He's already attacking crop subsidies.
-
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/11/obama-points-to.html
In general, that doesnt sound good to me, but maybe it willl be with this "new" idea.
Im not a farmer, but I have family that are and my summer job involves working in the ag industry. So while i'm not getting any crop subsidy, I have always been a strong advocate for almost anything that will help farmers out.
If you care to check this link out, maybe some of the growers (or anyone with an opinion) on here could clear some stuff up about it for me.
"What we need to be doing is gradually transitioning away from subsidies to a system that allows farmers to recoup their cost of production,' he says. "Subsidies should not be a handout they ought to be designed so that they provide a basic support to a system so a farmer doesn't go out of business."
Would would this "system" involve doing? Any guess?
-
ok, but what do you think the new system would involve? a reimbursement for operating costs if you lost money?
Im just wondering, im not a farmer but I would like to understand this better.
-
Grr;247805 wrote:
I agree completely. Farmers that cant afford their own insurance should only be allotted their operating expenses, not the far and above they are currently allowed. I also think their should be alot stricter policies regarding elegibility for them.na i like it.... I like all the easy money
so does parker..... just being a vag and won't admit it
-
zbrown;247818 wrote:
na i like it.... I like all the easy moneyso does parker..... just being a vag and won't admit it
that goes without saying
if anyone could take a vague stab at my question.....that would be great ha
-
Parker;247820 wrote:
The measly 37k we get is pointless.... What can you get for 37k on a farm? jack.....Build an RX7????
-
SmitEvo;247851 wrote:
I think Obama was referring to farms that had more than 1.5 million in revenues, they dont need subsidies.I would probably agree that they dont "need' subsidies (in most cases but not all). But my biased opinion is that I would rather the money go to farmers, instead of changing the system to not giving the money to farmers and instead granting it to some interest group to go study fricken dolphins or some other shit.
There are several holes in this article that I dont understand. By cutting off payments at 250k, does that mean the most you can earn thru subsidies is 250k, or does that mean if your subsidy figures come up to earning 250k + 1 dollar you will receive nothing?
And like I said, im not a farmer and I dont have a whole lot of knowledge of the industry. That said, is 1.5 million in <u>revenue</u> alot for a farm? It doesnt seem like it would have to be any too huge of a farm to gross 1.5 mill in revenue. I did some quick figuring about beets and at a fairly low yeild of 22 ton an acre (I think thats fairly low?) and at $40 a ton (which I think is slightly low?), to make a revenue of 1.5 million would be 1700 acres. If my method was correct (idk) that is more than the average farmer in my area grows of beets, but if you factor in their corn, soys, edibles, wheat, flowers, it seems it wouldnt take much to get over the 1.5 million. And with beets, the revenue number probably isnt anywhere near the profit number because of the huge cost of growing and harvesting a single acre (in comparison with other crops).
If I am way off please let me know.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login