$12 Billion in Aid Going to Farmers

[asahi]

@TriPolar

That’s not in opposition to what I’m saying. The size of the farm doesn’t matter, big or small they exist to serve the huge agricultural companies that control the market. The bailout of the farmers just keeps prices low for those big companies.

The bailout of the farmer keeps them from becoming insolvent. Anywhere from 25 - 60% of farms are in danger of going under.

I’m not defending the bailout; I’m arguing that none of this shit is necessary in the first place.

But dude, you’re all kinds of wrong in repeating that Democracy Now Bernie Bro crap that all American farms are owned by mega corporations, and I called you on it. Just own up to the falsity and move on, and all will be well.

I don’t agree with farmers when they vote for Trump, but I respect the fact that they put food on my table, and affordably so. They work 80-100 work weeks and have one of the highest suicide rates of any profession.

[D_Anconia]

@k9bfriender

You said this as if it was a current figure (it is not), and as though it was a figure that would be useful to predict future events (it most certainly is not.)

You said this in response to why a business owner would be worried about current and future effects of tariffs, you said this in response to a poster pointing out that inflation may increase due to tariffs.

The only conclusion to be made as to why you would say such a thing is that you think that inflation is always 2%, or that your comment had absolutely no relevance to the post it was responding to.

None of the above says that I said that inflation is fixed at any rate. It cannot be “fixed”. Please stop misrepresenting what I have said.

[TriPolar]

@asahi

The bailout of the farmer keeps them from becoming insolvent. Anywhere from 25 - 60% of farms are in danger of going under.

I’m not defending the bailout; I’m arguing that none of this shit is necessary in the first place.

But dude, you’re all kinds of wrong in repeating that Democracy Now Bernie Bro crap that all American farms are owned by mega corporations, and I called you on it. Just own up to the falsity and move on, and all will be well.

I don’t agree with farmers when they vote for Trump, but I respect the fact that they put food on my table, and affordably so. They work 80-100 work weeks and have one of the highest suicide rates of any profession.

Point out any place I said mega corporatins owned even one single farm.

[asahi]

@TriPolar

Point out any place I said mega corporatins owned even one single farm.

What was your point, then?

How do tariffs which affect the sale of farm produce impact big agriculture, which are largely responsible for the inputs such as seeds and other materials?

The bailouts are presumably to compensate directly for the loss of sales sustained by farmers, most of which are not a part of “big ag.”

[TriPolar]

@asahi

What was your point, then?

How do tariffs which affect the sale of farm produce impact big agriculture, which are largely responsible for the inputs such as seeds and other materials?

The bailouts are presumably to compensate directly for the loss of sales sustained by farmers, most of which are not a part of “big ag.”

I’ll explain it to you after you apologize for making that false claim about me.

[asahi]

@TriPolar

I’ll explain it to you after you apologize for making that false claim about me.

Okay I apologize for not understanding your position, though I’m not sure how else I was supposed to interpret it.

Anyhow, I apologize.

Now, would you please explain how you see the $12 billion in aid being intended to help big ag and not the farmers?

[TriPolar]

@asahi

Okay I apologize for not understanding your position, though I’m not sure how else I was supposed to interpret it.

Anyhow, I apologize.

Now, would you please explain how you see the $12 billion in aid being intended to help big ag and not the farmers?

It keeps Big Ag in business. The farmers won’t plant if they don’t see the payoff coming. This system is MLM-like, the farmer at the bottom has to buy his seed from Big Ag who tells him how much to plant and controls what he produces. Big Ag doesn’t take risks in doing this, the farmer has to pay the costs of the farm whether he profits from it or not. The farmer isn’t able to negotiate what he gets from what he produces, he gets paid a rate determined by the big companies that control the prices and the supply. If farmers are going to lose money on their current crops then they’ve made a fool’s deal, we are talking about commodities and the price received should have been determined when the crops were planted. I think the problem is what Big Ag is offering to pay for next years crop, not enough to cover the money owed by farmers on their land and equipment. These aren’t little Ma and Pa farms any more, a farm owner with a small crew and use high capacity equipment to work record high acreage on land bought out from the old family farms that went under back in the 80s. Their farms are worth millions except when they are underwater in debt. Big Ag needs these farms to keep fulfilling this rotten deal to rake in the big profits otherwise they’d have to start assuming the risks themselves. And the farmers want to keep on calling themselves independent men and courageous men who work the earth so they can vote for Trump and against anyone else receiving welfare or any of the benefits they receive from this system they put in place to try to guarantee themselves a profit and now complain about when it backfires.

[postpic200]

@RitterSport

I meant to also mention that farmers already get tons of aid, $20 billion according to this cite. (I don’t know how reliable that cite is, it was the first Google hit) So, this would be a substantial increase in aid to those farmers.

I know they are (mostly) men of the land, who live independent lives and never need no welfare or anything, but I wish they would start pulling themselves up here.

I also see a typo in the title. I’ll report my post. In my defense, I have 102 fever (Fahrenheit, thankfully).

Also from your site,
“The largest portion of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s budget goes toward food subsidies for lower-income families. Food subsidy programs will cost $107 billion in 2016 and account for more than two-thirds of the department’s budget.1 The main food programs are food stamps, the school breakfast and lunch programs, and the women, infants, and children program. The combined cost of the programs has doubled since 2002.”

So do you wish they would start pulling themselves up here also?
Now as a person who believes in the smallest government possible, yes ALL farm aid should be eliminated, Trump has proposed modest reforms to farm programs. But IMO it’s not enough.

Of course that would mean the end of CRP (Conservation Reserve Program), the U.S. Sugar program (which has cost more jobs than it saved). Of course the price of most goods would go up, as smaller farmers would be bought out by bigger ones, but that’s the way of business. IF the US is going to subsidized farming, then the US should be able to tell farmers how much they can grow. Simple want a guarantee, then you have to give up control of what and how much you can grow.

I’ve heard it argued that the subsidies we give farmers, is lowering the cost of food for everyone, with the “rich” paying the biggest share. IE we pay for a part of the goods in advance, based on income.

What funny is US corn ethanol subsidies are between $5.5 billion and $7.3 billion per year. That’s part of the bioenergy movement, should we also get rid of that also? Isn’t that a farm subsidy also? But, that would lead us down another path. Of whether any subsidy is good or not.

[k9bfriender]

@D_Anconia

None of the above says that I said that inflation is fixed at any rate. It cannot be “fixed”. Please stop misrepresenting what I have said.

So, the latter option, your inaccurate comment had utterly no relevance to the discussion.

[D_Anconia]

@k9bfriender

So, the latter option, your inaccurate comment had utterly no relevance to the discussion.

Listen, if you look at the inflation rate over the last ten years, the average is 1.91%. Which is what I said. That’s both low enough and stable enough that it shouldn’t affect a rational business owner/investor’s decisions.

A small, service oriented business is unlikely to be affected by tariffs. You’re not making cars, growing soybeans, or making whiskey, are you?

[k9bfriender]

@D_Anconia

Listen, if you look at the inflation rate over the last ten years, the average is 1.91%. Which is what I said.

No, in a post where concern was placed over increasing inflation due to tariffs, you claimed that inflation was only 2%. You did not say that, over the last ten years, inflation was 1.91%, you said “Inflation is only 2%.” No qualifiers. Of course, if you had put those qualifiers there, that you were talking about past performance, then it would have been obvious that you were not talking about future results, which is what concerns over the future are, making your post a useless non-sequitur.

That was a different administration, with different policies and different outlooks on the economy. Past performance is not a predictor of future results. The Obama administration had nearly a decade of continuous steady growth that continued into the next administration, and the current administration wants to dump rocket fuel on the economy.

That’s both low enough and stable enough that it shouldn’t affect a rational business owner/investor’s decisions.

And it is already higher than that now, and the concern is that it will not stay stable, due to the aforementioned tariffs and potential trade war.

A small, service oriented business is unlikely to be affected by tariffs. You’re not making cars, growing soybeans, or making whiskey, are you?

You do realize that the effect of tariffs is to increase the price of consumer items, right? I’m not exporting things, I am buying things, and the things that I am buying are increasing in cost. My employees also buy things, and if the things that they want to buy increase in cost, then they demand more money for their services.

No, I would not be affected directly by a soybean tariff, but I certainly would be affected by a downturn in the economy caused by a trade war, where my clients have less discretionary income lowering my revenue, and I would be affected by inflation, where my costs of doing business increase.

Recall, this aside began with you claiming to ask an honest question on how the trade war would affect my business. One of my expressed concerns was increasing inflation, and you came back with your inaccurate assertion that inflation was only 2%.

[TriPolar]

@postpic200

Also from your site,
“The largest portion of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s budget goes toward food subsidies for lower-income families. Food subsidy programs will cost $107 billion in 2016 and account for more than two-thirds of the department’s budget.1 The main food programs are food stamps, the school breakfast and lunch programs, and the women, infants, and children program. The combined cost of the programs has doubled since 2002.”

So do you wish they would start pulling themselves up here also?

You do realize farmers love that kind of welfare, right? That money goes back to the agricultural business. The farmer doesn’t get much of it but he’s plenty willing to vote for maintaining the programs as long as feeds his industry.

[D_Anconia]

@k9bfriender;

The Obama administration had nearly a decade of continuous steady growth that continued into the next administration, and the current administration wants to dump rocket fuel on the economy.

No, in the previous administration, growth was barely 1% in his last year in office. What is it now? More than 4%…

And it is already higher than that now, and the concern is that it will not stay stable, due to the aforementioned tariffs and potential trade war.

What trade war? There was an agreement to reduce tariffs just the other day.

No, I would not be affected directly by a soybean tariff, but I certainly would be affected by a downturn in the economy caused by a trade war, where my clients have less discretionary income lowering my revenue, and I would be affected by inflation, where my costs of doing business increase.

Please provide evidence of a downturn in the economy.

[foolsguinea]

@postpic200

Now as a person who believes in the smallest government possible, yes ALL farm aid should be eliminated, Trump has proposed modest reforms to farm programs. But IMO it’s not enough.

Of course that would mean the end of CRP (Conservation Reserve Program), the U.S. Sugar program (which has cost more jobs than it saved). Of course the price of most goods would go up, as smaller farmers would be bought out by bigger ones, but that’s the way of business. IF the US is going to subsidized farming, then the US should be able to tell farmers how much they can grow. Simple want a guarantee, then you have to give up control of what and how much you can grow.

I’ve heard it argued that the subsidies we give farmers, is lowering the cost of food for everyone, with the “rich” paying the biggest share. IE we pay for a part of the goods in advance, based on income.

What funny is US corn ethanol subsidies are between $5.5 billion and $7.3 billion per year. That’s part of the bioenergy movement, should we also get rid of that also? Isn’t that a farm subsidy also? But, that would lead us down another path. Of whether any subsidy is good or not.

I think you can see from your examples that an ideological position of “no subsidies” is more trouble than it’s worth, in practice. Subsidies for biofuel development? Payments for conservation? If something is helpful, and it serves a given public policy beyond just wanting to give a constituent money, then it’s not “just a handout.”

Although I’m no fan of the protectionist policies against foreign sugar, in particular.

[Robot_Arm]

@D_Anconia

What trade war?

You know that thing where the U.S. raised tariffs, and then other countries raised tariffs? It was in all the papers.

[k9bfriender]

@D_Anconia

No, in the previous administration, growth was barely 1% in his last year in office. What is it now? More than 4%…

How does that contradict what I said in the slightest? I said that under Obama was steady growth, and that the current president wants to dump rocket fuel on the economy. (And barely? Really 1.5% is not barely 1%, your poor truncation makes you off by 50%).

What trade war? There was an agreement to reduce tariffs just the other day.

With everyone? Including China? Please cite. And please cite the finished and signed agreement to reduce tariffs with anyone at all. Seems to me that they are still negotiating the trade deal there. Are you privy to something the rest of us are not?

Please provide evidence of a downturn in the economy.

That’s a pretty stupid thing to ask, when this started with your claim that you were asking an honest question about what my concerns of the future are. You are now asking me to provide evidence of things that have not yet happened?

That would make sense, if I had made some sort of blanket claim like “Inflation is only 2%”, because a claim like that is making a confident prediction about future results.

As far as why I am concerned about the future, I have provided ample evidence that past performance is not going to be a predictor of future results, and you have agreed that the approach to the economy is drastically different from the previous administrations.

As a business owner, and someone who puts his own money on the line, I do look at what is going on, and it does concern me. I just signed a $170k loan along with a half a million dollars in lease guarantees.

Inflation concerns me, and your “Inflation is only 2%” comment does not assure me that it will be that way in the future (in fact, one of my biggest fights on the lease contract was that my landlord wanted to tie rent increases to CPI, and I wasn’t going to chance that).

The stock market bubble concerns me. Yeah, it’s great that the DOW is at record levels, it makes your 401k look all shiny, and makes many wealthy people richer. Yep, it’s at a record, just as it was in October '07.

This last stretch of economic growth is the longest in history. It cannot continue. That doesn’t mean the economy collapses, but it does means that we get a recession, a quarter or two of negative growth. Under normal circumstances, not a big deal. With this administration, it does concern me quite a bit as to what reaction they will have if growth slows or reverses. I do not think that he will listen to economic advisers, and instead, go with his gut, which does not have an economics degree.

This economy has been chugging along the path that Obama put it on, but there is no way to make something that doesn’t need adjustment from time to time, and I am very concerned that anything that the administration does will act to make the problem worse, rather than better.
Also, keep in mind, that this whole situation that started the thread was because farmers were concerned about losing their businesses, due to economic changes that are a result of this president’s actions. If there is a downturn that threatens my enormous investments of time and money due to the choices made by the current executive, where’s my bailout?

[D_Anconia]

@Robot_Arm

You know that thing where the U.S. raised tariffs, and then other countries raised tariffs? It was in all the papers.

Yes, and they were renegotiated with the EU a few days ago. It was in the papers.

[D_Anconia]

@k9bfriender

How does that contradict what I said in the slightest? I said that under Obama was steady growth, and that the current president wants to dump rocket fuel on the economy. (And barely? Really 1.5% is not barely 1%, your poor truncation makes you off by 50%).

1.5 % is nowhere near 4.1%.

With everyone? Including China?

Did you complain when the previous administration imposed a 35% tariff on Chinese tires?

Somehow, I doubt it.

[Robot_Arm]

@D_Anconia

Yes, and they were renegotiated with the EU a few days ago. It was in the papers.

And that means the trade war is over as if it never even happened?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@k9bfriender

With this administration, it does concern me quite a bit as to what reaction they will have if growth slows or reverses.

Their pattern suggests they’ll just declare it fake news and say that anyone reporting the slowdown is unpatriotic.