|
| Author |
Message |
Pig Farmer
Banned
Joined: 11 Sep 2009
Posts: 1435
Location: Good Old U.S.A.
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 8:24 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Big Muddy rancher wrote: |
| Does that read that Montana got almost 4 billion? |
Yea the ted turners and the ot's
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Oldtimer
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 24333
Location: Northeast Montana
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pig Farmer wrote: |
| Big Muddy rancher wrote: |
| Does that read that Montana got almost 4 billion? |
Yea the ted turners and the ot's |
Probably wrong on both counts PF-- I would bet the biggest amount is all that CRP just south of Big Muddy.....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Hereford76
Member
Joined: 13 Dec 2005
Posts: 742
Location: North Central Montana
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 10:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Oldtimer wrote: |
| Pig Farmer wrote: |
| Big Muddy rancher wrote: |
| Does that read that Montana got almost 4 billion? |
Yea the ted turners and the ot's |
Probably wrong on both counts PF-- I would bet the biggest amount is all that CRP just south of Big Muddy..... |
you'd be wrong if you were a bettin man.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Oldtimer
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 24333
Location: Northeast Montana
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hereford76 wrote: |
| Oldtimer wrote: |
| Pig Farmer wrote: |
| Big Muddy rancher wrote: |
| Does that read that Montana got almost 4 billion? |
Yea the ted turners and the ot's |
Probably wrong on both counts PF-- I would bet the biggest amount is all that CRP just south of Big Muddy..... |
you'd be wrong if you were a bettin man. |
CRP isn't the biggest share of the Fed money? That is surprising considering the amount of CRP we have in this area....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Hereford76
Member
Joined: 13 Dec 2005
Posts: 742
Location: North Central Montana
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Oldtimer wrote: |
| Hereford76 wrote: |
| Oldtimer wrote: |
| Pig Farmer wrote: |
| Big Muddy rancher wrote: |
| Does that read that Montana got almost 4 billion? |
Yea the ted turners and the ot's |
Probably wrong on both counts PF-- I would bet the biggest amount is all that CRP just south of Big Muddy..... |
you'd be wrong if you were a bettin man. |
CRP isn't the biggest share of the Fed money? That is surprising considering the amount of CRP we have in this area.... |
well i was going off of montana and especially my own county. look at the top 20 or so recipients either in my county or statewide and i'd guess around 75% is wheat and barley subs.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
mrj
Rancher
Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 3333
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 6:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The biggest 'share' of the USDA budget is the food subsidies through the various welfare programs, isn't it? To the tune of more than 15% of the total USDA budget?
CORRECTION: the 15% is for FARMERS and all other programs, such as inspections, forestry, & whatever else USDA does, the way I hear it. Welfare and other food programs gets 85%, maybe more.
It seems pretty apparent the 'designers' of those programs intent was, and is, to keep the most possible people dependent and 'happy'.
Consumers get unbelievably cheap food. Large, ill-informed voting blocs get 'free' food. A few big farmers get huge subsidies, and a few of those 'farm the disaster programs', as many of us have heard them put it.
And too many get hooked into using EQUIP and such 'partnership' programs to make it possible to comply with over-zealous regulations imposed upon land owners hoping to make a living in agriculture.
mrj
Last edited by mrj on Wed Mar 17, 2010 1:25 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
nortexsook
Member
Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Posts: 684
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
15% to consumers and 85% to producers?
Where did you go to school.
Get off the tit. You'll enjoy life knowing you aren't living off my tax dollars!
I'll like it better, too!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
nortexsook
Member
Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Posts: 684
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mrj wrote: |
The biggest 'share' of the USDA budget is the food subsidies through the various welfare programs, isn't it? To the tune of more than 15% of the total USDA budget?
It seems pretty apparent the 'designers' of those programs intent was, and is, to keep the most possible people dependent and 'happy'.
Consumers get unbelievably cheap food. Large, ill-informed voting blocs get 'free' food. A few big farmers get huge subsidies, and a few of those 'farm the disaster programs', as many of us have heard them put it.
And too many get hooked into using EQUIP and such 'partnership' programs to make it possible to comply with over-zealous regulations imposed upon land owners hoping to make a living in agriculture.
mrj |
15% for consumers and 85% to producers?
Where did you go to school? One of great Ag universities?
Get off the tit. You'll enjoy life better off of welfare and my tax dollars.
I'll enjoy it better, too!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
marksmu
Member
Joined: 14 Jul 2009
Posts: 42
Location: Anahuac, Tx
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nortexsook wrote: |
>>1 Texas $16,229,168,781 9.1% 9.1% <<
Rice farmers in SE Texas get HUGE subsidies.
Wheat farmer get a fair bit as well.
We need to just end the subsidies COLD TURKEY.
Would be the best thing that could happen for Ag and for America! |
I agree that the subsidies need to end, and let the ag world sort itself out....but until they end, a person is leaving money on the table not taking them.
I run an 800 ac place in SE Texas that before I bought it was a rice farm....we maintain a 168 acre rice base. All that is required to keep the base is to keep the property in farmable condition. We are not required to plant a crop currently. This is phasing out through 2012 though in favor of a higher subisdy for planting. By 2012 I will get nothing, which is what I deserve.
I get roughly 12,000 to let the cattle graze it, or make hay, etc. That $12,000 is on 168 acres....I could enter my whole place in it, but if you do that, you could be required to plant one year if there were a shortage, and that could be cost and time prohibitive for me.
I use the money to pay the property taxes, buy equipment, fuel and feed.
I am not proud to get it, but its there for the taking. I can guarantee you that I put that money back into the local economy MUCH faster and much more efficiently than the government ever could.
I'd rather them give the money to me, and let me make an efficient use of it, than give the money to some loser on welfare with zero desire to work, and let him waste 50% on drugs, and the rest on junk from overseas.
I dont think we need subsidies, I sure dont, but if they are there I think I am a better bet than the local welfare recipient.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Ben H
Rancher
Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 1729
Location: Gorham, ME
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| My advisor in school said the same thing, don't leave money on the table. That is why I participate in the cost shares with EQIP. They are technically a subsidy, but what I like is that that most practices are investing in the infrastructure, not a direct subsidy. I haven't done any of the planned grazing stuff. Mostly fence and water development. If you're going to spend the money, I think it's well spent. I'll fight against subsidies, but if somebody is going to get them, I want to see it well used.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
mrj
Rancher
Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 3333
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 1:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Is anyone else getting concerned about Texas? I've always thought the men, most of them anyway, living there were gentlemen....yet we have some posting here who miss that designation quite a distance.
For the record: my apologies for 'multi-tasking' as I made that post.
I inadvertently stated the USDA budget exactly in reverse. FACT: the BIGGEST portion, 85%, goes to welfare food programs, NOT to farmers taking 'subsidies'.
Consumers' food cost in the USA is less than 9% of their incomes at the current time. That is no small reason for the so called farmer subsidies. That is, to enable food to be produced at low cost to consumers and keep those farmers in business, even tho their costs of producing it may be above market prices they receive.
Also for the record: we produce beef cattle, not subsidized crops. Silly of us, I know, but the land we own is pretty rugged and erodible and doesn't deserve to be turned upside down in our arid, drought prone location.
The fact is, crop subsidies allow farmer/ranchers to compete with us with their income from OUR tax dollars. That is just life in agriculture production today.
mrj
|
|
| Back to top |
|
marksmu
Member
Joined: 14 Jul 2009
Posts: 42
Location: Anahuac, Tx
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 7:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mrj wrote: |
Is anyone else getting concerned about Texas? I've always thought the men, most of them anyway, living there were gentlemen....yet we have some posting here who miss that designation quite a distance.
Also for the record: we produce beef cattle, not subsidized crops. Silly of us, I know, but the land we own is pretty rugged and erodible and doesn't deserve to be turned upside down in our arid, drought prone location.
The fact is, crop subsidies allow farmer/ranchers to compete with us with their income from OUR tax dollars. That is just life in agriculture production today.
mrj |
The problem is not isolated to Texas - People in general are becoming less civilized, and the general morals of the population as a whole is declining rapidly. I hate to see it, but its happening quickly, and Im not some old phart...Im only 30 years old, and its declined greatly in my short life.
Its also unfair that we get crop subsidies that we can use on our cattle. It puts those who don't get them in a hole just starting out. While I maintain a crop base, it in no way means that I have to farm. I have only been on this piece of property 3 years, but we have never planted a thing except Rye grass for the cattle. But as I previously stated. If you dont take it, the government is just going to give it to someone else, and I am certain that I spend it more efficiently than the government can.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
