Criticism rains on Obama's farm subsidy cut idea

[Peikko 1,575]

Perhaps it's time to pay properly for the food we eat instead of expecting something for nothing?

who is expecting something for nothing?

If the land becomes more valuable as farm land, then it will be profitable to buy it and clear it of any structures. Right now most land is much more valuable for housing, since we have more farm land than we need. The markets will determine the price.

not going to happen. it's a loss of tax revenue for the local government. farm land has a far lower tax rate.

Most people are in the Western world. The % of income spent on food these days is less than 10 for most people, that's a reduction of about 50% from only 60 years ago. Basically, we don't pay enough for our food so farmers do not get adequately paid for producing something worth eating for the most part. Most money in the food industry is made by manufacturers creating high sodium, high fat, high calorie, low nutritional rubbish for the consumer.

You guys talk about taking responsibility, but given a prime opportunity to do so, no one really wants to. Nothing wrong with making a profit out of messing with our food to make it virtually poisonous all in the name of consumption, but pay the farmer a decent price for properly produced good raw ingredients? Not a chance.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

Perhaps it's time to pay properly for the food we eat instead of expecting something for nothing?

who is expecting something for nothing?

If the land becomes more valuable as farm land, then it will be profitable to buy it and clear it of any structures. Right now most land is much more valuable for housing, since we have more farm land than we need. The markets will determine the price.

not going to happen. it's a loss of tax revenue for the local government. farm land has a far lower tax rate.

Most people are in the Western world. The % of income spent on food these days is less than 10 for most people, that's a reduction of about 50% from only 60 years ago. Basically, we don't pay enough for our food so farmers do not get adequately paid for producing something worth eating for the most part. Most money in the food industry is made by manufacturers creating high sodium, high fat, high calorie, low nutritional rubbish for the consumer.

You guys talk about taking responsibility, but given a prime opportunity to do so, no one really wants to. Nothing wrong with making a profit out of messing with our food to make it virtually poisonous all in the name of consumption, but pay the farmer a decent price for properly produced good raw ingredients? Not a chance.

i'm not disagreeing with you, ph. while i don't think farming should lead to being independently wealthy, i do think we take many things for granted, like our cornucopia at the supermarkets. when is the last time you heard a kid say they wanted to be a farmer when they grew up?

[Peikko 1,575]

If it's anything like the UK, they don't want to. Most UK farmers are pension age. Very strange and sad too.

What is interesting about the majority of them too, is how much pride they do take in their work despite the low returns and poor rewards. They want to produce good food but find it increasingly difficult to do so. They work incredibly long hours too, hours that most people would consider loony.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

If it's anything like the UK, they don't want to. Most UK farmers are pension age. Very strange and sad too.

What is interesting about the majority of them too, is how much pride they do take in their work despite the low returns and poor rewards. They want to produce good food but find it increasingly difficult to do so. They work incredibly long hours too, hours that most people would consider loony.

[HAL 9000 96]

Why should we subsidize farmers who can't profitably produce their products? If another country can produce the same food for less money, why shouldn't we just buy from them? Isn't that the whole idea of free trade?

It seems to me, the only really reason we subsidize small farms is because of the sorta romanticized ideal of American life they represent.

great thinking, i'm sure that would work real well when some country cuts off our food supply in order to strong arm us.

I'm sure you could probably then give your business to another country then. Or *gasp* pay more for it at home. The magic of trade.

it would be wiser to keep the money in country. trade shouldn't compromise a county's national security.

Foreign genetic engineers are feverishly working on growing crops that only target to poison Americans.

didn't say that, are you taking a course in wild tangents?

surely you realize that when countries control the food supply to another country, they are in a position to dictate.

Shhhhh! Just playing on your national security bit since this thread is about something else.

Not that Americans could stand to slim down a little, but that is another thread for another time and actually quite unrelated to our baby tangent being born here.

I do apologize as well... I must go subsidize some viral titers among some cells that will help me amplify the viral population.

so do you or do you not acknowledge there is an inherent danger to being dependent on other countries for food?

Only an idiot nation would rely wholly on other nations for its food supply.

Your question is at best a little irrelevant and unrealistic.

[HAL 9000 96]

I think we are all mostly on the same wavelength on this issue. We just need to be certain that these tax phaseouts really do target those that do not need them before claiming they do the opposite or include more than the intended target group.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

THat's why

RUSH said,"I HOPE OBAMA FAIL."

Obama is like a Piper, leading us to the River.

And Rush is douche bag, leading all the douche bags to vinegar.

[Peikko 1,575]

I think there is something inherently schizophrenic about farming to be honest, particularly in the US.

On the one hand, we have this notion that everything that is bought and sold should be minimally regulated to allow market forces to determine conditions and yet most people are acutely aware that food production is a sensitive subject, one can't be seen to be holding the people hostage for basic commodities.

At the same time, once the raw materials have been grown and are sold of to food processors at prices that don't sustain the farmer in order to create 'added value' products suddenly food production becomes 'market driven' and creates huge profits for the companies despite the fact that for the most part, the products that are produced are pretty low in nutritional value aside from providing basic calories.

In other words, the food chain is completely nuts.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

Why should we subsidize farmers who can't profitably produce their products? If another country can produce the same food for less money, why shouldn't we just buy from them? Isn't that the whole idea of free trade?

It seems to me, the only really reason we subsidize small farms is because of the sorta romanticized ideal of American life they represent.

great thinking, i'm sure that would work real well when some country cuts off our food supply in order to strong arm us.

I'm sure you could probably then give your business to another country then. Or *gasp* pay more for it at home. The magic of trade.

it would be wiser to keep the money in country. trade shouldn't compromise a county's national security.

Foreign genetic engineers are feverishly working on growing crops that only target to poison Americans.

didn't say that, are you taking a course in wild tangents?

surely you realize that when countries control the food supply to another country, they are in a position to dictate.

Shhhhh! Just playing on your national security bit since this thread is about something else.

Not that Americans could stand to slim down a little, but that is another thread for another time and actually quite unrelated to our baby tangent being born here.

I do apologize as well... I must go subsidize some viral titers among some cells that will help me amplify the viral population.

so do you or do you not acknowledge there is an inherent danger to being dependent on other countries for food?

Only an idiot nation would rely wholly on other nations for its food supply.

Your question is at best a little irrelevant and unrealistic.

not irrelevant or unrealistic, as some see no problem whatsoever with that occuring.

[HAL 9000 96]

Why should we subsidize farmers who can't profitably produce their products? If another country can produce the same food for less money, why shouldn't we just buy from them? Isn't that the whole idea of free trade?

It seems to me, the only really reason we subsidize small farms is because of the sorta romanticized ideal of American life they represent.

great thinking, i'm sure that would work real well when some country cuts off our food supply in order to strong arm us.

I'm sure you could probably then give your business to another country then. Or *gasp* pay more for it at home. The magic of trade.

it would be wiser to keep the money in country. trade shouldn't compromise a county's national security.

Foreign genetic engineers are feverishly working on growing crops that only target to poison Americans.

didn't say that, are you taking a course in wild tangents?

surely you realize that when countries control the food supply to another country, they are in a position to dictate.

Shhhhh! Just playing on your national security bit since this thread is about something else.

Not that Americans could stand to slim down a little, but that is another thread for another time and actually quite unrelated to our baby tangent being born here.

I do apologize as well... I must go subsidize some viral titers among some cells that will help me amplify the viral population.

so do you or do you not acknowledge there is an inherent danger to being dependent on other countries for food?

Only an idiot nation would rely wholly on other nations for its food supply.

Your question is at best a little irrelevant and unrealistic.

not irrelevant or unrealistic, as some see no problem whatsoever with that occuring.

Hmmmm.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Charles,

In the US, farmers consists of approximately less than 3% of the US population.

126000 is alot.

[rin and john 71]

Report on grain markets:

http://www.fas.usda.gov/grain/circular/200...infull01-09.pdf

The production of food is one area where the USA is competitive on a global basis. We produce over 38% of the world's corn and 10% of the world's wheat. We are a net exporter of corn, wheat, and rice. Why continue to subsidize an industry that is globally competitive?

Eliminating the subsidies would increase prices at the supermarket, but by less than 1% for most grain based products (most grain based products have very low costs for the grain portion of the products). For example, an 18-ounce box of corn flakes contains about 12.9 ounces of milled field corn. When field corn is priced at $2.28 per bushel (the 20-year average), the actual value of corn represented in the box of corn flakes is about 3.3 cents (1 bushel = 56 pounds). (The remainder is packaging, processing, advertising, transportation, and other costs.) At $3.40 per bushel, the average price in 2007, the value is about 4.9 cents. The 49-percent increase in corn prices would be expected to raise the price of a box of corn flakes by about 1.6 cents, or 0.5 percent, assuming no other cost increases. The greater impact would be on meat products - beef, chicken, and pork would increase 8.7, 2.5, and 4.1%, with the same change in corn prices.

I agree whole-heartedly that the USA needs to have the ability to be independent on food production. Lots of land and technology provide us that ability. Market supply and demand should dictate whether those resources are used to produce that food, not subsidies.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

Charles,

In the US, farmers consists of approximately less than 3% of the US population.

126000 is alot.

Farming Sales > $500,000 61,300 (number of farms) 3.0% (percentage of farms)

http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/ag101/demographics.html

also note in that linked story:

For the purposes of the U.S. Census, a farm is any establishment which produced and sold, or normally would have produced and sold, $1,000 or more of agricultural products during the year. (Government subsidies are included in sales.) By that definition, there are just over 2.1 million farms in the United States.

It has been estimated that living expenses for the average farm family exceed $47,000 per year. Clearly, many farms that meet the U.S. Census' definition would not produce sufficient income to meet farm family living expenses. In fact, fewer than 1 in 4 of the farms in this country produce gross revenues in excess of $50,000.

[lostinblue 1,989]

In dealing with the beef cattle industry This remark was brought up at a meeting. From the vice President of the Iowa Cattlemen's Association; " government regulations/laws may well have more to do with your success than any other factor"A bit scary.

[mRx 16]

Why should we subsidize farmers who can't profitably produce their products? If another country can produce the same food for less money, why shouldn't we just buy from them? Isn't that the whole idea of free trade?

It's a startling concept but one would assume that maybe the US doesn't have the correct climate to yield certain crops, such as tropical ones like sugar cane. But thanks to heavy regulations via import quotas, tax tariffs, and subsidies we enjoy paying 6X the world average for sugar. Japan does the same thing with rice. It's truly ridiculous.

We don't need to subsidize anything. If foreign competition forces prices down, and American farmers cannot compete, then it's time for them to make the cuts or adjustments necessary to be competitive or else get out of business. It's not time to force Americans to pay more to keep them in business. There is nothing fair or free about that.