disasters, then I have no problem seeing them get help, but way to many people are now simply working the system who don't deserve all the money they get from the government, especially the huge agra farms owned by huge corporations. I say end them all and re work the program so that only those who actually work their farms are getting subsidies when they "really" need them!

Go to this site and find out who in your state are getting subsidies!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
spedtr90 Donating Member (459 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. I found area farmers who complain about teachers' salaries
getting as much as $70,000/year. I never really cared what farmers made, but the anti-public employee stuff was brutal and I will have a hard time being sympathetic. After the round of attacks on public employees at the state level I just wonder what the response will be from farmers as they become a national target. I hope farmers in this republican county see the light at last. I hope they realize how lucky they are to have Democratic senators who may be able to save their asses from the type of vindictive cuts and insults public employees suffered.

The following link is the best article I've seen about the pitfalls of the middle class being divided by comparing incomes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
fredamae Donating Member (622 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 10:42 AM
Response to Original message
11. Bachmann got hers!
Edited on Sun Apr-24-11 10:49 AM by fredamae
"Anti-socialist Bachmann got $250K in federal farm subsidies"

I think it was on a Rachel Maddow program some time ago I heard about several lawmakers who benefited from various subsidy programs.
As I have stated before. When it comes to budget's, spending and taxes most politicians are in "direct conflict's of interest" voting upon these matter's because they personally and in many cases directly benefit as a consequence of their votes. These decisions must be made by the people.
How to efficiently accomplish this is a problem, but a problem that can be resolved.

Here are more articles: /

The more the pubs hound on domestic spending cuts the more crapo like this is going to surface about the "Real American Welfare Kings and Queens".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Jan 22nd 2018, 09:51 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC