# For those who are against agriculture



## dieseldog (Aug 9, 2004)

What Is Social Welfare Spending? And What Is State Fiscal Capacity? 
For the purposes of the study, we defined social welfare spending as programs that supported lower-income households, typically, though not exclusively, programs with means tests. These programs included health initiatives such as Medicaid and state child health insurance programs (SCHIP); cash assistance programs such as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) or cash payments under AFDC's replacement, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF); and a wide variety of other service programs providing child care, foster care, low-income energy assistance, services to the homeless and those funded by the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG). Because the study was designed to understand the effects of state fiscal capacity on social welfare spending, we included in the analyses only spending that went through the budgets of state and local governments. Direct expenditures by the federal government - such as the federal Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), Food Stamp Program (FSP) benefits, and the federal portion of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for poor elderly and disabled people - were excluded from direct examination.

Although the study used spending data on specific programs, such as Medicaid and TANF, at several points in the analysis, most of the quantitative research in the project was based on state and local spending data collected annually by the U.S. Census Bureau (Census Bureau) since One of the largest expenditure categories in the Census of Governments (Census) data was termed public welfare expenditures, amounting to *$233 billion in fiscal year (FY) 2000.* To determine whether fiscal capacity affected different types of social welfare spending in different ways, the study organized the 10 subcategories under public welfare expenditures into three basic types of spending:

Cash assistance, which included AFDC, TANF cash assistance, general assistance, and state supplements to SSI; 
Medicaid, which was found to be closely related to one of the Census categories, "Payments to Medical Vendors"; and 
Non-health social services, which included a wide variety of services and in-kind benefits, such as child welfare services, child care subsidies, energy assistance programs, shelters for the homeless, and many others.

But you guys are ok with this. Makes 4.5 billion look like a drop in a bucket. just my .02.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

you ever notice how anyone on welfare points to others and says

" they are getting some why shouldn't I"

:eyeroll:

Its all a scam, why can't you see that?

welfare is money stolen at gunpoint from other people that actually earned it, to relieve people from the responsibility of making good decisions or suffering from the consequences from making bad ones.

Every payment you get from govt programs is taken from someone that earned it!
I would be ashamed to take it uke:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> But you guys are ok with this.


Nope, I'm not ok with that either. I don't like pork of any kind. I don't mind helping people who need help, but a lot of this is just handouts from politicians to buy votes with your money.

Example: I know of a single mother about 40 years old that has been on welfare over 20 years. When she adds up childcare, heating assistance, housing, food stamps, and other things, besides income tax credits when she doesn't even work it is comparable to a 40 hour work week at nearly $10 and hour. She says where can I find a job in XXXX that pays a high school graduate, 40 years old, with no work experience $10 an hour. A job would lower her standard of living. I wonder if it ever crosses her mind that her neighbor ( 30 year old single mother) who makes $7.25 pays taxes (government takes it away to give to her) to support her lazy behind.


----------



## dieseldog (Aug 9, 2004)

Bob can't you come up with something other than saying someone on welfare always points at someone else getting more. You've already used that one before.

Hey Bob if you are ever in ND I hope you don't even think about asking a farmer to hunt his land or even hunt near a farm because if they knew your viewpoint on ag subsidies you would get a quick trip back to Georgia.

I'm done trying to change your narrow mind if you think farming is so easy move up here buy 1000 acres and make it cash flow without any assistance and then you can tell me i told you so.

I suppose you are against people getting social security too because that is your money that they are giving to someone else.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> move up here buy 1000 acres and make it cash flow without any assistance


wow................. mind standing by with your check book to give me a little assistance if I open up sporting goods store and can't get a cash flow started? Didn't think so.


----------



## Skip OK (Jul 16, 2006)

I think there is a big difference between "Hating Agriculture" and expecting the tax dollars I pay to be used in ways I see as good.

I will never, and have never, questioned anybody who wanted to farm their way and was willing to do so without my help, unless they were (a) damaging our shared natural resources (air, water, etc.) or (b) trying to use public land in ways that deny the public the right to enjoy the benefits of said land.

However, if you want to use some of my tax money to help your operation. THEN I am going to be VERY interested in how you propose spending "my" money, including subsequent audits (yes, where they come to your farm and demand to see your record of what you did with my money, and where, if they find you wasted it or used it inappropriately, they can make sure you don't get any more).

The time may have come or may be coming where all the farm programs should be zeroed out and the whole thing started over. Start with the amount we, as a nation, have to spend on farm aid, and start the zero sum game.

If corn subsidies get $X, then wheat subsides can't have that money. Which is more important, soy beans or rice? Cotton or canola? Corn based ethanol is big right now, but the process to make it from sugar is a LOT less likely to fail as a positive process (one that produces more energy than it consumes), so why not direct some of the corn ethanol $$$ to sugar beets, or sugar cane?

I understand that this idea in an anathema to the Corn Growers and the Farm Bureau, but I am begining to hear stuff like this; I'm hearing it a lot.

Remember that every farmer feeds hundreds of "other" people; that means for every "farm" vote there may be 200 "non-farm" votes, and in many places, THESE voters are begining to question some of the less logical allocations of agriculture money.

Some of this questioning is simply "why should THEIR farmers get cash, when OUR farmers don't" but a lot of it is questioning the effectiveness of direct, production based program (the "I got $X for growing Y bushels; if I had increased my production, I would increase my payment) versus production limiting programs such as CRP. To a lot of people I know, these were NOT implemented to simply help farmers over bad times; they supposed to replace the production based programs. That way, the farmers could gety some help while at the same time the entire country could get a benefit both in terms of wildlife habitat/flood control/clean water, but ALSO in reducing surplus farm production without dumping all over farmers.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Skip your logic is becoming more common even in our state. I think that the public is not buying the old line that we hear all the time. I also know the pubic in our area are more than willing to see farmers who had real losses get help. But Diesel seems to think that anyone who questions a pork barrel spending bill is anti Ag and anti farmer. Like I pointed out in the other thread, the current proposed bill is loaded with pork and that is why it has really stalled.

There is a big difference in providing aid and giving needed support vs a sham give away designed solely to maintain votes. I have railed for years against this and will continue to do so. Yet the farmers I know do not take the attitude that Diesel has taken towards my and others views. They pretty much see it the same way.

Do they maximize the benefits they receive, most do and I do not begrudge them for doing so, but simply walking around looking for a payment is not what they are about.

Somebody pays regardless, and right now prices and production levels for a good share of the operations do not warrant a across the board handout! Diesel if you had losses and managed properly, you get my support, but do not assume that fiscal responsibility should go out the window to make sure you get it!


----------



## dieseldog (Aug 9, 2004)

Ron G if you read what i have said in the Fargonomics thread i agree that alot of people are getting money that they shouldn't I have also stated that I would like it if the gov was not involved in ag. THe main thing that I am trying to say is that if the program is offered you are a fool to not participate in it. If you don't your neighbors will be running over you soon enough. It just seems like I am being called out because I am a farmer that participates in gov programs.

Gohon go ahead and start your sporting goods store and if you make it, good for you, if you fail don't plan on filing bankruptcy and getting your debt forgiven because that would be considered as welfare by some people, and we will all pay for your bankruptcy in one way or another.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> if you fail don't plan on filing bankruptcy and getting your debt forgiven because that would be considered as welfare by some people, and we will all pay for your bankruptcy in one way or another.


You have a point there. In some cases I would consider it welfare. I know a fellow who will shortly be claiming bankruptcy for third time now. He has new campers, 4X4's, hunts elk out of state, mule deer, spends money like it's water. This guy cheats society so he can live the high life. I don't understand how he can do it over and over.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> Gohon go ahead and start your sporting goods store and if you make it, good for you, if you fail don't plan on filing bankruptcy and getting *your debt forgiven *because that would be considered as welfare by some people, and we will all pay for your bankruptcy in one way or another.


"forgiven" is a PC word for deadbeat.
Like I said they are on welfare so they come up with some kind of ridiculous justification because they cannot admit to themselves their business model is so flawed they have to take hard earned money from other citizens to keep it going.



> Hey Bob if you are ever in ND I hope you don't even think about asking a farmer to hunt his land or even hunt near a farm because if they knew your viewpoint on ag* subsidies *you would get a quick trip back to Georgia.


"subsidies" is a PC word for other poeples money stolen from them its a welfare check.

Its common knowledge farmers think the country owes them a living, you are just showcasing it for everyone here to see their attitude, which is a good thing. Maybe someone on here will read it and begin to understand how screwed up farmers thinking has become.
Farmers have become so indoctrinated into believeing its their RIGHT to take the taxpayers dollars that the actaully believe we owe them the money. Which is why its easy to see how farmers also think selling the publics game animals to commercial hunting outfitters is acceptable. One more dip into the publics back pocket.
People like farmers on welfare can justify anything. They cannot accept the shame of the reality of the situation, I can understand that.



> I suppose you are against people getting social security too because that is your money that they are giving to someone else.


Thats the first thing you've said that makes sense, show me where in our constitution its written that any citizen is responsible for some other citizens retirement, show me.

Once again you point to something that is wrong to justify something else thats wrong, imagine my surprise.
SS is another huge inefficient boondoggle used by politicians to buy votes from "bluehairs", who as a group are the weathiest among us yet any reform like means testing ect is screamed about and demagouged by the lefttist politicians and economic illiterates like you buy into their BS.

Congress doesn't give a damn about old people other than their vote, notice congress has exempted themselves from SS and set up their own seperate plan for them selves and other govt workers
GEE I WONDER WHY??
But lets stay on the farm topic, you don't have the economic education to understand it much less SS.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Carefull, Bob, nor do you or Gohon have knowledge of the farm program. I am for welfare, when it comes to need but not as a way to make a living. From what I understand, most bankruptcies are a result of medical problems. Which leads to the health insurance issues! Boy we have a lot of work to do in Washington.


----------



## dieseldog (Aug 9, 2004)

You must be very well read Bob as you do have a good understanding of alot of programs. I know that I am no match for you when it comes to facts about political agendas and programs. I am just a country boy who knows that I must do everything that I can to provide for my family and if someone(gov) has a farm program that pays us for certain things I would be a fool not to participate in it. As for know I am not going to change anyone's view but YOU WILL NEVER MAKE ME FEEL BAD ABOUT BEING FARMER. It is a profession that i take with great pride. Also I guess a college degree makes me pretty uneducated in your eyes. Since I am an economic illiterate and don't have the economic education that you must have. One thing I do know that when grain prices are the same as they were in the 1960's that doesn't make for a very good ag economy, are you still making the same hourly wage that you were in 1960 Bob. As for now I am done trying to change anyones mind, But I will still be lurking around to see what you guys come up with to save Washington.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Bob, Have you ever hunted on a farmers land.........I'll bet you didn't call them freeloaders as you were asking permission did you!!! :eyeroll:


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Seems to me that we have a SBA(Small Business Administration) that just might be a federal government agency that gives low interest loans(government subsidized) to small business and I dare say there are hundreds of other federal programs within the framework of our federal government that give away millions? or billions? to other businesses across our country so to say that business is a stand alone proposition is simply not the truth. It is also true that farmers pay a ton of federal income tax and generate billions of dollars in sales for a lot of those so called free standing businesses who in turn pay a lot of federal tax along with all their employees so it is not like the federal government derives no benefit from their investment. Hmmm, I might be wrong but then again I might be right!! Free standing business uke: Farming is just a big government welfare program? Throw in the towel on rural America and we will see how much you big city guys can do on your own. Hope you don't have a hail storm on your garden or blight on your tomatoes because it might slim down you fat cats from the city!! Fattening of America?? The "pork" isn't just found on the prairie, boys!


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Sometimes Bob, stirs the pot because he believes in what he writes but sometimes he just stirs the pot! In my opinion he is too smart to believe in everything he writes.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

DJ Pork is found everywhere, and it all should be exposed and shown for what it really is. What really bothers me more than anything is that many seem to want to take the pork away from one sector but leave theirs alone. Thus PORK BARREL PROJECTS GROW INSTEAD OF SHRINK like they should.

I am not speaking for Bob, but like in the Farm Program we have seen the largest grow of pork spending come in the forum of disaster relief. Be it flood,drought or hurricane what ever calamity they see. Calling foul on such spending programs is not anti farmer or anti rural ND or anti urban. It is a call for better use of our tax dollars.

I asked Dorgan on the radio before the election why all of the Pork is in this bill. He danced the dance of a skilled politician. He tried to paint my comments as being anti farmer and anti ND. Nothing can be farther from the truth. I have no trouble as I stated before in helping people hit with real loss, but there are not many in the valley and in much of the east to south east portion of the state that need it this year.

The same cannot be said for those in the western portion of the state or other areas. Strip out the Pork and pass a bill! What is so hard about that!

Think about the Pork the next time you here Conrad or as Dorgan did in the paper last week complain about the deficit! It is the Pot talking about the Kettle!!!!!!!


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Ron keep speaking for me you do a better job of it than I :wink:

for the record
I am not against farmers, or helping people that really need it like th old and infirm, chidren or anyone that is truly needing something and not scaming all of us taxpayers.

I am a generous person and would give anyone help that really needed it.

Almost all government programs have evolved into some type of scam that perverts their original design and "claimed intent" as people figure out how to "game" them.
unfortunately the ag programs are a perfect example of this.

The other unfortunate thing is if you point out anything wrong in any area of our government the people whose OX is getting gored calls you a bigot, racist, heartless so and so, "farmer hater" ect. ( if you only knew my background you would realize how idiot that idea is)

Facts mean nothing to the people who are benefitting from these distorted programs. They cannot bring themselves to admit they are taking the earned livelyhood from others to support their unearned endeavors. That is indefensible.

DJ why is any pork thats not served on a dinner plate a good thing? Just because its helping you ( I don't really mean you personally ) it is still money confiscated from the person who earned it and given for a vote to someone that didn't. Its not right.

I do post stuff to stir the pot and get conversation and debate flowing but I try to be honest and true to my ideals.

In my life I've been up and down financially and I never took the approach that the govt ( meaning my neighbors realize the govt is nothing but apiece of paper) owes me a living.

Farmers and other welfare benefactors do. Diesel has done an excellent job of showcasing that. And remeber in apolitical debate we speak in generalities some farmers don't abuse the system I hope.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> It is also true that farmers pay a ton of federal income tax


If they do they better get someone better to prepare their tax report. My mother worked for a fellow a number of years and they did the taxes for about 80 farmers around a small town. They paid little or no taxes. My cousin goes to Las Vegas when there is something agricultural going on so he can write off the whole trip. Farmers paying anything other than cheap property taxes is not correct. Yes, cheap property taxes, my house costs more in taxes each year than my brothers farm including house, all outbuildings, and 350 acres. Small farm yes, but still I pay double in taxes.

Like Bob said there are many types at the feed trough, and every time someone apposes it they start calling names. I don't think any pork should exist. Help the needy sure, but anything else is simply politicians holding out the carrot to make you government dependent. It's like the drug dealer on a city corner giving the kiddies a taste.

I don't blame the farmer, or anyone else, I blame the politicians. Without these the pork handouts the price of wheat would have doubled or tripled on a free market. If that means I pay more at the grocery store so be it. I am often torn thinking support prices are better because then the farmer gets the money and not the shipper, or the mill, or the baker etc. However the system is so abused it isn't working.

It's hard to blame an individual farmer if everyone else is doing it he has to so he can survive. The blame lies squarely on the politician. Most people on here can't be honest about it because they feel they have to kiss behind to get on land to hunt, and that is the threat isn't it? . I have never kissed behind for anything, and don't intend to start now. On the other hand I do want to see everyone including farmers make a decent living. Just not through government channels that rob the rest of us.

Might I add that most of my relatives farm, and they think they could do better with the government out of it. Interestingly while working out of state further south many of those farmers feel the same. I am suprised at the attitude of some here in North Dakota. I guess our pork pushers have done a better job here. I am looking for some land for myself right now, so it certainly isn't like I am anti landowner either.

I sincerely believe our taxes could drop considerably if we could stop the abuse of the system by all factions of our society.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> I sincerely believe our taxes could drop considerably if we could stop the abuse of the system by all factions of our society.


note only that, but our ecomony would really go like gangbusters, our tax structure makes the costs of our products inflated buy about 23% giving other countries a huge advantage take that 23% price hike due to taxes out and we become extremely competitve


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Bob, did you really say that, "almost all government programs have evolved into some kind of a scam?" That is a nasty attitude and you are starting to scare me. You hate the federal government as much as you hate the public school system. Come to think of it you hate a lot of things. Perhaps you are off your medications??


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Plainsman, you are something else! Farmers don't pay any income tax because they go to Las Vegas when they have something agricultural going on there and you pay more land taxes that your brothers farm. Those are two weak arguments on why the farm program is pork. Come on you can do better than that!


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

DJ going back to the moron stage, if you disagree you "hate" :eyeroll:

You really are not very bright...


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

DJRooster said:


> Plainsman, you are something else! Farmers don't pay any income tax because they go to Las Vegas when they have something agricultural going on there and you pay more land taxes that your brothers farm. Those are two weak arguments on why the farm program is pork. Come on you can do better than that!


OOOOOH my gosh Rooster you can spin better than that. Even the most politically illiterate can see through this. OK, I'll explain it. The idea is businesses including farmers can write off business expenses. I'll use something besides farmers for an example. A local photographer goes to the annual meeting for professional photographers. This is a two week affair in Jamaica. He normally goes to an hour of seminars on the first day, and maybe an hour or two towards the end of it, but he writes off the whole trip as a business expense. Farmers who are tax savvy do the same thing. I used my cousin as an example because he goes to Las Vegas for ag gatherings, like outdoor writers go to the shot show.

Did I say I paid land tax? No, I did not. I said I paid more property tax on my house than my brother does on his farm, including land, house, and outbuildings. Read again. I doubt anyone else misunderstood, and I doubt you did. Lets be intellectually honest with one another.

This isn't anti farmer, it is anti pork, pork of any kind.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Dieseldog I'm one of those that consider the bankruptcy laws as welfare. At least 99 percent of them are. If I were to start a business I hope I would be intelligent enough to plan things out so that failure would not occur. If it did fail though, bankruptcy would not be a option in my book. A failed business does not give a person the right to turn their back and walk away from a debt. I was raised in a family where a persons word was their honor and to break your word was simply dishonorable and brings shame on the family. When you incur a debt, you are giving your word to pay it back. Old fashion it may be but it has worked well for my family. So you see you are wrong........... I expect no one to pay for my mistakes and just because the government has loaded a program with giveaway pork you will never hear me say "if someone(gov) has a farm program that pays us for certain things I would be a fool not to participate in it" as an excuse to support my family. I would rather move to the city and work two jobs a day, seven days a week. I know I would certainly feel better about myself. But, to each his own and I'm not pointing a finger towards anyone in particular, just stating how I was raised and view welfare and pork programs.........


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

I've been trying to hold back on this thread because I truly want the family (small) farm to survive. For now that's all I'll say.
However I received this email today and it seems to fit here.

Why we love government

Walter Williams

Posted: November 29, 2006 
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Unlike today's Americans, the founders of our nation were suspicious, if not contemptuous, of government.

Consider just a few of their words.

James Madison suggested that "All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree."

Thomas Paine observed, "We still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping at the spoil of the multitude. ... It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without a tribute."

John Adams reminded, "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe."

Thomas Jefferson gave us several warnings that we've ignored:

First, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."

Second, "The greatest [calamity] which could befall [us would be] submission to a government of unlimited powers."

third, "Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."

In response to what Jefferson called an "elective despotism," he suggested that "The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

With sentiments like these, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison became presidents. Could a person with similar sentiments win the presidency today?

My guess is no.

Today's Americans hold such liberty-oriented values in contempt, and any presidential aspirant holding them would have a zero chance of winning office.

Today's Americans hold a different vision of government. It's one that says Congress has the right to do just about anything upon which it can secure a majority vote. Most of what Congress does fits the description of forcing one American to serve the purposes of another American. That description differs only in degree, but not in kind, from slavery.

At least two-thirds of the federal budget represents forcing one American to serve the purposes of another.

Younger workers are forced to pay for the prescriptions of older Americans; 
people who are not farmers are forced to serve those who are;

non-poor people are forced to serve poor people; and the general public is forced to serve corporations, college students and other special interests who have the ear of Congress.

The supreme tragedy that will lead to our undoing is that so far as personal economic self-interests are concerned, it is perfectly rational for every American to seek to live at the expense of another American. Why? Not doing so doesn't mean he'll pay lower federal taxes. All it means is that there will be more money for somebody else.

In other words, once Congress establishes that one person can live at the expense of another, it pays for everyone to try to do so.

You say, "Williams, don't you believe in helping your fellow man?" Yes, I do. I believe that reaching into one's own pockets to help his fellow man is both laudable and praiseworthy. Reaching into another's pockets to help his fellow man is despicable and worthy of condemnation.

The bottom line: We love government because it enables us to accomplish things that if done privately would lead to arrest and imprisonment. For example, if I saw a person in need, and I took your money to help him, I'd be arrested and convicted of theft. If I get Congress to do the same thing, I am seen as compassionate.

This vision ought to bother the Christians among us, for when God gave Moses the commandment "Thou shalt not steal," I'm sure He didn't mean thou shalt not steal unless you got a majority vote in Congress


----------

