# Fargonomics



## bioman

From the Wall Street Journal, this is what happens when you vote for democrats: they like to spend more and more of your tax money, and then when the trough runs dry, they take more from you...

Review and Outlook
November 15, 2006; Page A18
Kent Conrad's Web site proclaims that the North Dakota Democrat "has been a leading voice for fiscal responsibility" in Washington, and the Senator rarely misses an opportunity to bemoan "deficits as far as the eye can see." Maybe once Mr. Conrad comes off his latest spending binge, he can buy the rest of Washington some binoculars.

Or at least enough magnifying eyewear to see $4.9 billion, which is the amount of emergency drought relief the parsimonious Mr. Conrad is attempting to shovel into a Senate military construction bill in this week's lame duck session. If this is the sort of "fiscal discipline" we can expect from the new Democratic majority, K Street ought to be popping the champagne corks.

Farm-state Senators have been pushing for this handout for months, and the only good news is that they've modestly scaled back their demands. Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson had offered a $6.5 billion "relief" amendment to the port security bill in September. But Republicans said farm aid wasn't germane to port security -- no kidding -- and Mr. Nelson failed to get a vote. The GOP ought to do the same with this latest spending extravaganza, while it still has the power to do so.

Mr. Conrad is calling his amendment "emergency" spending, and it is true that the Plains states and Texas endured a drought this summer. But the government already provides a safety net for such events: crop insurance. That federal program was created with the express purpose of eliminating the need for emergency bailouts. The vast majority of U.S. insurable crops are covered by the program, including 98% of North Dakota's.

And don't forget federal farm subsidies. Last year alone, farmers pocketed $20.2 billion worth of commodity program payments and conservation money. North Dakota (since we're on the subject) was the recipient of more than $1 billion, much of which goes to a handful of large agribusinesses.

Mr. Conrad's spending enthusiasm also comes when the farm industry is doing well. Last year marked the second-highest net farm income on record. While some crops, such as wheat, have been hurt by the drought, the nation's biggest crops -- corn and soybeans -- are on track for a bumper year. Prices are also strong, in no small part because the government is mandating use of corn-based ethanol. Drought aid on top of all this amounts to quadruple dipping at the taxpayer trough.

September's "emergency" drought bills were also stuffed with the usual Member goodies that have little to do with lack of rain. Mr. Nelson's previous bill would have given farmers $1.6 billion for high energy and fertilizer costs. Other proposals included $6 million for Hawaii sugarcane growers, $2 million for cattle herds with bovine tuberculosis, and $6 million for a flood-prone region in (of course) North Dakota. Mr. Conrad's latest bill, meanwhile, would set up a new $300 million small-business economic-loss "block grant" program that has as much chance of disappearing in the future as Christmas.

The Bush Administration has tried to keep a lid on this largesse, while helping in targeted ways. The Agriculture Department sped up some $700 million in countercyclical payments, and also provided $50 million to livestock producers hurt by the drought. As for legislation, some Republicans have reasonably demanded that any money given out in emergency farm payments be offset with reductions elsewhere in the farm budget. Mr. Conrad and his allies have refused, claiming this is an emergency on the level of Hurricane Katrina.

Which gets to the heart of the farm problem. Americans are generous to neighbors in need, but ballooning farm subsidies and industry resistance to any reform have shown this to be a one-sided affair. As for Mr. Conrad: Meet the new spenders, same as the old spenders.


----------



## always_outdoors

This belongs in the politics section!

God forbid we add money to OUR farmers or even education while we dole out billions in foreign aid. :eyeroll:

Sorry, I would rather see our farmers who feed us get rich before some guy in Columbia or Israel because we hand them over so much aid.

Wasn't it Conrad and Dorgan who amended funds to stay the course to find Bin Laden when it was the Administration and Republicans that were going to wipe out that funding? What the heck led us to Iraq?



> Washington -- By a vote of 96-0, the United States Senate today approved an amendment by Senator Kent Conrad and Senator Byron Dorgan to refocus the nation's mission on bringing to justice Osama bin Laden, chief mastermind of the murderous 9/11 terrorist attacks, by reinstating a now-lapsed intelligence team dedicated to finding bin Laden.
> 
> Conrad and Dorgan introduced their amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill after public reports that the Administration had disbanded the CIA's Osama bin Laden unit, and had previously shifted Arabic-trained military units off the hunt for the terrorist leader in Afghanistan. In a 23-page White House report on counterterrorism strategy released Tuesday, bin Laden's name appears once, and only as an example of how some terrorists are well educated.
> 
> "Osama bin Laden, the head of al-Qaeda, planned, financed and organized a terrorist operation that killed thousands of Americans. It has now been more than 1,800 days since those attacks, and this man is still on the loose. This man has still not been brought to justice," Senator Conrad said. "The Senate agrees that it is chief among our priorities in the war on terror to bring the mastermind behind Sept. 11 to the justice that a mass murderer deserves."
> 
> "Our amendment makes certain that bringing Osama bin Laden to justice will be one of our country's most important priorities, and that he is pursued with real energy and with focus, clarity and a specific set of goals," Dorgan said. "Five years ago, Osama bin Laden directed the attack against America, yet today he remains free and continues to threaten America from his secret location. I applaud the Senate for approving our amendment, and for voting to re-invigorate the effort to apprehend him and bring him to justice, something that, when accomplished, will make all Americans more safe."
> 
> The legislation is called the "Bring bin Laden to Justice" amendment. It dedicates $200 million in emergency money to an intelligence task force focused on bin Laden; backers of the amendment increased the resources dedicated to the task force from $20 million after talks with fellow senators, staff and analysts. The amendment would also require a classified report to Congress every 90 days on the activities of the federal government related to bringing bin Laden and other top associates of al-Qaeda to justice.
> 
> The Senate is expected to pass the Defense Appropriations bill later today


----------



## DJRooster

Bioman, we love our representation in Washington and if you keep putting crap like this in this forum we will learn to hate you!! Yes, this should be moved to the political forum and will add to all the rest of the junk you can usually find in that forum.


----------



## R y a n

DJRooster said:


> Bioman, we love our representation in Washington and if you keep putting crap like this in this forum we will learn to hate you!! Yes, this should be moved to the political forum and will add to all the rest of the junk you can usually find in that forum.


Moving to politics forum...


----------



## Plainsman

> Yes, this should be moved to the political forum and will add to all the rest of the *junk* you can usually find in that forum.


Junk: As I am sure Rooster defines it (anything contrary to his liberal opinion).


----------



## zogman

For being on the winning side of our recent election Rooster seems to be very crabby lattly :eyeroll: Very big chip on your shoulder DJ???????
Talk to us. We will try to get big government to help you out. I'll be with Earl at the next Sioux home series. PM me what your wishes are and I'll talk to him for you. :lol:


----------



## Bobm

Djs a typical dem hates anyone that has an opposing point of view, and can't stand the light of day shined on his narrow minded worldview :lol: :lol: and a lover of pork as long as it goes to ND.

Pork is pork and the ag industry is the biggest tax subsidized ( welfare recipients/ income redistribution call it whatever you want) bundh in the country.

What a nitwit.....probably a real nice guy just not too bright, never ever makes a factual argument so its junk. :roll:


----------



## dieseldog

hey Bob do youlike cheap food? Either subsidize our food supply or pay what our crops are worth and watch the price of food climb.

Also don't ever cuss a farmer with your mouth full!!!


----------



## Plainsman

Dieseldog, I do appreciate farmers, and food would cost more if it was provided by corporations. However, if the farmers didn't fight to keep out imported foods they would be even cheaper. Maybe it's time to appreciate each other. Wouldn't you agree? 
There is a reason North Dakota has more millionaires per capita (Jamestown Sun) than any other state. It is because of the value of land. It looks tough while they are in production, but they really cash in when they retire. Go to Mesa , Arizona and see how many North Dakotans spend the winter there, and what their professions were. They have a North Dakota winter picnic in Mesa and over 3,000 attend. One fellow from Oberon, North Dakota has a hard time giving it up. He had (when we were there) a section of Jalapenos just south of Phoenix. 
The truth be known ethanol is not a good environmental move, it is an ag welfare project. It cost more to produce it (in energy) than we get from it. It makes us more dependent on the middle east. 
We often misuse the term efficient. In America we are the most inefficient farmers in the world. We are highly productive, but inefficient. We often confuse the term efficient with productive.

I googled "millionaires per capita" and it looks like many places claim it, including North Dakota.

http://www.1st-realty.com/community/ndstats.html

See number six under miscellaneous.


----------



## Bobm

If those crops are worth more on the free market how come farmers lobby so hard for Ag welfare?

I'd gladly pay the market value to get the government out of it.

And corporate farms would produce food cheaper, its economy of scale.

The family farm is a myth.


----------



## KYUSS

I dont get it. We are such a conservative state and yet Conrad and Dorgan keep getting voted back in. And than we go and vote in Republican Gov's. I find it funny that when election time comes around you hear Conrad and Dorgan saying "we gotta change this and we are going to change that". Well good god, they have been in office long enough so why have they not made those changes then?


----------



## DJRooster

Perhaps we keep voting them in because they do a good job??? Could that possibly be the reason??


----------



## Norm70

Watching Dubya stutter through comments about the war, social security, education, health care, and other on Basic Cable- $39.95/mo.

Reading comments about why we have Democratic Delegates in Washington and a Republican Govenor as a supporting member of this sight- $10 a year

Knowing the majority of this country will vote democrat again in 2008- Priceless


----------



## dieseldog

So Bob my dad and I working side by side each year to produce a crop is just a myth. I must be mistaken cuz i would swear that the sweat on my brow is real. Also when I must make some cut backs to my budget because of no rain or a hail storm that must be a myth too. Also when the wife wants to remodel my grandfathers 1910 house but we can't because of low prices that must be a myth too. I will let you tell her that. I also agree if we got what our crops are worth we wouldn't need the gov.

Also our land values in ND aren't squat compared too other states. You don't get rich when you retire cuz you have land. Most don't work there butt off in their younger years, just to sell it when they retire, they plan to pass it on.


----------



## Norm70

Thanks for that statement diesel i was waiting for someone to say something.



Bobm said:


> What a nitwit.....probably a real nice guy just not too bright, never ever makes a factual argument so its junk. :roll:


Poor use of words Bob. You really demean arguements with these types of statements.


----------



## always_outdoors

Norm70: Great point on the post. Where are the moderators on that one?

Nobody else can call people nitwits.

According to Plainsmen


> To me this looks like if you can't win an argument you try to discredit. That's an old liberal trick.


----------



## Bobm

As for the nitwit comment, anyone thats going to hate someone especially someone as benign as Bioman because of his position on a issue is a nitwit, and thats being generous. And Dj is famous for getting on here and stirring the pot with his darts and not responding when challenged for facts, I actaully like him but I don't have to ignore his comments. I doubt hes too crushed by my comment hes used to me.

Diesel Dog, when comments are made about policy in a political discussion they have to be generalities there will always exceptions.

Does your farm accept government support or not?? The farm community is the biggest reciever of income redistribution thats fact look it up if you don't believe it.

If you are taking money from taxpayers because some politician has decided that you need the money more than the person that earned it, you are on welfare.

And don't take that comment personal either I'm talking about farmers in general, the point is obvious its income redistribution to buy votes.

Farmers always resent it when someone points out they are the biggest block of welfare recipents but they are.

I don't see any big movement in the ranks of farmers to get out of the govern trough just the opposite they lobby hard and politicians wanting their votes gladly award them more and more money confiscated from other taxpayers to buy votes.

You know why farmers hats have curved brims?? from looking in the mail box for that govt. check :lol:


----------



## Bobm

Read this article

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/EM794.cfm

this country needs to stop this type of spending, I am so glad the republicans got spanked by true conservatives this election. They richly deserved to get whipped and the Dems are even worse.

All of us are worse off when we creep slowly toward socialism.

Look at the waste also look at whos getting alots of the farm bill subsidies its a huge sham, plenty of farmers I've talked to about it freely admit its nothing but a racket, a shell game.



> The Cost of the Farm Bill
> 
> The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the cost of House and Senate farm bills at $171 billion over 10 years. But over the past decade, poor forecasting and technical errors have caused actual agriculture spending to be twice as high as CBO forecasts.
> 
> Even if one accepts the current cost estimates, the farm bill's combined cost in taxes and higher food prices will be approximately $462 billion over 10 years--which is more than the federal government will spend on education and environmental protection combined. *This tab will leave the average household with $4,377 less to spend on necessities such as mortgage payments, health insurance, retirement savings, or their children's education*.


No citizen should have to pay for this kind of waste, it hurts all of us.


----------



## dieseldog

yes Bob our farm does accept payments. The gov payments that us wheat farmers get here in the upper midwest are nothing compared to the peanut and tobacco and cotton farmers in the southern states they are the ones getting the biggest piece of the pie. At least i work for those payments or would you rather have me sneak across the mexican border and live here for free and sit on my fat rear all day and make babies. I also believe that alot of that money included in the farm program budget is for food at our public school systems.


----------



## Gohon

You're right on target Bob. If you choose a business that is not productive then that is not my fault or anyone else except you. Farming is a business and to expect the government (me and all other tax payers) to pick up the tab every time something goes wrong is as pointed out nothing more than welfare. My wife wants new kitchen cabinets but she won't get them this year so should I tell her she blame the government............... I think not. I get a little tired of the poor farmer this and the poor farmer that. The farmer knows the risks and has chosen to take a gamble on mother nature to cooperate. That is his risk and his risk alone, not mine. If you can't make a living out of farming then find another occupation. The value of land in one state has nothing to do with the value of land in another state. Each has it's own attractiveness and production value and will rise or fall accordingly.


----------



## Bobm

Diesel,Why can't you just discuss this issue without injecting other ones like illegal aliens and public school.

Just because somone else is breaking the law or southern farmers suck a bigger piece of the welfare pie doesn't make it right for you to do it.

See the problem with this issue is the people that do it cannot see the reality and hate to admit they are welfare recipients taking dollars from other American citizens at the point of a gun so they can stay in business.

Without welfare the family farms would be slowly eaten alive by corporate operations that operate at a better economy of scale.

Thats why I said family farms are a mythical dinosaur propped up by vote buying politicians like Dornan bringing home the bacon.


----------



## Norm70

If there are any younger Guys/Women that live in rural North Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota that are poltically undecided, Here is what conservatives think of your farming operation and rural lifestyle.(see above 2 posts)


----------



## Bobm

Its not their farming operation thats in question, why don't you read the two articles try to understand the waste involved and really consider the facts instead of a knee jerk reaction. The system is broken and not the best way to help farmers or the common folks in this country, its avote buying scheme for politicians.

Norm, are you in favor of the government seizing your money to prop up someone else's business, so they can continue to operate when they could not compete if left to market forces?? If so you are a socialist, and thats a system that failed everywhere its been tried.


----------



## DJRooster

If CRP payments are an evil government government payment then lets get rid of it and if the federal crop insurance program is an evil government program then lets get rid of it but those of you who think of farming as just another hand in the pocket of the federal government are out of touch with rural America. If this is what you are advocating and you want the American farm to be just another business we can plan on outsourcing our farm economy to the rest of the globe just like we did our manufacturing base. I dare say food prices will follow an inflationary pattern because the cost of our food is not a result of commodity prices produced by the American farmer because these prices have changed very little in the last few decades. Importing a large portion of our commodities by outsourcing our farm economy will do wonders for our trade deficit which is already going through the roof. The American farmer is the best in the world at what they do so the last thing they need is a bunch of big city guys telling them how great things are in the prairie ghetto when the big city guys can't clean up their own acts in their urban ghettos. Count the number of "porkies" handed out by the federal government to urban cowboys and they will far outweigh the number of pigs on the American farm.


----------



## Plainsman

> Most don't work there butt off in their younger years, just to sell it when they retire, they plan to pass it on.


Well dieseldog, you can't have your cake and eat it too. This idea dates back as far as the country. You can see it in old western movies, there are two themes. Son, make your mark on the land (and unfortunately they did), and some day this will be all yours (for free). Many would like to pass on their businesses etc, but few can afford it. The choice must be made, sell and be rich, or pass it on to your offspring who will sell and be rich.



> This tab will leave the average household with $4,377 less to spend on necessities such as mortgage payments, health insurance, retirement savings, or their children's education.


Is there anyway you can justify this in your mind. Is there some reason the children of a fellow who ownes a hardware store in some little town should be less advantaged than farm children. It is as Bob pointed out redistribution of wealth. No other business is so protected. The American taxpayers should all be treated equally as businesses should. I don't see farming any different than a car dealer in Fargo.


----------



## flightbirds

Norm70 said:


> If there are any younger Guys/Women that live in rural North Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota that are poltically undecided, Here is what conservatives think of your farming operation and rural lifestyle.(see above 2 posts)


This is not what conservatives think about your farming operation. This is what tax payers think about the farm subsidy program. Those of us in the city that make a living by means other than farming are frustrated by giving nearly half of our earnings to the federal state and local governments.

I for one am all for the family farm, but a decision needs to made; at what point is it not financially viable to continue to susidize family and corporate farms. At what point do I decide that I have sent enough taxes to DC and Bismarck?


----------



## Bobm

> If CRP payments are an evil government government payment then lets get rid of it and if the federal crop insurance program is an evil government program then lets get rid of it but those of you who think of farming as just another hand in the pocket of the federal government are out of touch with rural America.


Paying someone not to grow crops :roll: and you ask if its a government payment program???

DJ, please name some other industries that are paid (by money taken from others) not to produce product there may be one I've just not heard of it, so enlighten me please. :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

> The American farmer is the best in the world at what they do


That is not quite right. They produce much, but are perhaps the least efficient in the world. I would describe good farmers as those with high production and low costs.



> Count the number of "porkies" handed out by the federal government to urban cowboys and they will far outweigh the number of pigs on the American farm.


I grew up on the farm, and most of my relatives farm, and yes I like them. The truth however is farming takes a much bigger chunk from the taxpayer than most other things. We talk a lot about landowners rights on here, but what about taxpayers rights? Should we bleed to death every April 15th to fatten someone else's pocket? I know a farmer who will claim bankruptcy for the 3rd time in ten years. He goes elk hunting most years, has new campers, new boats, etc. He has more than I or any of my friends and when he goes bankrupt who picks up that tab. He will start all over spending again like there is no tomorrow.

Normally I can pass up this subject until I hear the thunderous whining. I would guess many others feel this way also. Perhaps it would be wise not to wake the sleeping dog.


----------



## Plainsman

> This is not what conservatives think about your farming operation. This is what tax payers think about the farm subsidy program.


You could not be more right flightbirds. I have many very liberal friends and I have news for some of these guys. They feel the same as me only much stronger about it. The call farmers land miners, and think the EPA should take a stronger role in controlling them. They see farmers as the biggest polluters in America. If I grew up on a farm, and all my relatives farm, and I think this way about how my tax money is used then try to imagine what the average taxpayer thinks. I would guess this will end in the future, but the whining will only draw attention and make it end sooner. Many farmers are liberal because they think democrats like Dorgan are more willing to spend money on them. When the money gets short they will give it in foreign aid and support to the United Nations before they give it to farmers. Do you want to make a bet that they will cut farm subsidies so they can afford to go to the Sudan?


----------



## Norm70

Bobm said:


> Norm, are you in favor of the government seizing your money to prop up someone else's business, so they can continue to operate when they could not compete if left to market forces??


Isn't this what Bush did for Halliburton who was awarded millions in non-competitve contracts in Iraq?

Do small farms need a subsidy program to keep going ? Yes they do. Is it right to cut the small farm loose to compete with the corporate farms that are taking over this countries agriculutal industry? I don't think so.

Its a small town principle. Do we want a nation of big business that contolls or shuts down all smaller competitors or do we want to subsidize our smaller businesses to keep them alive. Its a hard issue to argue about, but i will keep giving my tax dollar to the farmer.

BobM, I commend you for working hard in your knowledge of poltical facts. I read the articles and other things that you have wrote. I think you do an excellent job with your research and you are an asset to the GOP, but i will not agree with you on the farm subsidy issue, Respectfully


----------



## Norm70

Plainsman said:


> . Many farmers are liberal because they think democrats like Dorgan are more willing to spend money on them. When the money gets short they will give it in foreign aid and support to the United Nations before they give it to farmers. Do you want to make a bet that they will cut farm subsidies so they can afford to go to the Sudan?


Yes our dems in congress bring more money to our agricultural state this is one of the reasons they are re-elected.

So what is the solution Plainsman? I am not arguing here i just want to know what the alternative is? Will the conservatives save the small farm? Or is letting the North Dakota farmer fail the solution?

I want to hear an answer from you and Bob b/c i do respect you guys opinions very much, no joke. I think you do an excellent job of research and would like to know if you have any solutions?


----------



## Plainsman

> BobM, I commend you for working hard in your knowledge of poltical facts. I read the articles and other things that you have wrote. I think you do an excellent job with your research and you are an asset to the GOP, but i will not agree with you on the farm subsidy issue, Respectfully


That was very civilized norm. My complements.

Don't tell Bob he is an asset to the GOP, he doesn't like them. I dislike them less each day. Voting democrat or republican is like being asked if you want cancer in your left lung or right lung. Left, right, ???? no pun intended.

I paint a dismal picture at times, but I would rather know what is real than have someone tell me what I want to hear only to have everything cave in without any idea it was coming. I see things democrat and republican beginning to move against the farmer. Then they charge for hunting, and it only accelerates their degrading support. It is like a drowning man filling his pockets with gold. The more gold in the pockets the faster he sinks, but he just can't stop. Depressing to think about.


----------



## Norm70

sorry bob i meant conservativism i shoulda know that.

I am not hear to start any personal battles just to argue my side of the equation and my view as a liberal.


----------



## Norm70

I did change my view about charging for hunt i did agree with it at one time. Until my group got accused of charging people, that changed my view quickly. I really does a number to your rep when locals hear about that it took a long time to rebuild it and alot saying, " whatever you were told it was a lie" 
I almost felt like a politician.


----------



## Plainsman

Back in my home town one farmer posted another farmers land and was charging to hunt it. The owner was really ticked. I stopped to talk to him when he was looking at the sign. He said "you got any idea who posted this". I said, "yup I seen &^^%$%$$ post it yesterday". I can't post the guys comments, but he said the home quarter had a heck of a lot more deer and I was welcome to hunt it. Things have worked out that way three or four times in the near past. 
Norm, I know I perhaps come off as against farming, but I do it to get a point across. If I am upset many many other people must also be upset. I would rather pay a support price to small family units than high prices to corporation, but some of these guys are pushing me to the edge. For those like you who don't charge access the farmers that do owe you sincere gratitude for your public relations. There would be no conflict if everyone was like you.


----------



## dieseldog

hey Bob if you want big corporate farms then good luck getting hunting access. You think it is bad now wait until corporate comes in. Also we are getting paid the same price for our crops as they were in the 1960's does that seem right? I bet you city folk whine if you don't get an annual raise. Price of a combine 1960-20k 2006- 275k so why haven't grain prices risen also. Because the world wants a cheap food supply and our gov. will give it too them by subsidizing ag. If that is what the gov is going to do then that is the way the game goes. As far as the illegal alien comment it had plenty of relevance. Sounds like you must have one working for you or something. Well you better go out and eat big juicy steak and some corn and some bread and complain about the farmer that produced it for you. Also I don't need a narrow brimmed hat i just have my butler bring me WELFARE check, that I am getting so fat and happy off of.


----------



## Plainsman

> Also I don't need a narrow brimmed hat i just have my butler bring me WELFARE check, that I am getting so fat and happy off of.


That's to funny to leave alone, so: Do you make the poor guy walk to the mail box or do you have your chauffer drive him?


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Back to the topic of the thread! What is being missed in the current disaster bill or amendment, is that it is asking for across the board payments to all farmers. I am not anti farmer but above average crops and above average prices for a lot of farmers who where basically unaffected by the drought is out of line.

His reasoning on doing this is to make up for high fuel prices etc which has nothing to do with it not raining!!!!!!!!!!!

So for those who think Pooper Boy,Cornpipe, Dogboy are the best that ever walked the halls of Congress. I hope you stop and look at the bill and your own situations. Should those who are going to have near record revenues this year get a handout from our Gov.

For those who where affected, had to cut small grain for feed, had to buy hay or sell of brood cows. You bet I am in favor of giving them a helping hand. But the others can do without. Especially since the beet farmers in the valley had such a large crop that they plowed down 8% of the total acres planted!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## dieseldog

Ron G i agree that if production was cut yes we need it. on many own farms in my area this year 15 bushel durum from a ten year average of 36 bushels you dang bet we need some help.

plainsman:
I have my chauffeur drive him in my Bentley out to the end of my gated driveway where my security officer lets in my own personal us postal service mail man and the handoff is made.


----------



## Plainsman

Dieseldog,

That's good you can't be to careful even passing off just a million or two.


----------



## bioman

BobM quoted:



> As for the nitwit comment, anyone thats going to hate someone especially someone as benign as Bioman because of his position on a issue is a nitwit, and thats being generous


BobM, am I really benign????   k: :bowdown: :bowdown:

Coming from a fellow public truster, I take that as a compliment :beer:.


----------



## Bobm

Bioman, compared to some of the folks on here you are a saint! :lol:

See the real problem is that this is a political forum where political policies are supposed to be discussed but instead of doing that some thin skinned folks prefer to make it personal ( when that is definitely not the intent of a political forum).

If farm policy is the topic then everyone has to step out of the box and attempt to look at the topic objectively. Instead of being insulted like somehow the people on here don't like farmers. How crazy is that?? Just about everyone on this board including me has some farm background ( I spent my youth hauling milk cans on a dairy farm in Oconomowoc Wi.).

My lifelong best friend was a dairy farmer and I loved the guy, he died recently of cancer. Over the years we had many spirited arguments about this topic and his take was that he didn't make the rules and hes was going to use them to his best advantage. He was a real bigot so he would really get mad when I pointed out that he was on welfare just like the blacks in Milwaukee, I loved it.

He never shot me, although I'm pretty sure he considered it :lol:

Discuss the topic and get over the personal stuff, its not personal its political discussion. 
I love farmers especially the women :beer:


----------



## Bobm

Dj said



> Count the number of "porkies" handed out by the federal government to urban cowboys and they will far outweigh the number of pigs on the American farm.


I guess even a blind hog finds acorn sometimes :lol:

Djs exactly right in that this observation and Norms comments about Haliburton, Diesels comments about unrelated topics of waste point to the real problem.

Americans all resent wasteful inefficient spending unless that spending benefits them, then somehow its justified. :roll:

Until we as a nation stop this type of "me me me" attitude, and instead demand that our elected officials make decisions that best benefit the country as a whole first, our country will continue to slide towards socialism. This slide benefits politicians and raises the cost of government dramatically. This rise in the size and scope of government is why our taxes are so high why young folks have to have their wives working instead of home watching kids and making sure they grow up to be decent citizens. ( do a litle research on the % of income that was paid in federal taxes in the 50's when I was a kid compared to the % of our income that goes to some form of taxes MOST OF IT INTENTIONALLY HIDDEN today YOU WILL BE SHOCKED)

I could make a very convincing argument that this is having a very negative effect on our society for a miriad of reasons. And who benefits from government dependence politicians thats who the most deceitful, dishonest class of folks that have decided to establish themselve as a priviledged class and pit the citizens against one another by prosmising to take money from one group and give it to another if they will vote for them.

When you think of it in those terms, we should be hunting politicians with pitbulls, they are the pigs.

Read the book "Animal Farm" and give it some thought.

Almost every single senator and many congressman go to Washington and become multi millionaires and they somehow manage to forget the country in favor of personal power.

Always remember govt does not produce anything.

The money you get from government comes from some fellow citizen that needs it as much as you do, maybe more, and he earned it you didn't.


----------



## DJRooster

As Bob would say give me a specific example of "pork" in the farm program as it relates to farming in North Dakota. Bioman has been very quiet since he stirred the original pot??


----------



## DJRooster

Bob, do we still have price supports for not planting crops in North Dakota?? I may be wrong but I do not think that program exists. There is a prevented plant provision but that is totally different than what your are talking about.


----------



## Norm70

Norm70 said:


> Bobm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Norm, are you in favor of the government seizing your money to prop up someone else's business, so they can continue to operate when they could not compete if left to market forces??
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't this what Bush did for Halliburton who was awarded millions in non-competitve contracts in Iraq?
Click to expand...

So you duck my point and call it wasteful, because I come up with a viable example of conservatives keeping a failing business alive?

What kind of open market economy are you looking for? There is no such thing as a free market. If their was walmart and microsoft would rule the US. In our Mixed Market There has to be government involvement and if my tax dollars are part of that government involvement. I would like it to go to the rural farmer.


----------



## Bobm

Norm,What are you talking about?? I don't understand your point.

Microsoft and Walmart do dominate their respective markets and that has nothing to do with government welfare to farmers or any other corporations for that matter.

Wrong is wrong, but the topic of the thread was farm policy not walmart

ref Halliburton


> So you duck my point and call it wasteful, because I come up with a viable example of conservatives keeping a failing business alive?


I didn't duck anything, first the idea that Halliburton is a failing business is laughable but I don't doubt that its been portrayed as such in something you've read so I'm not saying you intentionally are misrepresenting anything.

Norm, this is a tired argument but I'll bite :lol: who else wanted to bid to do the work in Iraq?????

Do you know who the other bidder was and where they are from?? I'll save you the trouble of trying to look it up ( like you should).

Its Schlumberger (Sp?) a French company that is up to its neck with the crooked french government which was up to its neck in scandal with laundering Saddams money in the food for oil debacle.

The same french government that has done everything they could to undermine our effort in Iraq and to hide their involvement in this huge scandle. 
The same french govt that was supplying Saddam with weapons to use against us.

So if you are the US government and there are only two companies qualified to do this work which one would you give the business to ??

If your going to drag world politics into a discussion about farm policy do your home work.


----------



## Norm70

The Army Corps of Engineers says a contract awarded *without competition* to a subsidiary of Halliburton included not only putting out oil well fires in Iraq but also "operation of facilities and distribution of products."

From CNN May 7 2003

Sorry just wanted to defend my Halliburton Commment. Schuleberg(Sp also) was not much competition. There was also a 3rd company assigned to put oil fires out in Iraq, but not awarded for distribution of product or operation of facilities i honestley do not remeber the name of it but i was an Austrailian energy company. Hmmm don't remeber.

Anyway i will get into it more monday if this topic is still going. I shutting my brain off for the weekend. :beer:


----------



## zogman

DJ



> , do we still have price supports for not planting crops in North Dakota??


Correct me if am wrong it's called CRP, used to curb over production and help keep the prices stable........


----------



## Bobm

I think part of the problem with the competition is its either foriegn or not interested, there is so much risk involved in Iraq that many companies that were doing work over there are reconsidering and leaving.

When you consider the whole picture I don't think there were too many companies that were both qualified and willing to accept the risk and do the work.

I don't doubt a bit that Halliburton and everyother govt contractor doesn't attemp to screw the Govt every chance they get. I am not defending them just trying to explain the situation as I remember it was back then.

This really has nothing to do with the topic of this thread so I'm going to suggest we get back on topic which is farm policy.

If you want to talk about Iraq start another thread.

Thanks


----------



## DJRooster

CRP is also an environmental protection of highly erodible land that helps to prevent water pollution and provides wildlife habitat so it is a multiple use government program. As the name implies it is the Conservation Reserve Program. I suppose its original intent might have been to decrease surplus crop production but I don't think that part of the equation is the reason why this program receives its support. Its primarily an environmental issue rather than a surplus crop issue. With demand for commodities going up as the world population go up and new and innovative uses for the product or byproduct of these crops overproduction is not really the problem it used to be.


----------



## bioman

DJ, I usually avoid this forum because arguing politics is a fruitless labor, especially with a liberal. You sure aren't going to change my values and vice versa, that is why I purposely opened the thread in hot topics.

As a former resident, I have always been mystified that such a conservative state can keep voting the likes of these democrats. The voters of ND get hoodwinked, because the party always trumps the person. Therefore, you get crap pork farms bills like Conrad put forward, but it is tethered because he is trying to help out his farming constituents. Simple hypocrisy and eloquently stated in the article:



> Kent Conrad's Web site proclaims that the North Dakota Democrat "has been a leading voice for fiscal responsibility" in Washington, and the Senator rarely misses an opportunity to bemoan "deficits as far as the eye can see." Maybe once Mr. Conrad comes off his latest spending binge, he can buy the rest of Washington some binoculars.


----------



## gandergrinder

Why should I have to pay landowners to protect their soil?

Why should I have to pay landowners not to pollute the water?

Great. I can pay a landowner for CRP to grow wildlife so that they can charge me to access it.

You want an example of pork? How about the 319 water prevention and pollution program that subsidizes the construction of wastemanagement facilities for farmers who have livestock next to waterways.

Let me get this straight. I am going to pay a farmer to stop polluting the water?

So not only do we have to pay farmers not to pollute the water, they get to drain the water right into the river so that it can flood all the other landowners down stream. Seems fair doesn't it.

What a joke.


----------



## g/o

Editorial: Ag disaster aid held hostage
The Forum
Published Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Farmers in North Dakota and Minnesota have learned that some pig-headed members of Congress don't seem to think disasters these days can occur outside the devastated Gulf Coast area. Before leaving Washington for a Thanksgiving break, some renegade Republicans in the Senate tied up a $4.5 billion agriculture disaster measure in the name of drawing a hard line against pork-barrel spending.

While we applaud efforts to eliminate wasteful spending, it's unreasonable to lump disaster relief for farm families in with outrageous spending on pet projects, called earmarks, inserted into bills. That seems to be the case, unfortunately, with the ag disaster bill, which some greedy lawmakers saw as an opportunistic vehicle to carry some pork back home.

Thanks to the determined efforts of Sens. Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan, among others, the ag disaster measure will be brought to the Senate floor on Dec. 5, shortly after the lame duck Congress reconvenes for its final stretch.

Conrad and Dorgan played key roles in bringing consideration of the appropriations bill to a near standstill in order to allow the farm disaster provision the chance it deserves for consideration on the Senate floor. A group of maverick Republicans, including Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., joined forces to block a pork-laden omnibus spending bill. Unfortunately, because action has been delayed on so many important spending bills, sprawling omnibus bills are a necessary evil to keep necessary government programs - such as farm disaster relief - going. Conrad especially deserves credit for standing up and blocking consideration on many other spending provisions in order to force the ag disaster bill to the floor.

As an outspoken voice against budget deficits, Conrad is being tarred by some ideologues as a hypocritical protector of distasteful pork projects. Those who know him better know he was standing up for his constituents, family farms and ranches that face financial ruin without disaster relief, including flooding in northeast North Dakota and prolonged drought in central and western areas of the state.

The timely delivery of federal disaster aid is very serious business on the northern Plains. North Dakota bankers have estimated they will lose between

5 percent and 10 percent of their farm and ranch clients without it. As the bill now stands, at $4.5 billion, many of the worst wasteful spending add-ons have been stripped off. Compared to the

$14.8 billion in farm disaster aid in 2000, and $11.3 billion in 2001, this bill is frugal, Dorgan and Conrad point out.

When Democrats take control of Congress next year, they will have an opportunity to rein in the abusive and wasteful spending of earmarks. That's crucial to restoring responsible budgeting, which will be needed to attack the ballooning federal deficits. But hard-liners shouldn't hold farmers and ranchers hostage until Congress gets its fiscal house in order. The lame duck Congress should pass ag disaster relief without further showboating.

Forum editorials represent the opinion of Forum

management and the newspaper's Editorial Board.

Just for You Bman


----------



## DJRooster

Yeah, boys you have me convinced. Lets get rid of the farm bill and all other programs associated with rural North Dakota. It's all pork barrel politics. Don't need the family farm because large corporate farms are the way to go. Sounds like a great deal for North Dakota and all the other rural areas of America. Send the "pork" to the cities! Besides that everyone has their own definition of pork. Bioman, you don't dislike our representation for what they stand for you dislike them because of their party affiliation because I dare say that when it comes to talking about the farm program that you don't have a clue what it is all about. Let's hear some original thought coming from your corner of is it Colorado? And not some cut and paste bull crap that spouts the party line. Tell me about what you don't like about the farm program as it relates to North Dakota. I am eagerly awaiting your reply.


----------



## Plainsman

Bioman

It would appear that the Rooster is a little testy this morning. I think it is from an uncomfortable rash. My guess would be it is caused by the big hairy government udder many want to remain permanently attached to. Big government proponents are all fighting for a piece of the mammary.

A liberal friend was telling me he had this same reoccurring nightmare: Dolly Parton is his mother, and he is a bottle baby.


----------



## DJRooster

Plainsman, you must be his mother because you seem to want to protect your young!! Give him the boob that seems to be on your mind!! Let the poor little boy speak for himself.


----------



## bioman

DJ,

Since a Coloradan like me just can't match wits with the likes of your amazing intellect and expertise on farm programs, why don't you do me a favor and detail its benefits to North Dakota. I will eagerly await your reply  .

As for Mr. O/G, nice to see that you are a man of your word. However, no surprise that you are back though, the site is too good.


----------



## DJRooster

Hey, Bioman, why don't you start a new thread telling everyone how Newt Ginrich will be such a great presidential candidate and you hope he will be the next leader of the free world. That would make more sense than you trying to tell us how bad our representation is in Washington.


----------



## Bobm

thats a typical response from DJ ask him a question about an issue and he will change the subject.

Facts don't exist in his world :lol:


----------



## DJRooster

Oh, Oh, Bioman has two mothers!! Who's your "daddy!"


----------



## bioman

> Hey, Bioman, why don't you start a new thread telling everyone how Newt Ginrich will be such a great presidential candidate and you hope he will be the next leader of the free world. That would make more sense than you trying to tell us how bad our representation is in Washington.


Wow, did you actually come up with that response yourself, or did you have to borrow that witty and intuitive comeback from the Dailykos????

As to your issue, since I am a simple novice on the issues of the farm bill, please enlighten, me, the taxpayer, how I am benefitting from ND farmers receiving my tax revenue in the form of subsidies. Also, please feel to throw in any facts or statistics on the amount of subsidies or whatever other relevant policies that translate into monies being poured in ND and detail I how I benefit from them.

Your direct quote:


> Lets get rid of the farm bill and all other programs associated with rural North Dakota. It's all pork barrel politics. Don't need the family farm because large corporate farms are the way to go. Sounds like a great deal for North Dakota and all the other rural areas of America.


 Please enlighten me on how the evil large corporate farms are so bad for america and vice versa.

I eagerly await your reply  .


----------



## bioman

> Oh, Oh, Bioman has two mothers!! Who's your "daddy!"


Typical drivel from a liberal, no substance.


----------



## always_outdoors

Bobm: It appears Bioman is changing the subject by spinning it. He was called out and didn't provide any substance. Plainsmen came to his aid and now you.

Never fails on this political forum.

Everyone including Plainsmen and you Bobm need to back away and let bioman fend for himself with DJ.

This is exactly how every post happens down here. Someone you two disagree with calls someone else out and you two come to their rescue.

So bioman. You started the post. DJ asked a question. Quit spining and provide some substance to the post.

Typical response. If you don't have anything, call them a liberal. What a scapegoat!![/quote]


----------



## bioman

My original statement when I started the thread was 


> From the Wall Street Journal, this is what happens when you vote for democrats: they like to spend more and more of your tax money, and then when the trough runs dry, they take more from you...


 No where did I say I am an expert on the farm bill, rather my point was the hypocrisy of the typical tax and spend mentality of the left. The article very eloquently stated the hipocrisy of the $4.5 billion payout was contrary to his alleged fiscal responsibility, especially since these farmers already have insurance to cover the lossess. As I have already stated, I have no expertise on the farm bill, so I am more than willing to let DJ educate me on how I benefit from ND farmers getting a substantial share of my tax revenue.

In addition, my only other statement was that I am amazed that a conservative state like ND keeps voting the dems into Congress. DJ, to his credit, provided a solid rebuttal, which was I don't like the party representation, and he is right.

So enough of the back and forth, one of you experts please educate me, the taxpayer, on the benefits provided to me by the farm bill and its relevance to the ND farmer. DJ, O/G, Liv, come on, not all at once.


----------



## Bobm

DJ's answer is always there is pork spent on other things so its all right to spend it on farmers, my point is all the pork is hurting all of us.

And "live to hunt" I take the position I think is right and am consistant and and regularly criticise the republicans.

In the last election I didn't vote for a single republican so don't give me any more BS about me saving Bioman or anyone else.

Bioman can handle himself especaily against DJ the "no facts" man.

What the hell does Newt Gingrich have to do with farm policy, hes not even an elected official, more DJ nonsense.

The thread is about farm pork starft a thread about some other pork program and see if I support it. :roll:


----------



## always_outdoors

> please educate me, the taxpayer, on the benefits provided to me by the farm bill and its relevance to the ND farmer.


I am no expert, but as I said before..I would rather see a farmer in ND get rich before some guy in Israel or Columbia. Pork is pork, but I would rather see it go to make sure it saved a ND farm family instead of promoting corporate farming.

But I wonder if you would easily look down at your plate when you are at the dinner table tonight and you may find the answer you are looking for.

Remember ND is a pretty important state
North Dakota's Top Agricultural Commodities, 2005
2005 Rank Percent of Nation's
in the U.S. Commodity Production
#1 Spring Wheat 44%
Durum Wheat 68%
Barley 27%
Oats 12%
Canola 92%
All Sunflower 44%
Oil Sunflower 45%
Non-oil Sunflower 39%
Flaxseed 92%
All Dry Edible Beans 32%
Pinto Beans 50%
Navy Beans 34%
Dry Edible Peas 70%
Lentils 38%
Honey 19%
#2 All Wheat 14%
#3 Sugarbeets 17%
#6 Potatoes 5%


----------



## Plainsman

Live2hunt

My intention wasn't to stick up for Bioman, it was to make the comment that liberals resist every attempt to be weaned from the government. I don't believe pork is pork, there is no excuse for any of it. The only pork I like is rubbed with seasoning and on my grill. 
I would like to be very realistic here and please understand most of my relatives farm so this is not a anti farmer statement it is a pro taxpayer statement. 
It is not the farmer that feeds us, it is the land. Transportation has made food commodities a world wide trade item. Land in Chile provides me grapes, land in Australia, South America, Canada and the United States provides me beef etc. Families, individuals and yes corporations can make that land produce. Politicians make laws to try restrict the flow of even cheaper food to protect the farmers. If they can't make it like Joe at the hardware store, then maybe something else needs to happen. I don't know what, but is the answer to give them trade advantages, government supported crop insurance, and pay them disaster on top of that and tax breaks. It looks like a one way street with me as a taxpayer holding the dirty end of the stick. 
Like someone stated must I really pay farmers not to pollute? Do we pay you not to dump on your neighbor? What logic is this? When the gravy is flowing it would be best not to complain. 
With all that said I do hope the family farm exists into the next century. They like all business people will have to learn to work and live within their means. I have noticed that most have a lot more toys than I do. It doesn't build support to whine to people with less than you have. It's like a guy with a Cadillac complaining to a guy with a Ford about not having enough money for a Rolls Royce. He isn't going to get much sympathy.


----------



## Bobm

> With all that said I do hope the family farm exists into the next century.


Not me,

I hope they go the way of the buggy whip manufacturer which they already would of if it wasn't for the politicians stealing from other citizens to prop up their inefficient family farm business.

And take the pork away from the corporate farmers also, they are worse, let food production stand on market forces. If the government got out of it ( they are only in it for their own political empowerment, they don't give a damn about farmers) food would be less expensive for all of us.


----------



## Norm70

> Like someone stated must I really pay farmers not to pollute? Do we pay you not to dump on your neighbor?


the thing i am not defending pollution, but don't we pay taxes on many clean are acts for big business? Bob i am sure you have something as far as statistics on this, not attacking you but you always seem to have something.



> I have noticed that most have a lot more toys than I do.


What toys? I dunno what you mean? Yes i see farmers drive around in new pickups and new equipment, but the thing is would you run a business with old technology, no. You run it with the best you can afford because it is your business.

Now i agree with live2hunt. You use the term "liberal" and run it through the mud with afterthought mumbling and i personally do not like that. I think in many cases it is a cop out. I feel as a liberal you arguement would have more validity if you would keep the afterthoughs to yourself



> Typical drivel from a liberal, no substance.





> DJ, I usually avoid this forum because arguing politics is a fruitless labor, especially with a liberal


----------



## Plainsman

> the thing i am not defending pollution, but don't we pay taxes on many clean are acts for big business? Bob i am sure you have something as far as statistics on this, not attacking you but you always seem to have something.


I know the question wasn't directed to me, but I would like to say we shouldn't do it for any business. For example I think oil companies would be more careful about spills if uncle Same didn't pick up most of the tab. Of course we all know they would just pass on the expense to the customer. 
I think the difference is the government steps in and helps companies after accidents like the Exon Veldez, but we pay agriculture not to do it, possibly others also, I don't know. It feels like we are paying blackmail. I don't think we should pay not to pollute, we should punish if anyone does pollute. No one, and I mean no one has the right to degrade the environment we all must live in.


----------



## gandergrinder

What we really need in this country is an education system that teaches our kids about economics and finance. We wouldn't be arguing and calling each other liberal or conservative. We would just set the boundaries of the market and let it take care of itself.

What most people don't understand is that a farmer not making a profit is the markets way of telling him not to produce anymore. In a capitalist economy people going out of business is a good thing. It tells producers to put their money and labor into something else.

What are the results of poor returns on investment? In the words of Bobm we don't waste time producing buggy whips.

Why do you think communism is good at making everyone equally poor?A communist system pays people to produce a bunch of crap they don't need or want. Our politicians have created a system where the market can't properly signal the farmers.

I can respect a person who couldn't make it in farming and goes and gets a different job. I can't respect a farmer who complains about not making any money. If you can't make any money, do what the rest of us do. Get a different job.


----------



## Bobm

Norm as far as I know the cost of meeting environmental standards in most industries is passed on through the cost of the product so all of us bear the cost in that respect. And thats reasonable because we also all gain the benefit of a cleaner environment.

In many cases the intial cost of the clean up if judged to be excessive is often subsidized by taxpayer dollars and again I think thats reasonable, especially when a new stricter standard is made into law.

However take the automeobile industry for instance, arguably one of the largest producers of polluting products, all of us pay for the cleaner cars in the price of the car.

Like every aspect of life there is no free ride, and one shouldn't be expected.

Reread Gandergrinders excellent post he has summed up the problem better than I did.

His last paragraph if I had written it would of had one more line

"I can't respect a person that expects to be able to dip in other citizens pockets and steal their hard earned dollars to prop up their inefficent business".

That is the legacy of the "family farm" not because of farmers but because we as a country allow our politicians to meddle in business to supposedly improve our lives when the real reason ffom politicians point of view is to create a dependence on politicians thus insureing, they have a job.

Our PC government school system supports the government viewpoint which should be no surprise they are after all now federally controlled not locally controlled. With that control has come a slide in standards to the lowest common denominator in order to benefit the teachers unions ( and the govt officials that protect them) as avote buying apparatus, not the students.

The net result has been a dumbed down society that was built on capitalism becoming socialist. And as gandergrinder correctly pointed out that is a system thats failed evey place its been tried.

Political liberals ( socialists) will always claim that if they tweaked it just a little more the socialism would be fairer.

Show me a country thats happened in, you can't.

The end result is always a two tiered society
a class of have nots and a class of elites.

This is where our society is heading if we don't begin to embrace what our countries economy was founded on once again, capitalism.

I find it amazing that China, India, and other formerly socialist or govt managed economies are slowling embracing capitalism with the inevitable uptick in their standard of living and we the original country that was the model of the success of capitalism has slid downward toward socialism as we become more " enlightened".

This is one of the biggest reasons I am so in favor of the "fair tax" plan. The fewer avenues that the government has to meddle in our affairs, to manipulate our business, the better off we are.

Our tax system enables people to go to Washington and become an elite class of extremely rich ( almost everyone of them end up multi millionaires)and most of them have never run successful business in private life. Ever wonder about that what other entity there is that every single person involved becomes a millionaire???

Ever heard of "K street", read up on them.

They are vigorously opposed to the "fair tax" that in itself is a great reason for the common man to suport it.

Our tax system obviously benefits them, not us! They have skillfully created this class envy and use it to obviscate that obvious fact (the fact that our tax system makes them rich and powerful, and makes us poorer) to the society they have sucessfully dumbed down about enonomic issues as Gandergrinder so eloquently pointed out.

I could go on but most of the people on here or elsewhere in this country don't have the fundamental background in economic education to understand the discussion.


----------



## DJRooster

After doing a little research here is a bunch of political spin on the farm program. can you believe it Bob!:
- 60 percent of US farmers receive no subsidy since meat, poultry and horticulture produces are not protected by any government scheme.
- 93 percent of the subsidy goes to farmers growing cotton, corn, wheat, rice and soybean.
- billions of dollars are subsidizing wealthy farmers who seemingly do not need government support.
- In 2003, half of commodity payments -- more than $3 billion -- went to households with incomes above $76,000
- 25% went to households with incomes above $160,000
- 10 percent went to households with incomes above $343,000. 
-the proportion of farm subsidies being paid to wealthy farmers has been increasing. 
- the purpose of farm subsidies is to assist farmers who depend on agricultural markets for income. 
-this makes sense for farm households who make less than, say, $60,000 or $70,000. 
- this does not explain why we are transferring billions of dollars from taxpayers to farm households with more than $100,000 in net income-well above the $43,000 median household income
- Farm households with more than $100,000 in net income do not need government assistance.
-At a minimum, we should impose more stringent caps on farm subsidies. While past farm bills have included caps on farm subsidy caps, these caps have been set much too high. Currently, an individual may receive up to $40,000 in direct payments, up to $65,000 in counter-cyclical payments, and up to $75,000 in marketing loan benefits. The "3-entity rule" essentially doubles these farm subsidy caps for farmers who operate three or more separate farm entities. We are currently wasting money by paying farm subsidies to farmers with more than $250,000 in gross income.
-is the purpose of income support programs to assist all farmers with financial need? Or, is the purpose of income support programs to assist mid-sized family farmers, for whom farming is their sole source of income?
- the demand for biofuels will keep prices of corn and other commodities at higher levels, which could lead for less need for spending on commodity programs in farm program spending

- $3 or $3.50 corn will probably decrease the need for one of the most highly subsidized crops

It is interesting to note for those who are from Georgia:

-Payment limit abuse is a particular problem in Georgia and other cotton-growing states. 
-Cotton costs more to grow than most other crops and generates higher subsidies, pushing more farmers up against the legal limits.
- 20 percent [of subsidy recipients] are taking advantage of the system," said Tommy Weldon, a senior U.S. Department of Agriculture regulator in Georgia. 
-nine in Georgia, got more than $1 million in tax-supported subsidies in 2005.
- The biggest check: $15.8 million to $180,000 for an individual -- results in higher payouts to larger growers, who can use the payments to leverage bigger loans to grow more crops. But smaller growers are placed at a competitive disadvantage by a program once intended to keep them from losing their land.

-most American farmers never bump into subsidy limits because their acreage and crop yields, which are used to calculate payments, are too small.

-for larger growers farming several thousand acres, working the system has become a standard practice, 
-Many growers legally create companies designed solely to maximize their take from taxpayers, some of these companies exist only on paper. They own no land, no equipment, not even a telephone.
-a grower is entitled to a combined maximum of $180,000 from the three major subsidy programs. But a farmer who sets up two of these companies, a process that can take only a day, can qualify for up to $360,000 in subsidies. 
-if the grower forms a partnership with relatives or others who are deemed active farmers, the operation can qualify for $1 million or more
-time and again, Georgia farmers complained to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution that the temptation to circumvent payment limits thrust them into an uncomfortable moral dilemma. Those poor moral Georgia farmers!!
-"It makes farmers feel like they are doing something illegal," said Tim Shirah, a fourth-generation farmer from Mitchell County. "You are going to use the law to circumvent these limits. You don't want to do it, but you do it out of necessity."
-Growers bend -- and sometimes break -- the rules when they claim others as active farming partners who contribute little that would warrant more subsidies.
Last year, the USDA found a Coffee County farmer had evaded payment limits by claiming that his three children -- including a daughter were his farming partners
-the USDA's has been unable to prevent subsidy recipients from circumventing payment limits by their auditing process.
-Recent efforts to lower the payment limits have failed, due in part to Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee.
-the people who produce are the ones who should be getting the help.
- subsidies should be directed to small- and medium-sized farmers who need the help.
-the farm program wasn't set up to help people get rich it's just for survival. 
-farming partners should be "actively engaged" in the farming operation, contributing not only money but also labor or management commensurate with their share of the enterprise.
-someone "living on Fifth Avenue in New York" can qualify for subsidies by making a 15-minute phone call to secure credit for a farm, "You can stay in your bathrobe if you've got a telephone line to Bank of America."
-As a result, thousands of people collect subsidies for cropland that's hundreds of miles from their homes.

The federal budget deficit and lobbying from free-trade advocates has pressured the Republican led Congress to rein in subsidies and tighten payment limits but they have been ineffective in their role of leadership and recent efforts have failed despite having clear majorities in both legislatures. President Bush, both this year and last year, proposed a hard cap of $250,000, junking the three-entity rule and ending the payment limit exemption on commodity certificates but was totally ineffective in passage of these changes.
-some farmers have abused it and some farm advocates wanted the Republican led Congress to tighten the laws that permit people living off the farm to collect subsidies but theRepublicans have failed to make changes in the program and have refused to do it.
-These "pork barrel" policies have continued as our deficit has risen to unpresented levels during the Republican led administration and is another example of where the big corporate farms have greatly benefited by Republican policies while the family farm is doomed to failure by this same party. 
-we need meaningful rules on what it means to be a family farmer and it was not done under this administration.

So anyway, what does this mean? It sounds like we need to get a handle on the farm program but the current climate in Washington does not have the knowledge or the balls to do it. What party or who is to blame ? Does this mean that we should blame the North Dakota delegation in Washington as the original post lead us to believe? Does this mean we should abandon the farm program? Well, lets see what Bioman has to say?


----------



## Bobm

DJ good post, facts for a change what got into you :lol: :beer:

Personally, I don't care where it is or who is getting it, its wrong, and should be stopped. Both parties are to blame there isn't any difference between them when it comes to pork and scandle, all congressmen are crooks buying votes with the taxpayers dollar.

They are screwing all of us in the process


----------



## DJRooster

Hey, I felt like a baby taking his first steps! And thanks Bob because I thought you would be a baby killer!! Mercy, mercy![/i]


----------



## Plainsman

Thanks Rooster that was informative. You may want to check this site http://www.ewg.org/farm/ .I think there are farmers right here in North Dakota that get over a million in subsidies. I think the top farmer in the United States took in 26 million over a three year period.
One subsidy we keep forgetting is the cheap gazing on government land in the west. Many ranchers will whine that it cost to much, but one fellow was taken to court for subleasing. He was charging three times what he was paying. It is legal with some government agencies and illegal with others. It depends on if the lease from the Forrest Service or Bureau of Land Management. At least that's the way it was when this guy got pinched ten years ago. His sublease made him $30,000 a year, he did it for ten years, and the judge fined him $30,000. If memory serves me from ten years past this happened in Arizona. 
I don't have current data, but I have report that the Forrest Service took in $26 million in 1988 from grazing and it cost $58 million to administer these lands. If it can be subleased for triple the rent then I think the American taxpayer should at least break even. Don't you think so?


----------

