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

What qualifies for farm subsidies is an outrage.

PORKER

Well-known member
Farms Need Rain, But This Is RidiculousWhat qualifies for farm subsidies is an outrage.

By Deroy Murdock

As the Senate debates a five-year, $286 billion agriculture-subsidy extravaganza, consider the heartwarming rhetoric about saving family farms. Who ever imagined such families included the Rockefellers?

Murdock: Farms Need Rain, But This Is Ridiculous
As the Environmental Working Group’s priceless Farm Subsidy Database reveals, philanthropist Mark Rockefeller received $228,350 in conservation subsidies between 2001 and 2005 for his Idaho farm. His brother, banking legend David Rockefeller, scored $29,615, thanks to his Hudson Valley farm.

Edgar Bronfman Sr., former CEO of the now-swallowed Seagram spirits company, distilled $17,455 in taxpayer-funded farm subsidies between 2003 and 2005.

Manhattan, it turns out, is farm country. The Rockefellers and Bronfman are just three of the 562 New Yorkers EWG identified as urban farmers who Washington supported between 2003 and 2005. These New Yorkers included:

Nevitt Nugent Jenkins: $1,647
Brock Seawell: $2,939
Leonard “Lipstick Mogul” Lauder: $3,015
Grant Thornbrough: $29,523
Norman Champ III: $127,114

Cordelia Trost enjoyed $7,261 in corn, wheat, and soybean subsidies between 1995 and 2005. Although we both live in the 10003 Zip Code, I have yet to glimpse either her tractor or crop duster in our East Village habitat.

Urban farmers thrive beyond Gotham. California’s biggest agricultural welfare queen is Constance Bowles Peabody, 88. Between 2003 and 2005, Uncle Sam sent this resident of San Francisco’s posh Pacific Heights community $1,210,865, mainly in cotton subsidies. Her late brother, George, received $1,190,024 during those years. He also was a director of the San Francisco Opera and a distinguished collector of antique British porcelain.

“They still mail us a check every year for $40,000 — for something,” Mrs. Bowles’ son, Philip, who runs the family’s 13,000-acre farm, told the San Francisco Chronicle. “I have no idea what it is.”

EWG discovered 529 urban farmers in Los Angeles, including 82 in Beverly Hills 90210, who harvested $2,857,159 from Uncle Sam between 2003 and 2005. The sands of Miami Beach proved fertile for 13 farmers who cultivated $126,754. And in Washington, D.C. itself, $3,140,170 in USDA checks barely traveled to reach their 533 recipients.

Patrician planters aside, one need not be alive to receive farm subsidies. The estate of beloved comedian Jack Benny collected $18,120 in disaster subsidies in 2005, 31 years after his death. EWG identified 918 estates that inherited federal farm largesse.

The USDA “cannot be assured that it is not making improper payments to deceased individuals,” the Government Accountability Office concluded July 24. While USDA allows posthumous disbursements for up to two years, GAO found that between 1999 and 2005, USDA paid 69,120 individuals who had been dead at least three years. It also funded 32,832 Americans who had been dead seven years, or more.

But being a human, even an expired one, is no requirement to gobble farm gravy.

MeadWestvaco, which generated $6.17 billion in net sales in 2005, reaped $36,358 in farm pork between 2003 and 2005, including $35,058 from the Conservation Reserve Program, which pays farmers not to grow crops. Fittingly enough, a grassy median bisects Park Avenue, right outside the Manhattan offices from which MeadWestvaco doesn’t farm.

The East Village-based National Audubon Society absorbed $370,043 in wheat, corn, cotton, and even tobacco subsidies between 1995 and 2005.

America’s fourth largest farm-aid recipient is not some rugged farmer in overalls and a straw hat atop his sandy hair. In fact, it is Arkansas’s Department of Corrections, which locked up $1,966,597 in government greenbacks between 2003 and 2005. This included $278,304 in “Total Storage” payments.

Heritage Foundation fiscal affairs analyst Brian Riedl calculates that these boondoggles cost a typical American family $322 in taxes annually. Farm programs often hike crop prices, artificially boosting grocery bills.

The entire farm program is an internationally embarrassing, jaw-droppingly profligate, hopelessly unfocused system of fiscal promiscuity. It defies explanation and now threatens to vacuum another $286 billion from Americans’ already weary wallets.

“Those of us in farm country don’t know about the big city, and we’re not about to tell [editorial writers] what to do. But [they] don’t have a clue about agriculture, and they should keep out of our business,” Rep. Collin Peterson (D., Minn.), House Agriculture Committee Chairman, has said. “We’d all be better off.”


Let’s make a deal, Congressman: Keep out of our pockets, and we’ll keep out of farming.
 

mrj

Well-known member
One point among many which indicate the lack of knowledge about farming and estates of deceased persons is the fact that for many and diverse reasons it may take a number of years for an estate to be settled and closed.

The farm payment is NOT going to a deceased person, but to the legal farming entity entrapped by that most onerous and costly to collect tax, the Estate Tax (more correctly: Death Tax).

Very likely, there are several family members struggling not just with the death of a loved one, but also with the frustrations of trying to make a living running a family farm while coping with trying to pay the Death Tax due and carrying out the wishes of the deceased.

But, for some people, it seems to be fun as well as politically correct to make it appear anyone collecting federal ag subsidies is simply getting gravy from Uncle Sam while sitting in some resort waiting for the next check.

mrj
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Looks like Alberta Canucks are dipping in too.....

10/23/2007 8:04:00 AM


Alberta Producers To Receive Transitional Help During Difficult Times

Edmonton... Alberta producers will receive $165 million in transitional assistance to help offset rising costs facing the livestock sector.

The new Alberta Farm Recovery Plan (AFRP) will address the economic strain brought on by the rising costs of fuel, feed and fertilizer.



“The Alberta Farm Recovery Plan will provide transitional, short-term assistance primarily to the livestock sector at the producer level to help adjust to these economic challenges,” said George Groeneveld, Minister of Alberta Agriculture and Food. “The Government of Alberta will continue to work with and support our producers and this plan is only a temporary bridge to a long-term, more sustainable solution. Our expectation is that industry will develop their own long-term transformation plan for establishing profitability and revitalization in the agriculture sector.”



Delivery of the Alberta Farm Recovery Plan will commence early November, with an expected completion date in early 2008 for all eligible producers. Payments will be based on the 2006 Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization (CAIS) program information. For producers who are in the CAIS program, the calculations will be automatic and they will not need to submit an application. Producers who do not participate in CAIS will have until December 31, 2007 to apply. Complete program details will be made available to producers shortly.



The Alberta Farm Recovery Plan is part of Premier Ed Stelmach’s plan to build a strong Alberta. Other priorities for the government are to govern with integrity and transparency, manage growth pressures, and improve Albertans’ quality of life.
 

TSR

Well-known member
mrj said:
One point among many which indicate the lack of knowledge about farming and estates of deceased persons is the fact that for many and diverse reasons it may take a number of years for an estate to be settled and closed.

The farm payment is NOT going to a deceased person, but to the legal farming entity entrapped by that most onerous and costly to collect tax, the Estate Tax (more correctly: Death Tax).

Very likely, there are several family members struggling not just with the death of a loved one, but also with the frustrations of trying to make a living running a family farm while coping with trying to pay the Death Tax due and carrying out the wishes of the deceased.

But, for some people, it seems to be fun as well as politically correct to make it appear anyone collecting federal ag subsidies is simply getting gravy from Uncle Sam while sitting in some resort waiting for the next check.

mrj

I don't know about sitting in a resort waiting for the next check but I do know that many have gotten rich with the help of the subsidies, the bigger you are the more money you get. All one has to do is go to the EWG site and click on your state and county and look at who has gotten what over the last 5 years. It doesn't take rocket scientist to tell what 's "going on".
 

Tex

Well-known member
I am from Texas. I don't know how many fields of cotton I have seen with oil or gas wells on them. These are large fields. I have seen some fields where the royalties reach from $30,000.00 per month to over a million dollars a month.

The owners of these fields also qualify for cotton subsidies.

It is just another form of welfare that is not being properly managed. The Farm Bureau, and other big ag. groups still support payments for these uneccessary subsidies without looking at the whole picture. Funny thing is, the land owners many times don't even do the farming.


And yes, mrj, there are examples like you mention. That still doesn't make it right.

mrj, on one gas well that is producing a million cubic feet of gas a day, the gross at the current spot of $6/thousand means 6 thousand a day. The royalty part of that is usually about 1/4 and if you own all the land in the section, that amounts to 6 thousand x .25 x 30 days. That is a total of 45,000 per month in royalties on one gas well. In a lot of these fields, the wells can be one every 20 acres.

Not means testing for crop handouts is a government waste of money to the rich.

And as I said, there are still examples like you mention.
 

mrj

Well-known member
TSR, what criteria do you use to judge, from the EWG site, that someone collecting subsidies has "too big" a farming operation. Also, how do you determine the profit or loss from that farming operation, which BTW, most likely PRODUCES a very large amount of whichever crop they raise. How do you, personally determine how many people in a "family" comprise the work force on the farm or otherwise depend upon it for their living when deciding from reading EWG which are "too big"? I'd like to know that formula, in case it would work as well while driving through an area and noticing nice "toys" parked in farmsteads, for instance.

If means testing is to be required for farm subsidies (and personally, I prefer they be eliminated altogether, in most countries in the world), shouldn't that be the case for all government subsidies. Individuals, even entire states or regions with wealth above a certain level would not receive hiway subsidies, nor any other government assistance, etc.

MAYBE we could feed this nation and much of the rest of the world with small farms, but who is going to determine what is "too big". I'm sorry to say, quite a number of farmers and ranchers seem to think anything larger than their own is one of those evil "too big" outfits.

We don't have the biggest ranch, nor do we aspire to, however, we certainly do appreciate some of the huge ranches for the work they have been able to achieve to improve the cattle business and which has 'trickled down' to benefit the cattle business in general, including many small ranches whose owners used the opportunity rather than belittled the "big ranchers".

Tex, how do you determine who owns the mineral rights by driving by a certain piece of property? Not saying you don't know about the particular instance you cite, only that often people do assume the holder or current owner of the land is getting rich off the wells one sees, when that is not always the case. We knew one such owner who said the nuisance payment did not make up the true cost to him of someone else removing minerals on land he owned, but didn't own mineral rights under it.

It just bothers me to have people so sure they know all about the business of others, when that is very seldom the case, even in relatively close relationships. All too often, 'community knowledge' is way off base, IME. And even more often, the claimed knowledge is used to 'badmouth' the person suspected to be 'better off than the one making the claim.

mrj

mrj
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Nobody has to determine what is too big - Putting a cap on payments ($100,000) and disqualifying anybody with an urban address is a good start.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Doesn't your bank have any customers that cap would harm?

I could agree with capping ag subsidies for those who have few or no family members contributing the majority of the labor, but am not so sure about anything more until and unless there are fewer restrictions on farmers, better yet to end all onerous regulation of farmers and all subsidies, not just farm ones.

mrj
 

Tex

Well-known member
mrj said:
TSR, what criteria do you use to judge, from the EWG site, that someone collecting subsidies has "too big" a farming operation. Also, how do you determine the profit or loss from that farming operation, which BTW, most likely PRODUCES a very large amount of whichever crop they raise. How do you, personally determine how many people in a "family" comprise the work force on the farm or otherwise depend upon it for their living when deciding from reading EWG which are "too big"? I'd like to know that formula, in case it would work as well while driving through an area and noticing nice "toys" parked in farmsteads, for instance.

If means testing is to be required for farm subsidies (and personally, I prefer they be eliminated altogether, in most countries in the world), shouldn't that be the case for all government subsidies. Individuals, even entire states or regions with wealth above a certain level would not receive hiway subsidies, nor any other government assistance, etc.

MAYBE we could feed this nation and much of the rest of the world with small farms, but who is going to determine what is "too big". I'm sorry to say, quite a number of farmers and ranchers seem to think anything larger than their own is one of those evil "too big" outfits.

We don't have the biggest ranch, nor do we aspire to, however, we certainly do appreciate some of the huge ranches for the work they have been able to achieve to improve the cattle business and which has 'trickled down' to benefit the cattle business in general, including many small ranches whose owners used the opportunity rather than belittled the "big ranchers".

Tex, how do you determine who owns the mineral rights by driving by a certain piece of property? Not saying you don't know about the particular instance you cite, only that often people do assume the holder or current owner of the land is getting rich off the wells one sees, when that is not always the case. We knew one such owner who said the nuisance payment did not make up the true cost to him of someone else removing minerals on land he owned, but didn't own mineral rights under it.

It just bothers me to have people so sure they know all about the business of others, when that is very seldom the case, even in relatively close relationships. All too often, 'community knowledge' is way off base, IME. And even more often, the claimed knowledge is used to 'badmouth' the person suspected to be 'better off than the one making the claim.

mrj

mrj

mrj, the examples I cited were real examples, not just made up examples. I know who owns the mineral rights and who owns the land. They are one in the same. You have only come up with hypothetical examples. I think I have the edge with you on that one.

There is no wealth consideration or income limits as I understand the bills right now. I don't think the U.S. taxpayer should totally subsidize anyone.

All welfare should be means tested. I believe that. You may not. I don't believe in taxing the public and giving that tax to wealthy people. It is a transfer of wealth that is not justified.

Just because you can't tell if someone owns mineral rights that are making tons of money and the land (or money in the cable business) also, doesn't mean you shouldn't find out. Giving away taxpayer dollars to support commodity overproduction instead of the stated goal of risk reduction for those on the margin needs to be addressed. I don't think people making millions outside of agriculture should also get the "safety net" that subsidies are supposed to provide. It isn't the reason for subsidies, it is the result of a poorly planned "safety net".

If a super large farmer can't make it without subsidies (at least with a limit), then maybe he/she should sell some land or find another use for it.

One large farmer that owns much of the county is not as good as 400 small ones.

Welfare is means tested. So should agriculture subsidies. There should be caps on it in my opinion and very wealthy people don't need my taxpayer money.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Tex, the example I cited was "real", and I know of others equally "real"....so why did you state that my example was "hypothetical" or "made up"?

Contrary to what you imply, I've spoken against government redistribution of wealth via ag and other subsidies. I simply do not believe everything posted on the EWG website is accurate nor that you or anyone else can determine who does and who does not deserve subsidies available and proper UNDER EXISTING LAW. If agriculture was not crippled under so many over zealous regulations, game playing with crop rules, unfair competitions from other subsidized nations, and other subsidized industries in this country, US ag subsidies would not be necessary.

I've seen Texas maps. Some of your counties look too small for 400 farms. Wouldn't be enough work there to make an honest days' labor for many of the owners!!!!

YOu really do sound like econ!

mrj
 

Tex

Well-known member
mrj said:
Tex, the example I cited was "real", and I know of others equally "real"....so why did you state that my example was "hypothetical" or "made up"?

Contrary to what you imply, I've spoken against government redistribution of wealth via ag and other subsidies. I simply do not believe everything posted on the EWG website is accurate nor that you or anyone else can determine who does and who does not deserve subsidies available and proper UNDER EXISTING LAW. If agriculture was not crippled under so many over zealous regulations, game playing with crop rules, unfair competitions from other subsidized nations, and other subsidized industries in this country, US ag subsidies would not be necessary.

YOu really do sound like econ!

mrj

So this is like the waterboarding question Mukasey is being given.

Do you or do you not believe people who receive millions on their mineral rights should get cotton subsidies also?
 

Mrs.Greg

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Looks like Alberta Canucks are dipping in too.....

10/23/2007 8:04:00 AM


Alberta Producers To Receive Transitional Help During Difficult Times

Edmonton... Alberta producers will receive $165 million in transitional assistance to help offset rising costs facing the livestock sector.

The new Alberta Farm Recovery Plan (AFRP) will address the economic strain brought on by the rising costs of fuel, feed and fertilizer.



“The Alberta Farm Recovery Plan will provide transitional, short-term assistance primarily to the livestock sector at the producer level to help adjust to these economic challenges,” said George Groeneveld, Minister of Alberta Agriculture and Food. “The Government of Alberta will continue to work with and support our producers and this plan is only a temporary bridge to a long-term, more sustainable solution. Our expectation is that industry will develop their own long-term transformation plan for establishing profitability and revitalization in the agriculture sector.”



Delivery of the Alberta Farm Recovery Plan will commence early November, with an expected completion date in early 2008 for all eligible producers. Payments will be based on the 2006 Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization (CAIS) program information. For producers who are in the CAIS program, the calculations will be automatic and they will not need to submit an application. Producers who do not participate in CAIS will have until December 31, 2007 to apply. Complete program details will be made available to producers shortly.



The Alberta Farm Recovery Plan is part of Premier Ed Stelmach’s plan to build a strong Alberta. Other priorities for the government are to govern with integrity and transparency, manage growth pressures, and improve Albertans’ quality of life.
SIGHHHH,OT I've explained this to you before....its an insurance type thing,not a subsidy,we PAY into this program
 

Tex

Well-known member
mrj said:
Tex, the example I cited was "real", and I know of others equally "real"....so why did you state that my example was "hypothetical" or "made up"?

Contrary to what you imply, I've spoken against government redistribution of wealth via ag and other subsidies. I simply do not believe everything posted on the EWG website is accurate nor that you or anyone else can determine who does and who does not deserve subsidies available and proper UNDER EXISTING LAW. If agriculture was not crippled under so many over zealous regulations, game playing with crop rules, unfair competitions from other subsidized nations, and other subsidized industries in this country, US ag subsidies would not be necessary.

I've seen Texas maps. Some of your counties look too small for 400 farms. Wouldn't be enough work there to make an honest days' labor for many of the owners!!!!

YOu really do sound like econ!

mrj

mrj, I accepted your possible "examples". You questioned mine. Is this the way you enter all discourse?

You seem to want to always make up new reasons to justify your biases. Now you cite overzealous regulations, international subsidies, game playing with crop rules and existing laws.

You have seen Texas maps :lol: :roll: and now you make an assumption about the number of agricultural producers who can fit in a county! I will grant you that some Texas counties have NO agricultural producers! I also grant that some of the more arid counties can not sustain a larger number of producers. On a personal note here, just to strike home the point, I once dated a girl who was at the top of her class. She was from West Texas. There were only 4 in her class.

Do you want to answer the question or just keep going off?

Do you support agricultural subsidies to the wealthy or a limit on the amount of a subsidy one can receive?
 

mrj

Well-known member
Tex, I've stated quite clearly that I'd prefer all subsidies to all industries and entities end.

I don't like the idea of government saying who can and who cannot farm, own land, farm, whatever. Over the years I've been posting on this site, both the old and the new versions, I've mentioned many times that the overzealous, burdensome regulations on agriculture, all too many of which have been promoted by environmental extremists and others who would like to and animal agriculture in the USA, are a very real drag on family farmers and ranchers. If, in your mind, that makes me biased, and leaves you on your unbiased pedestal, so be it.

Means testing should be all or nothing. It seems wrong to not allow legitimate farming operations, whatever the size, whatever the other assets or income of the owner, to partake of government programs UNLESS we want to go to socialized government in the USA. That seems guaranteed to equalize all of us DOWN to the lowest common denominator of farming, society, education and everything else. I don't believe that is a good solution to current real and perceived problems.

I was not questionning your examples, but pointing out the alternative, which, unless I missed it, you did NOT do.

I've driven across a large share of the counties in TX numerable times, as well as being a bit knowledgeable about some of the larger ranches. It is probably a bit similar to SD. When our counties were organized after 1889 statehood, the design was to have the county seat within a day's wagon drive of each landowner in each county......and very likely, too, to satisfy political aspirations of a few residents. The 'wagons' of today can travel a lot faster, yet we cling to tradition and maintain numerous counties, which is very wasteful of our hard earned tax dollars.

Yeah, TX, I've known a few people who were disdained as being tops in a class of very few students.......till they went to tough universities and maintained top grades there as well.

Before I can answer your question, I will need your definition of "wealthy". Chances are, caps are going to go on, no matter the opinion of either of us on the matter, since it is politically expedient at this point in time. And, as is often the case, it well may be a matter of a surprising number of farmers being very sorry they were not more careful with their 'wishes'.

mrj
 

Mike

Well-known member
Do you support agricultural subsidies to the wealthy or a limit on the amount of a subsidy one can receive?

There is a limit on the amount one entity can receive now. I think $265,000.00 is the limit?

Trouble is when you form a Corporation, a new entity is born, giving the original entity the limit times two, so forth, and so forth.............

I have a neighbor who has formed at least 25 different corporations who gets subsidies, and he can carry each one of those checks to his bank.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Means testing should be all or nothing. It seems wrong to not allow legitimate farming operations, whatever the size, whatever the other assets or income of the owner, to partake of government programs UNLESS we want to go to socialized government in the USA.



What a leap you make here, mrj. Either it is your way of having no means testing or we have socialized government.

I just will not let you get away with that.

When government messes with the markets (sometimes for good social reasons) it is Socialized (by your silly definition). If there are any subsidies, there is socialization. It is socialized already!!! My view is that we should not give taxpayer money to people who are rich. Period. Your argument is this term "socialized government", without even realizing what it means, to justify paying taxpayer money to wealthy people.



Now, back to the question.

Do you believe taxpayer funds should be given to wealthy people?

Yes or no.



To get to the conclusion I come to you have to know the reason these subsidies exist in the first place. I am afraid you just ignore those reasons. The reason is that farmers produce essential products whose price is not known until after the harvest and have risks beyond their control like weather, disease etc.

Subsidies are a safety net for these risks so that we will still have investment in agriculture and in our food supply, despite huge risks. Subsidies help provide a floor to prices farmers get when they are really good at what they do and overproduce their products. Because food is inelastic, when you produce more, the market can actually get less profit than if the market produced more.

It is antithetical that we would have no ceiling on the amount of the subsidies---it may put you in the exact place the market shouldn't be in from the producer's perspective---that is--- overproduction and prices per unit that are not profitable.

Now I know the cheap food policy people want cheap food as do all those in the supply chain after the farmer producer. When that does happen, we end up with constant oversupply with the main producers not making enough money to help their communities thrive. The problem is exacerbated when there is only one farmer or just a few farmers doing all the work and making all the money from farming. A few families making all the money compared to larger number of families, have less purchasing demand for consumer items. It is not enough to sustain the small businesses in town and consequently, the town dries up.

That is one real reason a cap on the amount given to an entity in subsidies is needed. It has a social value of helping towns thrive, not die. It also doesn't help the rich get richer with the help of taxpayer money in addition keeping more different people in the business so there is competition.

Giving these "subsidies" without limits to large farmers only exacerbate the problems of oversupply. It is in the food industry's interest to do this but not the farmer's interest as it is their raw material.

Sooo....

Do you believe in giving taxpayer money to rich people in the form of subsidies with no limit?
 

TSR

Well-known member
mrj said:
TSR, what criteria do you use to judge, from the EWG site, that someone collecting subsidies has "too big" a farming operation. Also, how do you determine the profit or loss from that farming operation, which BTW, most likely PRODUCES a very large amount of whichever crop they raise. How do you, personally determine how many people in a "family" comprise the work force on the farm or otherwise depend upon it for their living when deciding from reading EWG which are "too big"? I'd like to know that formula, in case it would work as well while driving through an area and noticing nice "toys" parked in farmsteads, for instance.

If means testing is to be required for farm subsidies (and personally, I prefer they be eliminated altogether, in most countries in the world), shouldn't that be the case for all government subsidies. Individuals, even entire states or regions with wealth above a certain level would not receive hiway subsidies, nor any other government assistance, etc.

MAYBE we could feed this nation and much of the rest of the world with small farms, but who is going to determine what is "too big". I'm sorry to say, quite a number of farmers and ranchers seem to think anything larger than their own is one of those evil "too big" outfits.

We don't have the biggest ranch, nor do we aspire to, however, we certainly do appreciate some of the huge ranches for the work they have been able to achieve to improve the cattle business and which has 'trickled down' to benefit the cattle business in general, including many small ranches whose owners used the opportunity rather than belittled the "big ranchers".

Tex, how do you determine who owns the mineral rights by driving by a certain piece of property? Not saying you don't know about the particular instance you cite, only that often people do assume the holder or current owner of the land is getting rich off the wells one sees, when that is not always the case. We knew one such owner who said the nuisance payment did not make up the true cost to him of someone else removing minerals on land he owned, but didn't own mineral rights under it.

It just bothers me to have people so sure they know all about the business of others, when that is very seldom the case, even in relatively close relationships. All too often, 'community knowledge' is way off base, IME. And even more often, the claimed knowledge is used to 'badmouth' the person suspected to be 'better off than the one making the claim.

mrj

First off, I didn't use the term "too big",you did. But I guess that would be analogous to what is beautiful- it would be in the eye of the beholder, if indeed there is such a thing as "too big" with respect to ranches/farms.
Regarding subsidies,everyone is free to go to the EWG site and make up their own mind aren't they?
Oh I don't like badmouthing either(I wonder if anyone who read my posting interpreted it that way, other than you) I have personal friends, now retired, that farmed 2-3000 acres that are my source for how much the subsidies benefitted them.

mrj
 

Tex

Well-known member
Mike said:
Do you support agricultural subsidies to the wealthy or a limit on the amount of a subsidy one can receive?

There is a limit on the amount one entity can receive now. I think $265,000.00 is the limit?

Trouble is when you form a Corporation, a new entity is born, giving the original entity the limit times two, so forth, and so forth.............

I have a neighbor who has formed at least 25 different corporations who gets subsidies, and he can carry each one of those checks to his bank.


You are right, Mike. Lawyers can advise clients in how to do this "fraud". It should be stopped and they lawyers who help develop these kind of legal frauds should be held accountable instead of selling their services to commit fraud. This was one of the big issues to those who were suing Enron. They should be able to go after all who participate in a fraud and not be limited. The Supreme Court seems to have decided otherwise. I guess it is their way of protecting the fraud in our society for rich people. It is another example of the streak of fascism in our judicial system.
 
Top