|
Farmers Feeding At The Public Trough *OINK OINK*
I have to agree with Melvin on this one, American farmers are big
hypocrites. We should all be so lucky to have the taxpayers finance our chosen professions. Sorry for contributing to the off topic postings in the group but the farm welfare racket really sticks in my craw. I guess because most of them profess to be conservative "we need smaller government...got to cut welfare for those damn single mothers...gotta do something about all those big city welfare queens...blah blah blah..." Consumate hypocrites. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,52293,00.html MCVILLE, N.D. — North Dakota's farming season is notoriously unreliable, with this year's May snowstorms pushing back planting in most of the state. Luckily, farmers who know they can't count on the weather are sure they can count on the federal government. "I'd be losing money every year without the government," said Terry Naas, a local farmer. On Wednesday, the Senate approved 64-35 a 10-year farm bill that ups subsidies by 80 percent, returning them to pre-1996 levels, when the Freedom to Farm Act was passed by Congress in an effort to reduce subsidies on a variety of crops over the next six years. The flow of federal dollars was supposed to end this year, but the effort to wean farmers off subsidies has instead given way to $83 billion more over the next 10 years, most of it dispersed as payouts to farmers. The House passed an identical version of the bill last week on a 280-141 vote. It now goes to the president's desk for his signature. Three years ago, Fox News visited Naas when he was on the verge of leaving his family farm. He said had it not been for $300,000 he received from the federal government since then, he would have quit the business. It's the same story for most North Dakota farmers. Government payments to grow crops — or not grow them — is the only thing that keeps farmers on the farm. "How do I say it?" asked Eric Aasmundstad of the North Dakota Farm Bureau. "It's absolutely as critical as blood running through your veins." The new farm bill has been described as "a little something for everyone." Almost the entire array of American agricultural products are now covered with some form of subsidy, and political analysts say that could be because of the tight election year in 2002. "Both the Democrats and the Republicans are vying for votes, and one of the ways to vie for votes is to bring more money back home," said Andrew Swenson at North Dakota State University's extension service. Swenson said that politically-motivated growth in federal subsidies will not be all bad. For one thing, food prices will stay low for consumers. But already the new crop of subsidies has farmers doing their arithmetic. "They lowered the loan rate on the soybeans and that was what I was going to plant the most of this year," Naas said. Naas will then benefit from the late snow covering his farm. It bought him the time needed for Congress to pass the bill so he can calculate which crops will yield him the most government money come harvest time. |
Mack Sambo wrote:
I have to agree with Melvin on this one, American farmers are big hypocrites. We should all be so lucky to have the taxpayers finance our chosen professions. Sorry for contributing to the off topic postings in the group but the farm welfare racket really sticks in my craw. I guess because most of them profess to be conservative "we need smaller government...got to cut welfare for those damn single mothers...gotta do something about all those big city welfare queens...blah blah blah..." Consumate hypocrites. On top of that, most farm "subsidies" go to big corporations and rich absentee "farmers". America's generous farm subsidies mean that Third World farmers can't compete in their own countries against imported American grain. In fact, two trade talk meetings have ended unsucessfully because the poor countries are demanding that we end our farm subsidies. So what do we do? INCREASE them! http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,52293,00.html MCVILLE, N.D. — North Dakota's farming season is notoriously unreliable, with this year's May snowstorms pushing back planting in most of the state. Luckily, farmers who know they can't count on the weather are sure they can count on the federal government. "I'd be losing money every year without the government," said Terry Naas, a local farmer. On Wednesday, the Senate approved 64-35 a 10-year farm bill that ups subsidies by 80 percent, returning them to pre-1996 levels, when the Freedom to Farm Act was passed by Congress in an effort to reduce subsidies on a variety of crops over the next six years. The flow of federal dollars was supposed to end this year, but the effort to wean farmers off subsidies has instead given way to $83 billion more over the next 10 years, most of it dispersed as payouts to farmers. The House passed an identical version of the bill last week on a 280-141 vote. It now goes to the president's desk for his signature. Three years ago, Fox News visited Naas when he was on the verge of leaving his family farm. He said had it not been for $300,000 he received from the federal government since then, he would have quit the business. It's the same story for most North Dakota farmers. Government payments to grow crops — or not grow them — is the only thing that keeps farmers on the farm. "How do I say it?" asked Eric Aasmundstad of the North Dakota Farm Bureau. "It's absolutely as critical as blood running through your veins." The new farm bill has been described as "a little something for everyone." Almost the entire array of American agricultural products are now covered with some form of subsidy, and political analysts say that could be because of the tight election year in 2002. "Both the Democrats and the Republicans are vying for votes, and one of the ways to vie for votes is to bring more money back home," said Andrew Swenson at North Dakota State University's extension service. Swenson said that politically-motivated growth in federal subsidies will not be all bad. For one thing, food prices will stay low for consumers. But already the new crop of subsidies has farmers doing their arithmetic. "They lowered the loan rate on the soybeans and that was what I was going to plant the most of this year," Naas said. Naas will then benefit from the late snow covering his farm. It bought him the time needed for Congress to pass the bill so he can calculate which crops will yield him the most government money come harvest time. |
Yea your right. Farmers are welfare scumbags. I think I'll tell the farmers in my family to stop working seven days a week because their bringing down America. |
"Brian Hill" wrote in message ... Yea your right. Farmers are welfare scumbags. I think I'll tell the farmers in my family to stop working seven days a week because their bringing down America. Could farmers stay in business without subsidies and price supports? Frank Dresser |
helmsman wrote: "Frank Dresser" wrote: "Brian Hill" wrote in message ... Yea your right. Farmers are welfare scumbags. I think I'll tell the farmers in my family to stop working seven days a week because their bringing down America. Could farmers stay in business without subsidies and price supports? Frank Dresser That's the problem, no matter how productive you are, if someone else can do it cheaper "without price supports" or better then we loose. That's why lifesavers went from "Holland, Mi" to Canada. Sugar costs a fortune here and it's not the only product like that. Sad but true. Yes, no more LifeSavers from here! Not sure myself what the plant will be used for now. Steve Holland, MI |
"helmsman" wrote in message ... That's the problem, no matter how productive you are, if someone else can do it cheaper "without price supports" or better then we loose. I'm not sure I understand. How do we lose if someone else can produce sugar cheaper than we in the US can? For example, sugar can be produced much more cheaply in Central and South America. We still make many things in the US that people in Central and South America want to buy. The trade would be benefical for both sides. That's why lifesavers went from "Holland, Mi" to Canada. Sugar costs a fortune here and it's not the only product like that. Sad but true. The Chicago candy makers have been hit hard by sugar price supports: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/g...20040212.shtml Frank Dresser |
Frank Dresser wrote: "helmsman" wrote in message ... That's the problem, no matter how productive you are, if someone else can do it cheaper "without price supports" or better then we loose. I'm not sure I understand. How do we lose if someone else can produce sugar cheaper than we in the US can? How do we lose? Well, the less expensive sugar cannot be imported into the US. Therefore, businesses such as LifeSavers have opted to leave the US for other places (such as Canada) where sugar is less expensive. So, the US sugar producers lose because they are not selling sugar to a business here, and at the same time our manufacturing base leaves. |
"N8KDV" wrote in message ... Frank Dresser wrote: "helmsman" wrote in message ... That's the problem, no matter how productive you are, if someone else can do it cheaper "without price supports" or better then we loose. I'm not sure I understand. How do we lose if someone else can produce sugar cheaper than we in the US can? How do we lose? Well, the less expensive sugar cannot be imported into the US. Therefore, businesses such as LifeSavers have opted to leave the US for other places (such as Canada) where sugar is less expensive. I think we agree on this one. The only winners in the sugar subsidy program are the US sugar farmers. Everyone else loses. So, the US sugar producers lose because they are not selling sugar to a business here, and at the same time our manufacturing base leaves. There's no need for well connected US sugar producers to lose. The government could buy up the entire surplus sugar crop every year at an inflated price, even if there's no longer any US candy/baking industry. Frank Dresser |
"Brian Hill" wrote in message ...
Yea your right. Farmers are welfare scumbags. I think I'll tell the farmers in my family to stop working seven days a week because their bringing down America. Boo hoo! We, the American taxpayers will all cry you a river. Some do work seven days a week part of the year, planting and harvest season. Not all winter though or large chunks of other months. Many self-employed people work seven days a week year round and they don't receive any handouts from the taxpayers. Wouldn't my neighbor, who is an IT consultant, love to have the government hand him $300,000 (see Fox news story about Mr. North Dakota farmer) because his business is being taken away by consultants in India! Difference between him and the American farmer is that he doesn't expect the taxpayers to bail him out of his chosen profession. Nor does he whine, cry and bellyache about it (which further distinguishes him from the typical farmer). You are correct on one point though; "Farmers are welfare scumbags." Your words not mine. |
tommyknocker wrote in message
On top of that, most farm "subsidies" go to big corporations and rich absentee "farmers". America's generous farm subsidies mean that Third World farmers can't compete in their own countries against imported American grain. In fact, two trade talk meetings have ended unsucessfully because the poor countries are demanding that we end our farm subsidies. So what do we do? INCREASE them! Very true tommyknocker. See the below story by ABC's John Stossel which validates what you say. Today’s biggest welfare queens are probably farmers -- once, in their glory days, the most self-sufficient of Americans. When I make speeches about free markets at Farm Bureau conferences, farmers applaud enthusiastically. But despite their surface support for free markets, most of them operate in a market that’s very expensive for all of us, receiving $200 billion in direct handouts this decade, plus another $200 billion in artificial price supports (which force us all to pay more for food). Farm supports are as destructive as the old welfare payments to poor people were. Just as addictive, too. Subsidies are supposed to help farmers recover from low prices caused by overproduction, but the subsidies lead farmers to plant more crops, creating more overproduction, which lowers prices, making farmers even more dependent on handouts. The programs wreck the lives of farmers in poor countries because they can’t compete with subsidized American farmers (or with even more-subsidized European farmers). Hypocritical politicians blather constantly about helping the poor and demand more of your tax money for foreign aid. But they simultaneously give out farm subsidies, which rig the system so that all over the world poor farmers stay poor. Why shovel all this money to American farmers? Because we like farms. Farms are romantic. No one wants to lose the family farm. Of course, most handouts don’t go to family farms. They end up going to big farm corporations, because the big, established companies are most skilled at using the system. Fortune 500 firms like Westvaco, Chevron, John Hancock Life Insurance, Du Pont, and Caterpillar each get hundreds of thousands of dollars in subsidies. Another reason farmers get these ridiculous handouts is that they’ve become remarkably proficient at panhandling. Every state has a politically aggressive farm lobby, and every politician wants to stay on its good side. Watching the 2000 election’s Iowa caucuses was nauseating. At Vice President Al Gore’s rallies, they played country music while Gore regaled crowds with farm stories. "Every summer," said Gore, who grew up in a fancy Washington hotel, "we went back down to the farm. I was in the 4-H club." Even so-called shrink-the-government Republicans will make government bigger for farmers. The candidate the press called the most "conservative," Alan Keyes, said farm supports are absolutely necessary: "It’s a question of America’s moral decency." Oh, please. Most American farmers do just fine -- better than most other Americans. Subsidies go to corn growers who earn more than $200,000 a year, even to "farmers" like my ABC colleague Sam Donaldson, who got thousands of dollars in wool and mohair payments because he and his wife raised sheep and goats on their New Mexico ranch. Donaldson calls the payments "a horrible mess" (he’s sold the livestock and no longer collects subsidies), but he compares them to the home mortgage deduction, saying, "As long as the law is on the books, it’s appropriate to take advantage of it." Rich people take extra advantage: From 1996 to 2000, David Rockefeller got $352,187; Ted Turner, $176,077; basketball star Scottie Pippen, $131,575. Farmers argue, "We need subsidies -- because the food supply is too important to be left to the uncertainties of free market competition." But farmers who grow beans, pears, and apples receive no government subsidies, and they thrive. Free markets are best at producing ample supplies of everything. Notice any shortages of unsubsidized green beans, pears, and apples? Me neither. Yes, some farmers have a tough time. Some will go broke and lose their farms. That’s sad. But it’s also sad when people at Woolworth’s or TWA lose their jobs. Letting businesses fail is vital for the creative destruction that allows the market to work. Those who fail move on to jobs where their skills are put to better use. In the long run, it makes life better for the majority. The Biggest Piggie? When public interest groups compile lists of corporate welfare recipients, a company called Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) is usually at the top of the list. You may never have heard of ADM, because its name rarely appears on consumer products, but it’s huge. Its products are in most processed foods. ADM collects welfare because of two cleverly designed special deals. The first is the government’s mandated minimum price for sugar. Because of the price supports, if a soft drink maker wants to buy sugar for its soda, it has to pay 22 cents a pound -- more than twice the world price. So Coca-Cola (and almost everyone else) buys corn sweetener instead. Guess who makes corn sweetener? ADM, of course. Now guess who finances the groups that lobby to keep sugar prices high? ADM’s second federal feeding trough is the tax break on ethanol. Ethanol is a fuel additive made from corn, kind of like Hamburger Helper for gasoline, except that it’s more expensive, so no one would buy it if government didn’t give companies that use ethanol a special 52-cent-a-gallon tax break. That costs the treasury half a billion dollars a year. ADM produces half the ethanol made in America. Why does ADM get these special deals? Bribery. OK, it’s not technically bribery -- that would be illegal. ADM just makes "contributions." Through his business and his family, former ADM Chairman Dwayne Andreas gave millions in campaign funds to both Mondale and Reagan, Dukakis and Bush, Dole and Clinton. President Nixon’s secretary, Rosemary Woods, says Andreas himself brought $100,000 in cash to the White House. He even paid tuition for Vice President Hubert Humphrey’s son. Republicans, Democrats -- it doesn’t matter. ADM just gives. It also flies people around on its corporate jets. When we contacted Andreas to ask for an interview, he arranged to fly us to ADM’s Decatur, Illinois, headquarters in one of ADM’s jets. I’ve seen private jets before, but ADM’s was a step above. A flight attendant served us excellent food on gold-plated china. The camera crew and I loved it. Bet the politicians like it too. A limo took us to Dwayne Andreas’ office. Once the cameras were rolling, I brought out the questions about "corporate welfare." I foolishly thought I could get him to admit he was a rich guy milking the system. I thought he’d at least act embarrassed about it. Fuggeddaboutit. He was unfazed. Stossel: Mother Jones [magazine] pictured you as a pig. You’re a pig feeding at the welfare trough. Andreas: Why should I care? Stossel: It doesn’t bother you? Andreas: Not a bit. I still wonder why he granted the interview. I asked him about his bribes -- I mean, contributions. For example, Andreas gave the Democrats a check for $100,000. A few days later, President Clinton ordered 10 percent of the country to use ethanol. Stossel: And the purpose of this money wasn’t to influence the president? Andreas: Certainly not. Stossel: So why give him the money? Andreas: Because somebody asked for it. Because they asked for it? Give me a break. In an ABC special I made called Freeloaders, economist Walter Williams aptly noted: "A panhandler is far more moral than corporate welfare queens....The panhandler doesn’t enlist anyone to force you to give him money. He’s coming up to you and saying, ‘Will you help me out?’ The farmers, when they want subsidies, they’re not asking for a voluntary transaction. They go to a congressman and say, ‘Could you take his money and give it to us?’ That’s immoral." Andreas’ attitude is rampant in many different areas of corporate America, and it’s an ugly one. But there’s always some legitimate-sounding justification. The politicians need your money for national security, research, job protection, or to "protect the food supply." After spending time on the golf course with lobbyists, politicians will find a way to justify almost anything. They justify giving subsidies to prosperous companies that sell goods overseas by saying that the resulting exports will be "good for America." They will be. But does Sunkist need taxpayer help to sell oranges? McDonald’s to sell McNuggets to the Third World? Let them do their own marketing. My employer -- Disney, which owns ABC -- got tax money to create better fireworks at Disney World. Really. Politicians will hand over millions of dollars to sports teams under the pretense that it will help create jobs and economic activity -- ignoring the jobs and economic activity that would have resulted had the taxpayers been able to keep their millions to spend on what they chose. (See "If You Build It, They Will Leave," January.) Some handouts allegedly keep certain industries alive in America -- even though we’d all be better off just buying their products from overseas if foreign producers can make them cheaper. The shipping industry, for example, gets billions in handouts. Without them, American shipbuilders say, they can’t compete with low-cost shipbuilders overseas. American politicians should say: "They’re more efficient overseas? Fine! We’ll buy their cheaper ships." And American taxpayers would be richer. But we don’t do that -- because the shipping industry has friends like former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.). He makes sure Congress keeps your money close to home -- his home. I interviewed Lott. Without moving the tripod, our camera could pan from his Mississippi home to the shipyard that got half a billion dollars of your money to build a ship the Defense Department never even requested. Lott didn’t even seem ashamed of that. "Pork is in the eye of the beholder," he joked. "Where I’m from...[pork] is federal programs that go north of Memphis." |
"Mack Sambo" wrote in message Boo hoo! We, the American taxpayers will all cry you a river. Some do work seven days a week part of the year, planting and harvest season. Not all winter though or large chunks of other months. Many self-employed people work seven days a week year round Dairy & livestock farms run 24/7. and they don't receive any handouts from the taxpayers. Wouldn't my neighbor, who is an IT consultant, love to have the government hand him $300,000 (see Fox news story about Mr. North Dakota farmer) because his business is being taken away by consultants in India! Difference between him and the American farmer is that he doesn't expect the taxpayers to bail him out of his chosen profession. Nor does he whine, cry and bellyache about it (which further distinguishes him from the typical farmer). You are correct on one point though; "Farmers are welfare scumbags." Your words not mine. The average small farm in America is not reaping the big harvest you talk about. Commodity prices go up and down. If they fall low enough you have a hard time covering the cost of planting it and the cost of running a farm are great and the risk is great. you act like there's no risk or overhead to owning a farm. Its just all fun and games. |
|
"Brian Hill" wrote in message ...
Yea your right. Farmers are welfare scumbags. I think I'll tell the farmers in my family to stop working seven days a week because their bringing down America. That's right! Boycot U.S. grown food and import food from India and Pakistan. While you're at it, boycot the truckers that haul that U.S. grown food to your table. Sounds like the farmers are pretty smart to use benefits provided by our elected officials in D.C. |
Mister Fixit wrote:
On 27 Mar 2004 16:00:59 -0800, (Mack Sambo) wrote: "Brian Hill" wrote in message ... Yea your right. Farmers are welfare scumbags. I think I'll tell the farmers in my family to stop working seven days a week because their bringing down America. Boo hoo! We, the American taxpayers will all cry you a river. Some do work seven days a week part of the year, planting and harvest season. Not all winter though or large chunks of other months. Many I hate to confuse you with facts, but on a Dairy Farm the cows have to be milked twice a day, every day. And livestock has to be fed all winter as well. I would like to see some of these sissy city boys who are doing so much complaining get up at 4 am when the temp is ten below and spend the morning hauling hay. |
JJ wrote in message ...
I hate to confuse you with facts, but on a Dairy Farm the cows have to be milked twice a day, every day. And livestock has to be fed all winter as well. I would like to see some of these sissy city boys who are doing so much complaining get up at 4 am when the temp is ten below and spend the morning hauling hay. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Yeah right but you left out the part about the lazy fatass welfare parasites paying some schmuck minimum wage to do the tasks. Besides who is holding a gun to these guys heads making them farm? Nobody that's who! Cripes the only way you could get the assholes off the government gravy train would be to shut off handouts. It's hilarious how you hypocrites have swarmed out of the woodwork on this thread. HELL HATH NO FURY LIKE THAT OF A PARASITE EXPOSED! LMAO!!! Melvin |
How do we lose? Well, the less expensive sugar cannot be imported into the
US. Therefore, businesses such as LifeSavers have opted to leave the US for other places (such as Canada) where sugar is less expensive. So, the US sugar producers lose because they are not selling sugar to a business here, and at the same time our manufacturing base leaves. Sugar also isn't the only commodity have price supports, Milk is the worst offender I believe. Yep, I've noticed the proce of sugar (at least here) has skyrocketed. Since I put sugar in my coffee (that's it).....I decided when I saw what my Mom and Dad use to make a change. #1It's a WHOLE lot healthier than sugar #2 You don't use near the amount. You all might know of it, I never heard of it. It called 'Sugar In The Raw.' I bought a 160z. box, for the life of me I can't rember the price, actually it's a tad more expensive then when the sugar price was more reasonable. I got the 'packets' to be more control of my intake. You get 100 packets of it. I noticed on the bottom of the box is says "Natural Cane Turbinado Sugar From Hawaii." It looks like gold crystals when your pour it out of the packet. It sweetens, no doubt, just a 'different' type of sweet.....but I've grown to like it. **Here's the good part. Calories per packet:20 Total Fat 0g Sodium 0mg Total Carbohydrates 5g Sugars 5g Protein 0g *5grams per packet Compare that with regular sugar. ~*~*Monitoring The AirWaves~*~ *****GO BEARCATS***** Hammarlund HQ129X /Heathkit Q Multiplier Hammarlund HQ140X Multiple GE P-780's(GREAT BCB Radios) RCA Victor *Strato- World* RCA Victor RJC77W-K(Walnut Grain) 1942 Zenith Wane Magnet 6G 601M Cathedral/ Ross#2311/RhapsodyMultiBand DX100/394/398/399/402 OMGS Transistor Eight/Realistic 12-1451 Henry Kloss Model One/Bell+Howell ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* |
"Melvin Creep" wrote in message Yeah right but you left out the part about the lazy fatass welfare parasites paying some schmuck minimum wage to do the tasks. Wrong asshole. Most farmers bust their ass. So make up more stories twinky! Besides who is holding a gun to these guys heads making them farm? Nobody.that's who! Thats right. They have integrity! Unlike some Creeps we know. Cripes the only way you could get the assholes off the government gravy train would be to shut off handouts. The average farms subsidie would barely do **** to make anyone rich. It's hilarious how you hypocrites have swarmed out of the woodwork on this thread. Hypocrites? What are you talking about WELFARE BOY! |
Melvin Creep wrote:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Yeah right but you left out the part about the lazy fatass welfare parasites paying some schmuck minimum wage to do the tasks. We got up and did the task ourselves, something you sure couldn't do sissy boy. You think farming or ranching is a lazy occupation, I would suggest you try it but you wouldn't last a day at it sissy boy. Besides who is holding a gun to these guys heads making them farm? Nobody that's who! Cripes the only way you could get the assholes off the government gravy train would be to shut off handouts. It's hilarious how you hypocrites have swarmed out of the woodwork on this thread. HELL HATH NO FURY LIKE THAT OF A PARASITE EXPOSED! LMAO!!! Melvin So you set around on your queer arse and draw welfare, there isn't a farmer anywhere as big a looser as you. |
"Brian Hill" wrote in message ...
"Melvin Creep" wrote in message Yeah right but you left out the part about the lazy fatass welfare parasites paying some schmuck minimum wage to do the tasks. Wrong asshole. Most farmers bust their ass. So make up more stories twinky! Besides who is holding a gun to these guys heads making them farm? Nobody.that's who! Thats right. They have integrity! Unlike some Creeps we know. Cripes the only way you could get the assholes off the government gravy train would be to shut off handouts. The average farms subsidie would barely do **** to make anyone rich. It's hilarious how you hypocrites have swarmed out of the woodwork on this thread. Hypocrites? What are you talking about WELFARE BOY! ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ In order...no most of them have no integrity or the would be honest like the Amish farmers who accept ZERO government money and run very profitable operations...You have no idea what the average subsidy is so you are talking out of your ass. Most receive taxpayers handouts totalling well into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Lastly, no I am no hypocrite because I openly admit I receive a handout, unlike farmers who pretend can't even bring themselves to call it what it is - welfare, instead their mask it by calling it a subsidy. Melvin P.S. This exposure of your daddy's dirty little secret really gets your goat doesn't it punk...LOL!!! Stay tuned for more exposes! |
I won't dispute that the dairy farmer has a 7 day work week.
But lets talk about the grain farmer; Can't do anything during the winter months. PLOW the fields in springtime. PLANT Can't do anything once the seeds are in. HARVEST in the autumn. ???? I probably don't understand the problem, but it sounds like about three weeks of frenzy, and forty-nine weeks of sittin' at the kitchen table. and complaining about how hard farm life is. Hell.... that's even better than school teachers ! rj |
"Melvin Creep" wrote in message ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++ In order...no most of them have no integrity or the would be honest like the Amish farmers who accept ZERO government money and run very profitable operations... You have no idea what the average subsidy is so you are talking out of your ass. Most receive taxpayers handouts totalling well into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Look here dick head. The average small farm is not raking in big money from the gov. Don't put my families farm in with those big corprate rice farms in CA asshole. We work for a living. And we don't hire anybody except when my Brother inlaw takes a vacation and needs someone to watch over the dairy. http://www.ewg.org/farm/ Lastly, no I am no hypocrite because I openly admit I receive a handout, unlike farmers who pretend can't even bring themselves to call it what it is - welfare, instead their mask it by calling it a subsidy. No dummy. You don't do **** and expect a check. At least the farmer produces something. Melvin P.S. This exposure of your daddy's dirty little secret really gets your goat doesn't it punk...LOL!!! Stay tuned for more exposes! No but it sure ****es you off. In fact your attitude of permanent indignation shows your great mental poverty, from one self righteous post to the next. You know, if you keep ****ing up you'll never make it to Kook status. Later looser. LOL!!! |
"Brian Hill" wrote in message ...
Look here dick head. The average small farm is not raking in big money from the gov. Don't put my families farm in with those big corprate rice farms in CA asshole. We work for a living. No dummy. You don't do **** and expect a check. At least the farmer produces something. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Stop lying. The average small farm is not raking as much as the corporate farms but they are raking in plenty nonetheless. On a pro rata basis they receive an even more generous handout than the big ones. And you are wrong again about the farmers at least producing something to get their welfare. I personally know many area small farmers who are getting paid NOT to produce certain crops. A hog farmer got a bigger check from the taxpayers for NOT raising hogs than he did when he actually raised them. Ditto with dairy farmers and milk. Do your homework before shooting your big ignorant mouth off. Don't even bother responding because this thread has ended for me. The Honorable Melvin Creep Official Spokesman Shortwave NG |
Creep head wrote:
Stop lying. The average small farm is not raking as much as the corporate farms but they are raking in plenty nonetheless. The average small farm is doing good to break even, do your homework before shooting off your big ignorant mouth, amoung the other things you do with it. |
Something that no one in this thread has considered. The real reason the
government supports farming is war. If farmers are allowed to go out of business and we start importing all our food, in time of war we're screwed. Cut off the supply routes and people starve. "Brian Hill" wrote in message ... "Melvin Creep" wrote in message ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++ In order...no most of them have no integrity or the would be honest like the Amish farmers who accept ZERO government money and run very profitable operations... You have no idea what the average subsidy is so you are talking out of your ass. Most receive taxpayers handouts totalling well into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Look here dick head. The average small farm is not raking in big money from the gov. Don't put my families farm in with those big corprate rice farms in CA asshole. We work for a living. And we don't hire anybody except when my Brother inlaw takes a vacation and needs someone to watch over the dairy. http://www.ewg.org/farm/ Lastly, no I am no hypocrite because I openly admit I receive a handout, unlike farmers who pretend can't even bring themselves to call it what it is - welfare, instead their mask it by calling it a subsidy. No dummy. You don't do **** and expect a check. At least the farmer produces something. Melvin P.S. This exposure of your daddy's dirty little secret really gets your goat doesn't it punk...LOL!!! Stay tuned for more exposes! No but it sure ****es you off. In fact your attitude of permanent indignation shows your great mental poverty, from one self righteous post to the next. You know, if you keep ****ing up you'll never make it to Kook status. Later looser. LOL!!! |
"CW" wrote in message ... Something that no one in this thread has considered. The real reason the government supports farming is war. If farmers are allowed to go out of business and we start importing all our food, in time of war we're screwed. Cut off the supply routes and people starve. Are you saying farmers in the US are so helpless they would go out of business without government support? One form of government support pays farmers not to grow crops. What is the wartime value of that? Which potential enemy could engage us in a war so protracted as to risk American starvation? And wouldn't such a war turn nuclear long before starvation was a risk? Isn't manufacturing at least as important to our war fighting capability as farming? Frank Dresser |
CW,
Yes - That is one of the 'nice' Strategic Reasons for maintaining a Strong 'self-sustaining' Domestic Farm Products Industry within the USofA. {We can feed ourselves in times of war.} But the other half of the "Dirty" Strategic Reasons for maintaining a Strong self-sustaining Export Farm Products Industry within the USofA. WHY - To use the "Denial of Food" to foreign nations as a Weapon of War. Transportation, Utilities & Water and Food the very means of life for the common man. * Render Useless - Airports, Highways, Railroads, Waterways, Ports, Harbors and Bridges. * Cut-Off Electrical Power; Destroy Dams and Canals; Eliminate Telecommunications; Black-Out Radio & TV Broadcasting. * DENIGH THEM FOOD - The Slow Process of Starvation - Create Panic. TBL: Control a Nation's Civilian Population and the Nations Leaders and Military will follow. [Total War - Without Reservation ] jm2cw ~ RHF .. .. = = = "CW" wrote in message = = = ... Something that no one in this thread has considered. The real reason the government supports farming is war. If farmers are allowed to go out of business and we start importing all our food, in time of war we're screwed. Cut off the supply routes and people starve. "Brian Hill" wrote in message ... "Melvin Creep" wrote in message ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++ In order...no most of them have no integrity or the would be honest like the Amish farmers who accept ZERO government money and run very profitable operations... You have no idea what the average subsidy is so you are talking out of your ass. Most receive taxpayers handouts totalling well into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Look here dick head. The average small farm is not raking in big money from the gov. Don't put my families farm in with those big corprate rice farms in CA asshole. We work for a living. And we don't hire anybody except when my Brother inlaw takes a vacation and needs someone to watch over the dairy. http://www.ewg.org/farm/ Lastly, no I am no hypocrite because I openly admit I receive a handout, unlike farmers who pretend can't even bring themselves to call it what it is - welfare, instead their mask it by calling it a subsidy. No dummy. You don't do **** and expect a check. At least the farmer produces something. Melvin P.S. This exposure of your daddy's dirty little secret really gets your goat doesn't it punk...LOL!!! Stay tuned for more exposes! No but it sure ****es you off. In fact your attitude of permanent indignation shows your great mental poverty, from one self righteous post to the next. You know, if you keep ****ing up you'll never make it to Kook status. Later looser. LOL!!! |
"Frank Dresser" wrote in message news:Coicc.24265$vo5.756001@bgtnsc05- Are you saying farmers in the US are so helpless they would go out of business without government support? A lot of them would. One form of government support pays farmers not to grow crops. What is the wartime value of that? Same thing. Think about it. Which potential enemy could engage us in a war so protracted as to risk American starvation? And wouldn't such a war turn nuclear long before starvation was a risk? China, Russia, the rest of the world if we're not careful. If nukes were used at all, it would be in limited fashion. It is survivable. Forget the propaganda. Isn't manufacturing at least as important to our war fighting capability as farming? Food is more immediate than manufacturing. You have a bit of time before manufactured resources run low. A lot longer than it would take for people to starve. Manufacturing is quite important though. Present policy toward that simply shows that short sighted greed is becoming the norm. Frank Dresser |
"RHF" wrote in message om... CW, Yes - That is one of the 'nice' Strategic Reasons for maintaining a Strong 'self-sustaining' Domestic Farm Products Industry within the USofA. {We can feed ourselves in times of war.} But the other half of the "Dirty" Strategic Reasons for maintaining a Strong self-sustaining Export Farm Products Industry within the USofA. WHY - To use the "Denial of Food" to foreign nations as a Weapon of War. Transportation, Utilities & Water and Food the very means of life for the common man. * Render Useless - Airports, Highways, Railroads, Waterways, Ports, Harbors and Bridges. * Cut-Off Electrical Power; Destroy Dams and Canals; Eliminate Telecommunications; Black-Out Radio & TV Broadcasting. * DENIGH THEM FOOD - The Slow Process of Starvation - Create Panic. TBL: Control a Nation's Civilian Population and the Nations Leaders and Military will follow. [Total War - Without Reservation ] jm2cw ~ RHF . . Well, the sugar price supports have gotten alot of attention. Haiti is a good place to grow sugar cane, but we won't buy much, if any. I've got this crazy idea that the Hatians just might buy some US grown corn and wheat and dairy products and meat if they had a few American dollars. Dollars they'd get for their sugar. So, are we in some "secret" war with the walking skeletons of Haiti? Frank Dresser |
"CW" wrote in message ... "Frank Dresser" wrote in message news:Coicc.24265$vo5.756001@bgtnsc05- Are you saying farmers in the US are so helpless they would go out of business without government support? A lot of them would. Alot of them have in the last 30 years. Far more if you go back 50 years or farther. Yet crops get grown, and food ends up on the table. Farmers sell their farms every day to other farmers. The farm still produce. Farm production has never been higher, despite the fact that we have few farmers than we did 100 years ago. One form of government support pays farmers not to grow crops. What is the wartime value of that? Same thing. Think about it. The same as what? That keeping small farms from turning into big farms is necessary for US defense? If that's true, we should reverse the process and break up the big farms. Which potential enemy could engage us in a war so protracted as to risk American starvation? And wouldn't such a war turn nuclear long before starvation was a risk? China, Russia, the rest of the world if we're not careful. If nukes were used at all, it would be in limited fashion. It is survivable. Forget the propaganda. Then you're saying we would be defeated without using all our weapons. That seems unlikely, but I won't argue the point. Our farmers produce a big surplus of basic foods. Wheat, corn and soybeans. No seige would cause starvation in the US. Isn't manufacturing at least as important to our war fighting capability as farming? Food is more immediate than manufacturing. You have a bit of time before manufactured resources run low. Very little time for many items. Companies don't like to carry much inventory any more, and a large amount of that not carried inventory is imported. A lot longer than it would take for people to starve. Manufacturing is quite important though. Present policy toward that simply shows that short sighted greed is becoming the norm. Farm subsidies aren't keeping US food production up by more than a few percent, if that much. Some price supports actually depress food production. The only way eliminating price supports would significantly reduce US farm production is if there's a big worldwide surplus of cheap food waiting to come in. That ain't the case. Except for sugar. Frank Dresser |
FD,
"So, are we in some "secret" war with the walking skeletons of Haiti?" It is no 'secret war' - It is simply a "War of Indifference". If Haiti was not in the Western Hemisphere it would not even be on the USofAs 'political' or "Human Rights" Agendas. For the Haitians are Black .... and 'most' Americans, Do Not Identify with Them. For the Haitians Speak French .... and 'most' Americans, Speak English. ~ RHF .. .. = = = "Frank Dresser" wrote in message = = = ... "RHF" wrote in message om... CW, Yes - That is one of the 'nice' Strategic Reasons for maintaining a Strong 'self-sustaining' Domestic Farm Products Industry within the USofA. {We can feed ourselves in times of war.} But the other half of the "Dirty" Strategic Reasons for maintaining a Strong self-sustaining Export Farm Products Industry within the USofA. WHY - To use the "Denial of Food" to foreign nations as a Weapon of War. Transportation, Utilities & Water and Food the very means of life for the common man. * Render Useless - Airports, Highways, Railroads, Waterways, Ports, Harbors and Bridges. * Cut-Off Electrical Power; Destroy Dams and Canals; Eliminate Telecommunications; Black-Out Radio & TV Broadcasting. * DENIGH THEM FOOD - The Slow Process of Starvation - Create Panic. TBL: Control a Nation's Civilian Population and the Nations Leaders and Military will follow. [Total War - Without Reservation ] jm2cw ~ RHF . . Well, the sugar price supports have gotten alot of attention. Haiti is a good place to grow sugar cane, but we won't buy much, if any. I've got this crazy idea that the Hatians just might buy some US grown corn and wheat and dairy products and meat if they had a few American dollars. Dollars they'd get for their sugar. So, are we in some "secret" war with the walking skeletons of Haiti? Frank Dresser |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:29 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com