• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Plan To Destroy America’s Farms Moving Full Steam Ahead

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Obama’s Plan To Destroy America’s Farms Moving Full Steam Ahead
By Michael Eden
The bill is House Resolution 2454, imposing a domestic carbon emissions cap-and-trade program on the American economy.

The goal seems to be nothing short of eradicating American farms and self-sustainability.


Even DEMOCRATS are opposing the Obama Energy Bill. Climate change legislation will be utterly devastating for American farmers. Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-IA) of the House Agriculture Committee says that not only will he not vote for it, but no one else on his committee will support it either. The bill would increase the cost of everything that farmers depend on, such as diesel fuel, gasoline, fertilizers, pesticides, and a host of other things. It would raise taxes on energy by $846 billion over the next ten years. Due to the fact that farming is so energy intensive, one major study shows that it would reduce farm income by $8 billion or 28% over the next four years, by $25 billion (or by 60%) through 2024, and by $50 billion (or by 94%) by 2035 [source: Heritage Foundation study]. Many are shaking their heads in amazement over the proposed impact.

Cap and trade legislation would utterly devastate the agricultural community with stratospheric operating costs, and would just as utterly destroy rural America.

To make matters even worse, the 1,000 page bill pushed through by Henry Waxman and Ed Markey has barely been examined in spite of its sweeping consequences as Democrats play cutthroat politics with America’s future.

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-MN) is complaining that the Agriculture Department has little if any role in the climate change bill, and that the EPA is driving it. Peterson said, “A lot of us on the Committee do not want the EPA near our farms.”

Agriculture Department Secy Tom Vilsack repeatedly said, “There is obviously work yet to be done on this bill.”

Nevertheless, Nancy Pelosi is trying to rush the bill through the House, demanding that it be finished by the end of next week – leaving almost no change lawmakers could change it. And Barack Obama is pushing hard to impose his agenda before Americans have a chance to know more about it and oppose it.

more information and charts on how it will affect farmers and ranchers.

http://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2009/06/13/obamas-plan-to-destroy-americas-farms-moving-full-steam-ahead/
 

Cal

Well-known member
Hmmmmm.....what would there be left to eat? Pelosi Tuna of course! People thought ethanol created high food prices, just wait.
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
This is the "change" you libs voted for?

You're damnright it is.

It's about time the playing field got leveled in agriculture.

Those of us that have figured out how to grow crops and livestock in a sustainable manner should be happy to see the CAFO boys and their industrial backers get whacked on the nose.

The only reason the factory farms are able to produce food so cheaply is they externalize their costs (contaminated water, fouled air, unhealthy food, damage to the social fabric of rural communities) onto the rest of society.

If those costs are included in their products like they should be in a functioning market economy, then the family farm is going to be a lot more competitive with them again.

Regulations have never been the problem for farmers where I live, it's low prices. Industrialized agriculture (and the federal government's skewed ag policy) is to blame for low prices, not the EPA and regulation.

The EPA is welcome on my farm any time, because I don't make a mess of my neighborhood.
 

Cal

Well-known member
badaxemoo said:
Sandhusker said:
This is the "change" you libs voted for?

You're damnright it is.

It's about time the playing field got leveled in agriculture.

Those of us that have figured out how to grow crops and livestock in a sustainable manner should be happy to see the CAFO boys and their industrial backers get whacked on the nose.

The only reason the factory farms are able to produce food so cheaply is they externalize their costs (contaminated water, fouled air, unhealthy food, damage to the social fabric of rural communities) onto the rest of society.

If those costs are included in their products like they should be in a functioning market economy, then the family farm is going to be a lot more competitive with them again.

Regulations have never been the problem for farmers where I live, it's low prices. Industrialized agriculture (and the federal government's skewed ag policy) is to blame for low prices, not the EPA and regulation.

The EPA is welcome on my farm any time, because I don't make a mess of my neighborhood.
Unless your plowing with a team and a plow you whittled from a tree trunk, I would suspect that you've got input costs that will increase. You must live somewhere really crappy if you've got all of the problems you've cited. I agree with your dislike of ag policy. I think a massive weaning would be best for the long haul.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
badaxemoo said:
Sandhusker said:
This is the "change" you libs voted for?

You're damnright it is.

It's about time the playing field got leveled in agriculture.

Those of us that have figured out how to grow crops and livestock in a sustainable manner should be happy to see the CAFO boys and their industrial backers get whacked on the nose.

The only reason the factory farms are able to produce food so cheaply is they externalize their costs (contaminated water, fouled air, unhealthy food, damage to the social fabric of rural communities) onto the rest of society.

If those costs are included in their products like they should be in a functioning market economy, then the family farm is going to be a lot more competitive with them again.

Regulations have never been the problem for farmers where I live, it's low prices. Industrialized agriculture (and the federal government's skewed ag policy) is to blame for low prices, not the EPA and regulation.

The EPA is welcome on my farm any time, because I don't make a mess of my neighborhood.

Perhaps you don't understand that cap and trade is going to raise YOUR costs exponentially?

What's your plan of action when its going to cost you $10/bu to get corn in the bin?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
badaxemoo said:
Sandhusker said:
This is the "change" you libs voted for?

You're damnright it is.

It's about time the playing field got leveled in agriculture.

Those of us that have figured out how to grow crops and livestock in a sustainable manner should be happy to see the CAFO boys and their industrial backers get whacked on the nose.

The only reason the factory farms are able to produce food so cheaply is they externalize their costs (contaminated water, fouled air, unhealthy food, damage to the social fabric of rural communities) onto the rest of society.

If those costs are included in their products like they should be in a functioning market economy, then the family farm is going to be a lot more competitive with them again.

Regulations have never been the problem for farmers where I live, it's low prices. Industrialized agriculture (and the federal government's skewed ag policy) is to blame for low prices, not the EPA and regulation.

The EPA is welcome on my farm any time, because I don't make a mess of my neighborhood.

You are right badax- if cap and trade are done right it could be extra money in the pockets of farmers/ranchers just like the ones now that are subsidizing farm prices with guiding and hunting leases...I know farmers and ranchers now that are already taking advantage of selling carbon credits-making extra money even without the big demand...

My fear on this bill is that they have not given enough areas to gain credits to farm/ranch operations- the reason I've heard Grassley, Peterson, and Stupak all speak out about it...
But if they can get the carbon credits added for grassland, timber, and no till farming-- this could be where the profit margin the farms/ranchs are not getting now in cattle and grain prices come from.. Instead of the subsidies which will soon be gone....
If done right- carbon credits could be the farm subsidies of the future to keep farms sustainable...
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
OT, you haven't considered the huge shot the economy is going to take from cap and trade. Did you happen to notice what happened last year when fuel prices went up? Maybe there is something to be learned there? Just what do you think might happen to beef demand when you take another couple thousand dollars from consumer's pockets? You're really going to thrive on your $10,000 Obama check and 60 cent calves.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
OT, you haven't considered the huge shot the economy is going to take from cap and trade. Did you happen to notice what happened last year when fuel prices went up? Maybe there is something to be learned there? Just what do you think might happen to beef demand when you take another couple thousand dollars from consumer's pockets? You're really going to thrive on your $10,000 Obama check and 60 cent calves.

And the alternative is just the 60 cent calves without the check :???: I see with all the Aussie imports, dairy cow slaughter, and Canadian culling the price is dropping daily on fats and feeders...

If done properly and worked in over a 50 year period--giving the present generating plants years to wear out and build anew-and upgrade with the new technologys- while adding additional sources and a new interlinked power grid- it will be very little cost to the consumer as it will be spread out over generations...And when you compare it to what the oil cartels can do in holding us hostage-which we've seen now several times in the last 30 years- its a small price to pay....
I'd much rather be paying $4 gallon for gas- and have it going to a US energy producer- and US landowners/farmers/ranchers - than having it going into the pockets of Chavez, Ahdumajug, and the Princes of Arabia...

But as ALL the energy producers say- they need a plan- a long term plan- so they know which way to go and which way to invest... Much of the holdup right now is they don't know which way to go.....
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
Cal said:
Unless your plowing with a team and a plow you whittled from a tree trunk, I would suspect that you've got input costs that will increase. You must live somewhere really crappy if you've got all of the problems you've cited. I agree with your dislike of ag policy. I think a massive weaning would be best for the long haul.

True.

But my input costs aren't going to rise nearly as fast as the factory farm boys.

My grass is going to grow the same regardless of what diesel costs.

I don't truck much forage and feed. I hardly purchase any off-farm fertility. I sell my products directly to local consumers. I'm already paying about $10 a bushel for any additional corn I have to buy. Mineral and other off-farm purchases certainly took a big jump in the last few years because of increased shipping, but they don't make up a big part of my budget.

The issue of ag subsidies is one of those tricky ones that doesn't follow party lines, but rather geography. Collin Peterson is a Democrat, but he is in the pocket of Big Ag just as much as a Texas Republican is in the pocket of Big Oil.

For once I'd like to see the urban people who pay for the bulk of farm bill programs rise up and ask for their money's worth.

And actually, I live in a great place where we are fighting to keeping the factory farms out so it stays that way.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
What your saying OT might be fine and dandy BUT the Dems aren't waiting 50 years. With not letting many areas of North America be explored for energy and the high rate of speed they want this implemented it's going to hurt.

What productive source provides the dollars to buy carbon credits?

Is not most of the wealth generated by speculators?

Who does the work and who reaps the rewards?
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
badaxemoo said:
Sandhusker said:
This is the "change" you libs voted for?

You're damnright it is.

It's about time the playing field got leveled in agriculture.

Those of us that have figured out how to grow crops and livestock in a sustainable manner should be happy to see the CAFO boys and their industrial backers get whacked on the nose.

The only reason the factory farms are able to produce food so cheaply is they externalize their costs (contaminated water, fouled air, unhealthy food, damage to the social fabric of rural communities) onto the rest of society.

If those costs are included in their products like they should be in a functioning market economy, then the family farm is going to be a lot more competitive with them again.

Regulations have never been the problem for farmers where I live, it's low prices. Industrialized agriculture (and the federal government's skewed ag policy) is to blame for low prices, not the EPA and regulation.

The EPA is welcome on my farm any time, because I don't make a mess of my neighborhood.

Perhaps you don't understand that cap and trade is going to raise YOUR costs exponentially?

What's your plan of action when its going to cost you $10/bu to get corn in the bin?

Those costs need to be passed on to consumers. And like I said in an earlier post, those costs aren't going to increase as much for me since I have a milder fossil-fuel addiction that those CAFO operators.

We pay a ridiculously low percentage of our income in this country for food.

And what has it gotten us?

A corn-syrup, soybean-laden diet that is going to result in 1/3 of Americans born after 2000 to end up with diabetes sometime during their lives.

How much is that going to cost us in the long run?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
You get the 60 cents and no check and you can operate for one more month. Thank Obama (God) that you got that check.....

Yeah, I agree that we do need an energy plan, but that idiot in the White House doesn't have one! He's doing the typical liberal thing, operating on emotions without going through any thought process as to what his actions might do. This cap and trade deal will wreck us, AND FOR WHAT? What is going to be fixed? Where is the gain?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Well, you would be wrong again Reader.

Here's a couple of question for ya. If big corporate ag. business expenses/input costs increase, who is going to eventually pay that cost?

Who has more control over what they charge for their production/distribution, big business or small family farms?

Who will increase input costs hurt the most, big corporate farms that also own the distribution channels, or the small independent producer?

Heres one more: In any type of carbon credit scheme, who will be position to gain the most? Large coporations, who can afford to let land sit idle, and speculate on the "carbon credit market", or small family farms?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Big Muddy rancher said:
What your saying OT might be fine and dandy BUT the Dems aren't waiting 50 years. With not letting many areas of North America be explored for energy and the high rate of speed they want this implemented it's going to hurt.

What productive source provides the dollars to buy carbon credits?

Is not most of the wealth generated by speculators?

Who does the work and who reaps the rewards?

It will depend on how they set up the sale of the carbon credits- several different ways have been addressed...

And since I haven't followed all the hearings or read the 1000+ pages of the bill- not sure where they are going on that right now.. They've discussed auctions- government allocations- etc.

But I do know there is some concern that not enough credit was being given for Ag and forestry products biomass-- and that even many of the Dems were going to hold out until Ag was better represented....I know Congressman Stupak has been quite vocal on that- and had an amendment he is trying to get added...

And it was my understanding that the cap and trade will be phased in over 45-50 years in the present bill....

I don't really like many of the parts of the Waxman/Markey bill- but with several Dems holding out for more Ag/forestry credits- if some of the Repubs would work with them (instead of just saying NO)- I think they could come up with a liveable bill for Agriculture....I've heard both the Secretarys of Energy and Interior along with the EPA director say they were open to changes and input...Altho old Waxman/Markey are both set in their ways...

But just like former President Carter testified- we've went 30 years without a long term energy plan-been held hostage several times by the oil cartels- and we've paid a fortune to overseas states- which is one of the reasons we have todays huge trade deficit and economic crisis...We can't wait any longer to develop a long term energy plan with the emphasis on removing our dependence on this foreign oil ... And the energy companies need a long term plan so they know which direction to invest into...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
We can't wait any longer to develop a long term energy plan with the emphasis on removing our dependence on this foreign oil ... And the energy companies need a long term plan so they know which direction to invest into...

That's one of the problems. This administration is rushing everything through, so they can stick the feather in their cap. They don't care if it is a good plan or not, they just want a plan, any plan.

Any poorly written energy policy will only be a tool for the large coporations etc. to use to their advantage. While increasing the cost of living for the average joe.

DC is heavily reliant on campaign contributions from those very same corporations. They won't bite the hand.

The first step in any plan for energy, health care etc. should be to distance themselves from the the control of those corporations and banks.

Taxpayer funded elections, based on votes received in the previous election, would be a start. So Obama would get 52.7% of the pool, for 2012, and the Repubs would get 47.3%, at a rate of $2(or whatever amount set) per vote.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
We can't wait any longer to develop a long term energy plan with the emphasis on removing our dependence on this foreign oil ... And the energy companies need a long term plan so they know which direction to invest into...

That's one of the problems. This administration is rushing everything through, so they can stick the feather in their cap. They don't care if it is a good plan or not, they just want a plan, any plan.

30 years of working on a plan is rushing it through :???: Obama has had a basic plan for over 2 years- and the people voted for that plan- and now they have brought in the experts who have worked for 30 years on plans to add their ideas to it...

I thought old Jimmy Carter was a dufus when he was President- but when they replayed his taped speeches of what would happen if we didn't develop a longterm energy plan back when he proposed it-- he looked like a genius- because everything he predicted- including fighting oil wars- has come true.....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
reader (the Second) said:
hypocritexposer said:
We can't wait any longer to develop a long term energy plan with the emphasis on removing our dependence on this foreign oil ... And the energy companies need a long term plan so they know which direction to invest into...

That's one of the problems. This administration is rushing everything through, so they can stick the feather in their cap. They don't care if it is a good plan or not, they just want a plan, any plan.

Any poorly written energy policy will only be a tool for the large coporations etc. to use to their advantage. While increasing the cost of living for the average joe.

DC is heavily reliant on campaign contributions from those very same corporations. They won't bite the hand.

The first step in any plan for energy, health care etc. should be to distance themselves from the the control of those corporations and banks.

Taxpayer funded elections, based on votes received in the previous election, would be a start. So Obama would get 52.7% of the pool, for 2012, and the Repubs would get 47.3%, at a rate of $2(or whatever amount set) per vote.

This guy who calls himself hypocrit is a paid shill, it's becoming more and more apparent.

Yep- makes you wonder if that is the reason for his anonymity- not even providing info on what country he lives in (Canada ?) or what he does for a living.....
 

jodywy

Well-known member
½ our electricity is generated with coal and ½ of that is cleaner burning coal from Campbell County Wyoming. With a 100 million tons of coal a day going to all 50 states.The new dry Fork coal generation plant sits on 160 acres next to the coal mine were it will get its coal and use 640 acres in the mines reclamation for ash. The coal plant will capture all Sulfur and Mercury the only thing going out the stack will be Carbon, It is a 484 megawatt plant. To replace that with wind will take up to 15,000 acres with gravel road built to county specks. So you will have gravel pits and miles of roads for a system that is not as efficient.
There are hundreds of ranchers or members of their families working in the mines from Wyoming Montana and South Dakota. Companies making big equipment for the mines in the Midwest. We are going to phase out these jobs that produce cheap energy and replace some of them with so called green jobs hauling gravel for inefficient wind farm roads….
 
Top