I have to agree with Melvin on this one, American farmers are big
hypocrites. We should all be so lucky to have the taxpayers finance
our chosen professions. Sorry for contributing to the off topic
postings in the group but the farm welfare racket really sticks in my
craw. I guess because most of them profess to be conservative "we need
smaller government...got to cut welfare for those damn single
mothers...gotta do something about all those big city welfare
queens...blah blah blah..." Consumate hypocrites.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,52293,00.html

MCVILLE, N.D. — North Dakota's farming season is notoriously
unreliable, with this year's May snowstorms pushing back planting in
most of the state.

Luckily, farmers who know they can't count on the weather are sure
they can count on the federal government.

"I'd be losing money every year without the government," said Terry
Naas, a local farmer.

On Wednesday, the Senate approved 64-35 a 10-year farm bill that ups
subsidies by 80 percent, returning them to pre-1996 levels, when the
Freedom to Farm Act was passed by Congress in an effort to reduce
subsidies on a variety of crops over the next six years.

The flow of federal dollars was supposed to end this year, but the
effort to wean farmers off subsidies has instead given way to $83
billion more over the next 10 years, most of it dispersed as payouts
to farmers.

The House passed an identical version of the bill last week on a
280-141 vote. It now goes to the president's desk for his signature.

Three years ago, Fox News visited Naas when he was on the verge of
leaving his family farm. He said had it not been for $300,000 he
received from the federal government since then, he would have quit
the business.

It's the same story for most North Dakota farmers. Government payments
to grow crops — or not grow them — is the only thing that
keeps farmers on the farm.

"How do I say it?" asked Eric Aasmundstad of the North Dakota Farm
Bureau. "It's absolutely as critical as blood running through your
veins."

The new farm bill has been described as "a little something for
everyone." Almost the entire array of American agricultural products
are now covered with some form of subsidy, and political analysts say
that could be because of the tight election year in 2002.

"Both the Democrats and the Republicans are vying for votes, and one
of the ways to vie for votes is to bring more money back home," said
Andrew Swenson at North Dakota State University's extension service.

Swenson said that politically-motivated growth in federal subsidies
will not be all bad. For one thing, food prices will stay low for
consumers.

But already the new crop of subsidies has farmers doing their
arithmetic.

"They lowered the loan rate on the soybeans and that was what I was
going to plant the most of this year," Naas said.

Naas will then benefit from the late snow covering his farm. It bought
him the time needed for Congress to pass the bill so he can calculate
which crops will yield him the most government money come harvest
time.

That's terrible. We should boycott all farm raised foods.


On 25 Mar 2004 18:18:52 -0800, (Mack Sambo) wrote:

I have to agree with Melvin on this one, American farmers are big
hypocrites. We should all be so lucky to have the taxpayers finance
our chosen professions. Sorry for contributing to the off topic
postings in the group but the farm welfare racket really sticks in my
craw. I guess because most of them profess to be conservative "we need
smaller government...got to cut welfare for those damn single
mothers...gotta do something about all those big city welfare
queens...blah blah blah..." Consumate hypocrites.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,52293,00.html

MCVILLE, N.D. — North Dakota's farming season is notoriously
unreliable, with this year's May snowstorms pushing back planting in
most of the state.

Luckily, farmers who know they can't count on the weather are sure
they can count on the federal government.

"I'd be losing money every year without the government," said Terry
Naas, a local farmer.

On Wednesday, the Senate approved 64-35 a 10-year farm bill that ups
subsidies by 80 percent, returning them to pre-1996 levels, when the
Freedom to Farm Act was passed by Congress in an effort to reduce
subsidies on a variety of crops over the next six years.

The flow of federal dollars was supposed to end this year, but the
effort to wean farmers off subsidies has instead given way to $83
billion more over the next 10 years, most of it dispersed as payouts
to farmers.

The House passed an identical version of the bill last week on a
280-141 vote. It now goes to the president's desk for his signature.

Three years ago, Fox News visited Naas when he was on the verge of
leaving his family farm. He said had it not been for $300,000 he
received from the federal government since then, he would have quit
the business.

It's the same story for most North Dakota farmers. Government payments
to grow crops — or not grow them — is the only thing that
keeps farmers on the farm.

"How do I say it?" asked Eric Aasmundstad of the North Dakota Farm
Bureau. "It's absolutely as critical as blood running through your
veins."

The new farm bill has been described as "a little something for
everyone." Almost the entire array of American agricultural products
are now covered with some form of subsidy, and political analysts say
that could be because of the tight election year in 2002.

"Both the Democrats and the Republicans are vying for votes, and one
of the ways to vie for votes is to bring more money back home," said
Andrew Swenson at North Dakota State University's extension service.

Swenson said that politically-motivated growth in federal subsidies
will not be all bad. For one thing, food prices will stay low for
consumers.

But already the new crop of subsidies has farmers doing their
arithmetic.

"They lowered the loan rate on the soybeans and that was what I was
going to plant the most of this year," Naas said.

Naas will then benefit from the late snow covering his farm. It bought
him the time needed for Congress to pass the bill so he can calculate
which crops will yield him the most government money come harvest
time.

Mack Sambo wrote:

I have to agree with Melvin on this one, American farmers are big
hypocrites. We should all be so lucky to have the taxpayers finance
our chosen professions. Sorry for contributing to the off topic
postings in the group but the farm welfare racket really sticks in my
craw. I guess because most of them profess to be conservative "we need
smaller government...got to cut welfare for those damn single
mothers...gotta do something about all those big city welfare
queens...blah blah blah..." Consumate hypocrites.

On top of that, most farm "subsidies" go to big corporations and rich
absentee "farmers". America's generous farm subsidies mean that Third
World farmers can't compete in their own countries against imported
American grain. In fact, two trade talk meetings have ended
unsucessfully because the poor countries are demanding that we end our
farm subsidies. So what do we do? INCREASE them!


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,52293,00.html

MCVILLE, N.D. — North Dakota's farming season is notoriously
unreliable, with this year's May snowstorms pushing back planting in
most of the state.

Luckily, farmers who know they can't count on the weather are sure
they can count on the federal government.

"I'd be losing money every year without the government," said Terry
Naas, a local farmer.

On Wednesday, the Senate approved 64-35 a 10-year farm bill that ups
subsidies by 80 percent, returning them to pre-1996 levels, when the
Freedom to Farm Act was passed by Congress in an effort to reduce
subsidies on a variety of crops over the next six years.

The flow of federal dollars was supposed to end this year, but the
effort to wean farmers off subsidies has instead given way to $83
billion more over the next 10 years, most of it dispersed as payouts
to farmers.

The House passed an identical version of the bill last week on a
280-141 vote. It now goes to the president's desk for his signature.

Three years ago, Fox News visited Naas when he was on the verge of
leaving his family farm. He said had it not been for $300,000 he
received from the federal government since then, he would have quit
the business.

It's the same story for most North Dakota farmers. Government payments
to grow crops — or not grow them — is the only thing that
keeps farmers on the farm.

"How do I say it?" asked Eric Aasmundstad of the North Dakota Farm
Bureau. "It's absolutely as critical as blood running through your
veins."

The new farm bill has been described as "a little something for
everyone." Almost the entire array of American agricultural products
are now covered with some form of subsidy, and political analysts say
that could be because of the tight election year in 2002.

"Both the Democrats and the Republicans are vying for votes, and one
of the ways to vie for votes is to bring more money back home," said
Andrew Swenson at North Dakota State University's extension service.

Swenson said that politically-motivated growth in federal subsidies
will not be all bad. For one thing, food prices will stay low for
consumers.

But already the new crop of subsidies has farmers doing their
arithmetic.

"They lowered the loan rate on the soybeans and that was what I was
going to plant the most of this year," Naas said.

Naas will then benefit from the late snow covering his farm. It bought
him the time needed for Congress to pass the bill so he can calculate
which crops will yield him the most government money come harvest
time.

Yea your right. Farmers are welfare scumbags. I think I'll tell the farmers
in my family to stop working seven days a week because their bringing down
America.

"Brian Hill" wrote in message
...

Yea your right. Farmers are welfare scumbags. I think I'll tell the
farmers
in my family to stop working seven days a week because their bringing down
America.



Could farmers stay in business without subsidies and price supports?

Frank Dresser

helmsman wrote:

"Frank Dresser" wrote:


"Brian Hill" wrote in message
...

Yea your right. Farmers are welfare scumbags. I think I'll tell the
farmers
in my family to stop working seven days a week because their bringing down
America.



Could farmers stay in business without subsidies and price supports?

Frank Dresser

That's the problem, no matter how productive you are, if someone else
can do it cheaper "without price supports" or better then we loose.
That's why lifesavers went from "Holland, Mi" to Canada. Sugar costs a
fortune here and it's not the only product like that.
Sad but true.

Yes, no more LifeSavers from here! Not sure myself what the plant will be used
for now.

Steve
Holland, MI

"helmsman" wrote in message
...

That's the problem, no matter how productive you are, if someone else
can do it cheaper "without price supports" or better then we loose.

I'm not sure I understand. How do we lose if someone else can produce sugar
cheaper than we in the US can? For example, sugar can be produced much more
cheaply in Central and South America. We still make many things in the US
that people in Central and South America want to buy. The trade would be
benefical for both sides.


That's why lifesavers went from "Holland, Mi" to Canada. Sugar costs a
fortune here and it's not the only product like that.
Sad but true.


The Chicago candy makers have been hit hard by sugar price supports:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/g...20040212.shtml

Frank Dresser

Frank Dresser wrote:

"helmsman" wrote in message
...

That's the problem, no matter how productive you are, if someone else
can do it cheaper "without price supports" or better then we loose.

I'm not sure I understand. How do we lose if someone else can produce sugar
cheaper than we in the US can?

How do we lose? Well, the less expensive sugar cannot be imported into the US.
Therefore, businesses such as LifeSavers have opted to leave the US for other
places (such as Canada) where sugar is less expensive.

So, the US sugar producers lose because they are not selling sugar to a business
here, and at the same time our manufacturing base leaves.

"N8KDV" wrote in message
...


Frank Dresser wrote:

"helmsman" wrote in message
...

That's the problem, no matter how productive you are, if someone else
can do it cheaper "without price supports" or better then we loose.

I'm not sure I understand. How do we lose if someone else can produce
sugar
cheaper than we in the US can?

How do we lose? Well, the less expensive sugar cannot be imported into the
US.
Therefore, businesses such as LifeSavers have opted to leave the US for
other
places (such as Canada) where sugar is less expensive.

I think we agree on this one. The only winners in the sugar subsidy program
are the US sugar farmers. Everyone else loses.


So, the US sugar producers lose because they are not selling sugar to a
business
here, and at the same time our manufacturing base leaves.



There's no need for well connected US sugar producers to lose. The
government could buy up the entire surplus sugar crop every year at an
inflated price, even if there's no longer any US candy/baking industry.

Frank Dresser

"Brian Hill" wrote in message ...
Yea your right. Farmers are welfare scumbags. I think I'll tell the farmers
in my family to stop working seven days a week because their bringing down
America.

Boo hoo! We, the American taxpayers will all cry you a river. Some do
work seven days a week part of the year, planting and harvest season.
Not all winter though or large chunks of other months. Many
self-employed people work seven days a week year round and they don't
receive any handouts from the taxpayers. Wouldn't my neighbor, who is
an IT consultant, love to have the government hand him $300,000 (see
Fox news story about Mr. North Dakota farmer) because his business is
being taken away by consultants in India! Difference between him and
the American farmer is that he doesn't expect the taxpayers to bail
him out of his chosen profession. Nor does he whine, cry and bellyache
about it (which further distinguishes him from the typical farmer).
You are correct on one point though; "Farmers are welfare scumbags."
Your words not mine.