Farm subsidies

I'm not really sure what these are. I've heard terms like swampbusters, CRP, etc. Would you guys give some examples of subsidies and their purpose? I was at the grocery store this evening and overheard two guys arguing about election results, and one told the other that farmers are getting paid not to plant crops (?) and that is what is wrong with the economy. Can you shed some light on this for me? Thanks, Fritz

(quoted from post at 17:58:42 11/07/12) I'm not really sure what these are. I've heard terms like swampbusters, CRP, etc. Would you guys give some examples of subsidies and their purpose? I was at the grocery store this evening and overheard two guys arguing about election results, and one told the other that farmers are getting paid not to plant crops (?) and that is what is wrong with the economy. Can you shed some light on this for me? Thanks, Fritz

Click to expand...

OH! :shock: I'm gona watch this

yes thats true but what the moron didnt tell u it keeps the soil fresh for future use in case this country needs it and it really isnt much pay

I don't really know much about it, but I used to get reimbursed 50% for materials and machine time for seeding down a field for hay. That deal ended about 15 years ago. I got a call from my local FSA office about ten years ago after adding on a new field. They asked if I wanted to sign up and take over a contract on the field because I could get paid to not grow corn. I didn't take it because of all the other things that you have to agree to do or not todo.

There seems to be a need for some farmers to visit their local FSA office before any comments are made on this board. Cost share is avalable to all farmers for many items, fence, buildings, ponds, seed etc. Subsidies, Crp, and others are only part of the program. The FSA is part of USDA that has been around since the thirties, Soil Conservation service is another service that many farmers can find very useful.

The farm ecconomy was crashed back in the 1960's with govt intervention by politics.

Govt subsidies began back then, or the entire rural area of the country woulda folded up. Politics again came into the picture in the 1980s with a repeat grain embargo to totally mess up rural ecconomy.

There have been many plans over the years, some are pretty good, some are a worse disaster than the original grain embargoes.....


Currently the govt rents some land from land owners that is better suited for wildlife than for grain production. That is the CRP program, and tax payers seem to want to preserve wildlife areas, so this is the program. It is generally a good program, the govt requires the owner to plant native type grasses, and control weeds - lot of costs to the landowner in return for a rather low rent payment.

The farm program has 4 different payments to farmers:

Direct payment - this might be around $15-20 per acre, based on what you grew back in the 1980's. It is a forgone deal that this part of the program will go away for the next farm program.

LDP - this is a complicated deal that kicks in when grain prices are _very_ low, you can pick a day and get a per bushel payment from the govt for the crops you already harvested that year. If you are collecting this, the farm ecconomy is horrible, it's like you going on food stamps things are bad.... Hope this doesn't come back to be needed. Things are dire out on the farm when this kicks in.

Counter-cyclical - if the grain prices are low for much of the year, this is a per bushel payment you get the following year, it is sorta like the minimum wage many people work under - if this is all you are getting paid, you need the help.

Crop insurance subsidies: This is the latest deal the govt and many groups prefer, and is likely to be expanded in the coming legislation. The govt helps pay for private insurance on the grain _and_ grain prices, and farmers collect if things go bad with either production or prices. The govt perfers this deal, as they know how much it will cost each year, and private insurance companies take the risk, instead of endless crop disaster packages the govt used to put out.

In addition, there are some small programs that pay farmers to try new green practices, to improve the environment.

About 80% of the 'Farm Bill' is actually going to food stamp and other city and town assistance programs. So _most_ of the money - almost 80% - of the 'farm bill' money is not spent on farmers at all.

The old farm buill expired a few months ago, and Congress gott into a big argumnent about it. Both sides agreed to cut spending on farmers - the direct payment, and cut back other farm expenses. My coyuntyu office was eleminated for example, I am supposed to drive 35 miles now to the far end of the next county... Anyhow, congress got into a fight about the 80% of the spending that goes to town people.

And so we have no farm bill, no actual plan for next summer at all at this time. These bills are typically for 5 years.

If nothing gets passed this early spring, we will revert to some 1940's legislation, that talks about 'parity' price supports and so forth. It would get very spendy for the govt, and be very hard to apply to 2010's agriculture.

Anyhow, that's a real brief summery of it all.

The govt spends alot of farm subsidies in really bad years - but those are years that rural America would fold up without help, and often is caused directly by govt actions that mess up the price of grain - we ship almost 1/2 of our grain to other countries, and are very dependent on the world market for grain.

Most of the 'farm bill' money is actually spent on town/city programs.

What little is spent on farmers tends to go into land prices, which results in more local property taxes for schools and so forth....

You'll get a lot of different answers, there are different viewpoints on this here on this site.

But this is how it works. There could be better ways to do what the govt is trying to do, and it should cost less. But this is the govt, do you know any of their programs that are streamlined and smooth? What we have now isn't so bad, and it is clear we will have a cheaper smaller farm program the next 5 years.....

--->Paul

You can do a search and see what your neighbors are pulling in, I was talking to a friend about how much this one guy was get'n from the government and he ask how I know? so I told him how much he'd been paid and he damn near chocked on his Red Man, He said it was none of my business ans he don't come around any more.

Fritz, I have a suspicion you know more about the farm program than anyone else here and you're just looking to stir the pot. Just the same, I'll take the bait.

To understand the farm program (which is really a bunch of loosely related programs), you have to look at its roots in the 1920s and 1930s. In the twenties, farm commodity prices soared due to a number of reasons mostly related to WWI. This led to overproduction and poor farming practices. This was at a time when nobody really understood what good farming practices should be, particularly on the Great Plains. A collapse in commodity prices, drought and the stock market crash all happened at roughly the same time, leading to the Dust Bowl and the Great Depression. The farm program we have today is descended from the programs that were introduced in the thirties, which had two goals: Improve farm commodity price stability, and encourage good farming practices, in particular soil conservation.

The current programs are still focused on price stabilization and conservation. Stabilization is performed by a combination of price supports and production limits. Soil conservation programs subsidize various projects such as terracing to prevent erosion. The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is a bit of both: it removes marginal land from production, reducing production while requiring the farmer to plant grass and perform other actions to reduce soil erosion.

Now, there are plenty of criticisms you can make of the farm program, including that it's a political sacred cow that largely benefits wealthy farmers and big corporations. The current budget realities mean the farm program will certainly be trimmed if Congress ever agrees to a budget.

good post. so true about sacred cow.

That search is very deceptive. It includes sealed grain, which is basically a loan the farmer has to pay back. The 'loan' money received when grain is sealed can far surpass the money he receives in CRP, direct and counter-cyclical payments. I don't know if it includes other loans such as grain storage structures. I'll have to check myself out on that site. Jim

Your suspicions not correct. After today's results, I am trying to educate myself on various levels of government. There are already too many ignorant people voting, and I am determined to rise out of that class. I left about six items un-voted on because I did not know the candidate or the nature of the issue. Next time farming is under the microscope, I want to cast an intelligent vote.

As usual, with all the BS about subsidies, the majority of the posters are simply full of it, except for the thoughtful, knowledgeable one....-paul. But truth won't impress the majority.

In Minnesota farmers pay no school taxes on their agriculture land. They pay school taxes on their home and other buildings. If they have a wooded parcel that is connected to the agriculture land they don't pay school taxes on that either.

Subsidized farming may not be the best system, granted...But, so long as the government has it's hand in manipulating commodity prices for the benefit of each administrations personal agendas, farmers have at times become dependent upon subsidies to maintain profitability. While it's possible to keep one's head above water in bad years, the level of investment required to put out a crop deserves a guaranty of a fair return on that investment. Only an idiot would walk away and leave money that's theirs laying on the table. If/when we ever get a system where prices are driven totally and freely by market value, we can go forward WITHOUT subsidies to protect the ag economy. Anyone who survived farming in the 1980's knows just how important subsidies can be.

In a word "Welfare"

Swampbuster is not a subsidy like the others you mention. Swampbuster is policy that says you will not convert wetland after December 23, 1985 for the purpose of making it farmable. Failure to comply with this policy could jeopardize your Farm Bill payments. Of course there are caveats to this, but this is the general rule.

Actually over 90% of the "Farm Bill" is welfare food programs for the takers.

exactly - the minute the federal government tries to help by sticking its nose into something, common sense erodes and you end up with a ridiculous bureaucratic mess of rules and regulations.

They always mean well, but almost always end up causing more trouble than they were trying to solve.

Not to mention it always seems to cost the rest of us a large sum of money.

Seems to me that every time this subject is brought up some people attack it while others defend it. So about the only way to really understand it is to go to the government sites and read about it.

I do know that my former tenant claimed he couldn't plant certain crops on certain land he rented because to get the subsidies he had to follow thier rules. This is used to control production and to protect the soil.

A heck of a lot of folks on CRP are not nor have ever been farmers. Nor do they have to plant grasses in all cases. The ones I know who had to plant grasses had it all paid for. This was originally a soil conservation program. No it's used to control production.

Most of the people I know who defend subsidies are very quick to point out that most of the farm bill is for food stamps. The question wasn't about the farm bill, it was about subsidies. Some of you guys should run for office. You would do well in the debates.

I do know that the bigger you are the more you get. That is one of the reasons that a lot of people are angry about it. The guys who really need the help get little or nothing while the big guys get the lions share.

Most of the stuff on swamp lands has now shifted over to DNR. They have classes of "wetlands" that provide some protection to it. A good example is I have some swamp. My piece north of the highway is class A wetlands and is so protected that it held up a highway improvement project for several years. I get a tax break on it only because it has little value.

Rick

crp is not a subsidy ,its a conservation program.a subsidy is basicaly a price fixing plan.on wheat for instance ,say wheat went to ten cents a bushel, farmers couldnt stay in buisness at that price,so the gov basically pays you a subsidy so you can stay on the farm. EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY,BAR NONE, THAT HAS A STABLE GOV,A GOOD ECONOMY ETC,PAYS FARM SUBSIDIES. Simply put a starving people cant build a good stable society,it is constantly hunting food. today folks largely curse farm subsidies as a handout,or some form of welfare for farmers.the real fact is subsidies are an insurance policy, one that helps guarantee you will have enough food on your table.no farmers,no food,no subsidies (theoreticaly, and this fact is born out time after time throuhout history) farmers lose their land,they lose their land,they cant farm ,they dont farm ,citizens dont eat,citizens dont eat,gov and country fails.look what happened to south american countries when their govs instituted subsidies,revolutions that happened on average every four years have become far less prevelent.economies are up by several hundred percent,etc etc etc,all because folks dont have to worry about food. thats the idea of subsidies.they are not paid in the good times,they are paid for the most part in bad times. subsidies on ethanol for instance are no longer paid,simply because the demand and such is high enough that its a paying proposition. MOST gov programs you hear of are conservation type programs,nearly ALL these are cost share deals where you are paid a small portion of the money you spend back as a incentive to take conservation measures.they are NOT subsidies,they are not money making deals in any way shape or form and their is NO WAY POSSIBLE you can make them so. unless of course you have a gov inspector on your payroll who will say you did work you didnt do AFTER the work has been supposedly done. But that wont work either simply because they are long term deals,and the odds of you buying off every inspector is small,and youll have more money in payoff money than you could make.

The subsidies IMO are a joke. Farmers claim they are a business. Well act like it. Sink or swim on your own. If I make buggy whips and someone invents a car, then someone else figures out how to make them where most people can afford them and I continue to make buggy whips, I go broke and the government sure isn't going to jump in a subsidize buggy whips. If wheat is through the roof this year you know every farmer and his brother is going to plant as much wheat as possible next year. So next year there is too much wheat because farmers over produced hoping to cash in on the high prices. I've seen it happen with different crops. My BIL almost put himself out of farming over that kind of deal with corn in the 90's. What saved him is the fact that he isn't just grain. Look at it right now. Guys are dumping pigs cause corn is "to valuable" to feed to an animal with a low return. So whats going to happen with that?

Another joke about some farmers is the claim that they are the stewards of the land. Many are ripping out tree rows cause they are in the way for auto steer and that's a few extra acers they can plant. Those same tree rows that were planed to protect the soil. Heck the governement uses subsidies to get farmers to take care of the land. So the governement has become the stewards while some farmers really don't care as long as they make money and they don't care where the money comes from. Heck of a lot of the problem here is marketing. Farmer goes to buy a tractor the dealer tells him home much it's going to cost. Buys seed or feed and it's the same thing. Goes to sell and he says "how much are you going to pay me for it?". Kinda funny how farmers can and will help each other sometimes until it comes to selling. Stops dead right there.

Call me all the names you want to. That's just how I see things.

Rick

the idea of paying someone NOT to plant is utterly ridiculous,it wont and never has happened.why would the us gov for instance pay you to not plant a crop such as wheat,corn,etc? every single bushel not used domestiacly is exported,and is a huge portion of the nations economy. where this idea comes from is mostly the crp program that there is so much misinformation about. crp is not in its real intent a effort to reduce production.its a effort to simply conserve the soil for future use. folks have all kinds of ideas about it that are simply not true.one is that it has to be farm land or its only paid to farmers.it doesnt have to be, and it never was just paid to farmers.a whole lot (and possibly the majority) of it is paid to absentee landowners,who have never,and never will farm.some folks do take land out of production,and put it into crp. but most of this is land that would have been taken out anyway and left bare, and lots of folks regret putting it into crp later because crop prices rise to a point its more profitable to farm that land again. i strongly urge you to ,if you really want the proper facts,to stop by your local fsa/ag extension office ,and get the real skinny on these programs.most are not one bit better or worse than what folks make them.

You are right.

However, property taxes on my ag land went up between 23 to 60 % last year, and when the assessor was around last month she said look out for next year.....

Doesn't help the schools tho, you are right.

--->Paul

Back a few dacades ago, coming out of the 60s into the 70s and part of the 80s, the govt had a really odd farm program.

We farmers were growing more gain than needed. The govt came up with the idea of buying and storing the surplus - it would be good to store it for a bad year, and keep food supplies plentiful all the time.

Happened to have some good years, and farmers grew a lot of extra grain, and the govt kept buying it, and soon there was a _lot_ of extra grain sitting around.

Buyers knew the grain was sitting there, so they didn't have to pay much for grain - plenty sitting around. So gain prices sunk very, very low.

This was a bad cycle, as prices got lower, the govt ended up buying and storing more, which made prices lower, and so on.

They tried to find a way out of this poor program, and eventually had a set-aside program for a few years. They did pay farmers to not harvest crops from a certain percentage of their land. It was the govt's attempt to control supplies of grain sitting around. Hou had to plant an exact amount of acres of each crop, and a small % was left in cover crops, not harvested.

No one was very happy with the govt programs back then, not well thought out at all.

The drought of 1988 came along and finally used up the extra grain the govt had sitting around, and the govt changed the policies to much better ones, supporting wildlife management and putting price supports on crops with the LDP, Counter-Cyclical, and now insurance programs.

Most people wildly complaining about govt paying farmers not to plant crops are stuck in the 1970's, and don't realize things have changed since then.

What we have now is a lot better. Could certainly be better than it is, but is a lot better than it used to be. Would be great if there was no need for these programs, but most of it only kicks in when grain prices dive into the toilet - much like food stamps, minimum wage, and unemployment programs kick in harder in bad times for working folk.

But to your point - there was a time back many decades ago the govt did pay farmers not to harvest a small % of their land.

That is where most people get their mis-informed ideas that this is still happening.

You know why farmer's caps have such a rounded bill???? Because they spend so much time looking in their mailboxes for the govt check.

--->Paul

I disagree that there has never been a program that paid people not to plant. That is exactly what the Soil Bank Program of the late '50's was. Google it. To reduce the serious surpluses of commodities that were building up, guvment paid farmers not to plant on a portion of their land.

CRP is said to be a conservation program, but my wheat farmer friends tell me that a considerable amount of land went into it simply because the return was more attractive than land rents at the time- land that would have continued to be farmed without the program, and that the owners would sure like to get back into production if they could with today's high commodity prices. I'm told there was quite a bit of winking and smiling going on when decisions were being made on what land was "highly erodable."

I really don't understand where everyone thinks these programs and subsidies are a cash cow.

Example 1: CRP ground.....Yes you get paid an amount per year per acre. But, you have to pay for a percentage to plant it and maintain it. Plus, you actually make more per acre leasing it out or farming it. Not to mention I really hate the stuff. I haven't seen the first sign of wildlife in our fields since we planted the junk 4 years ago. Before that we row cropped it and had plenty of wildlife.

Farm subsidies: He who has the most land gets the most $$$ for corn, wheat, or soybean bases. Yes they receive large amounts, but they also spent a whole lot more on the real estate. I haven't seen a farm that was able to pay for itself using only the government programs.

Like everything else, it takes money to make money or equity. Some programs will pay 50% of the cost up to a certain amount, but you have to foot the bill for the other part. That is a nice trade off if you were going to do it anyway. But, not so great if you are just doing it because 50% of it is paid for. Your still out the cash and it only builds up the equity return. Which is only good if you plan to sell at some point.

Can someone explain to me why people think farmers are actually making a living off the gov. programs? I just don't see it.

(quoted from post at 09:38:00 11/08/12) I really don't understand where everyone thinks these programs and subsidies are a cash cow.

Example 1: CRP ground.....Yes you get paid an amount per year per acre. But, you have to pay for a percentage to plant it and maintain it. Plus, you actually make more per acre leasing it out or farming it. Not to mention I really hate the stuff. I haven't seen the first sign of wildlife in our fields since we planted the junk 4 years ago. Before that we row cropped it and had plenty of wildlife.

Farm subsidies: He who has the most land gets the most $$$ for corn, wheat, or soybean bases. Yes they receive large amounts, but they also spent a whole lot more on the real estate. I haven't seen a farm that was able to pay for itself using only the government programs.

Like everything else, it takes money to make money or equity. Some programs will pay 50% of the cost up to a certain amount, but you have to foot the bill for the other part. That is a nice trade off if you were going to do it anyway. But, not so great if you are just doing it because 50% of it is paid for. Your still out the cash and it only builds up the equity return. Which is only good if you plan to sell at some point.

Can someone explain to me why people think farmers are actually making a living off the gov. programs? I just don't see it.

Click to expand...

I don't think farmers are living off of it. But if the farmer is making money then why do we need it. And most who really need it don't get much if any. So it's become a welfare program for the rich.

As far as CRP goes. In our area the soil isn't great so rent isn't great. A family I know, 2 brothers and an aunt own 200 acres. About 160 is in CRP. They are making about 10500 a year on it in CRP right now. At the going rent they would make about 7500.

Rick

Maybe some of the rich farmers will enlighten all the forum members why the farmers in the high income brackets need government hand outs. I doubt it. What's your thoughts JDseller?????

The 80% figure is largely correct in terms of the percentage of the "farm bill" that nutrition programs make up.

Paul did forget the ACRE (Average Crop Revenue Election) program. Pays farmers if their revenue falls below a specified level, but to generate a payment it requires the revenue loss on both the farm and state level. Complicated program and few enrolled.

CRP is not a real small program -- $1.7 billion in payments annually. It was started as a land idling program and has become more environmentally oriented. And around 50% to 60% of those who have land in the CRP reenroll it when given the opportunity. However, the "average" rent on those acres currently is around $50 per acre. Program is biggest in wheat

In years passed, we HAVE paid folks not to farm. The PIK program in 1983 was one. ANd there used to be at times a set-aside program where to get other payments you had to idle a portion of your land.

Oh... and the Environmental Working Group is the group behind that farmer payment database. They merely put that together to build support for getting rid of farm subsidies... or at least retarget them to "small" farmers -- Sen. Pat Roberts (Kan.) always asks if someone says that if they are referring to the farmer that is 5 ft. 2 inches tall!!! Their little database includes things like commodity loans which farmers pay back. They find a lot of support among those who think big is bad. Guess those folks have never heard the term cowboy economics -- spread your costs over more acres. Pretty simple concept really.

And a chunk of those who are against subsidies to bigger farmers are that way because they couldn't get big themselves.

The Gov't also paid farmers not to plant corn in the early 60's,there was a farmer in New York that had his picture all over the national papers with a big sign on the back of his new car thanking JFK for the money to buy it from getting paid for not planting corn.Also know a expotato farmer in PA that said he was getting paid not top plant potatos back in the early 80's.

I stand corrected, BUT heres the thing,the fact that gov did buy surplus grain proves the effeciency of the subsidy program. Its not a program intended to somehow make farmers rich,its a program to keep farmers productive. If prices were allowed to stay low for crops,many farmers would have been out of buisness. Its simply a program that keeps farmers on the job and helps to guarantee a nations food supply. Many folks here believe the bible teachings. In the book of revelations it has a scenario where folks are hollering "a measure of wheat for a penny",does that sound like a place where theres a overabundance of crops have been raised with no price supports? Shorly thereafter 1/3 the worlds population dies from starvation. Does that sound like a place where theres not enough farmers to feed the population? The US has been blessed with the fact that its always so far been able to feed itself. It does it today with less than 2% of the population farming, how many of those could we afford to lose? china has 1 in 6 as full time farmers and are still facing food problems. Today ,at this time,do we really need the farm subsidy program? maybe not,prices are high and farmers are making a fair amount of money. But you dont need car insurance either most of the time. What if we lost even 10-20% of the farmers,theres less and less each year,and the fewer we get the more important those few become to a nations security and stability. Thats the concept of farm subsidies,its simply insurance.

Thats total BS there are countries without farm welfare and the US is always in trouble with the International fair trade groups because of farm supports.There was no farm welfare in the US until FDR included in his Socialist agenda.
Thats the trouble with you Gov't guys you can't make it in private industry and you think no one else can.

(quoted from post at 14:30:34 11/08/12) Its not a program intended to somehow make farmers rich,its a program to keep farmers productive. Thats the concept of farm subsidies,its simply insurance.

Click to expand...

Jack
Maybe it wasn't a program to make farmers rich but there's a bunch of rich farmers that receive payments!!!! BTW there's a big difference in farm subsidies and crop insurance. All one needs is their REAL NAME to find out.

http://farm.ewg.org/search.php?fips=00000&regionname=UnitedStatesFarmSubsidySummary

Very well said, Jack.

Was just pointing out where all this 'farmers paid to not harvest crops' stuff came from.

It was a well intentioned, but poorly thought out farm program from back in the 1970's.

Actually the problems started in the 1960s. The price of wheat shot up, world shortage, govt encouraged planting crops fencerow to fencerow, plow every available acre, grow more....

Farmers responded, and grew a lot more, and then Nixon put on the wheat embargo, and stopped shipments of wheat overseas.

And that was the start of modern USA ag's problems, the 1980's crash, hasty and poor farm subsidy programs, etc.

Then we almost got our feet under us, and Carter put the grain embargo on USSR, which took the legs out from under us again.

Current farm subsidies are not perfect, but they are sa lot better than they were back then. Hopefully they continue to improve, get smaller, and keep farmers farmiong without too much interference.

I can dream, anyhow.

--->Paul

The tax payer pays 60% of crop insurance premium
for farmers. kinda like medicare for crops???

(quoted from post at 15:33:35 11/08/12)

Current farm subsidies are not perfect, but they are sa lot better than they were back then. Hopefully they continue to improve, get smaller, and keep farmers farmiong without too much interference.

I can dream, anyhow.

--->Paul

Click to expand...

One way to make your "dream" come true, is to stay out of the government farming programs, and the "smaller" subsidies you seek will wind up being reduced to ZERO.

It will also allow you to operate without ANY government "interference" at all.

Of course old habits of sucking on the government teat every time a "new" farming program is introduced, might be hard for some to break.

I've never developed a dependency on the government's farming programs, and that allows me to freely plant WHAT, WHEN, and WHERE I want.

I do well in the GOOD years,... and PRAY a lot in the bad years, just like any other ordinary businesses in this nation.

I don't know much about the programs that you guys are talking about but I know in my area farmers are getting a lot of Gov. money. Like 60.00 an acre for planting fall cover crop. 45.00 after Oct. Also the state put in a program for land owners to sell there development rights. The program turned into farmers buying up farm after farm where ordinary people couldn't afford a farm anymore. One farmer was bragging that he just purchased his 19th farm on that progam. I here negatives on this site about people getting gov programs and how much of a deadbeat they are and one guy even was complaining about unemployment ins. My god a man/women that has no job and people complaining about a little check from the gov. and farmers getting millions. You figure the low amount of 45.00 times 1500/2000 acreas planted in the fall getting paid by the gov. I'm sorry at 13.00 for beans and 7.00 for corn the gov. shouldn't be giving a farmer a damn thing. Not many businesses get gov money and if they fail they fail. They start up again and try again. I don't resent that they get it because I would do the same thing, I just think the gov. should stop all the give away crap.. Didn't mean to make anyone mad just my opion. Ed

happen to know those folks around here that make that list,two top earners personaly.neither have taken subsidy money,all conservation copay money. in other words they spent 100% of the money to do their conservation projects out of pocket,after it was done gov man showed up and gave them money for building to usda/nrcs standards. most of that money went for pond building and things. not subsidy money.but conservation money. your list doesnt distiguish between the two. dry country around here,most folks build ponds to hold all the water they can because land would simply be unusable for livestock production otherwise.they could have built cheaper,without drains overflows,etc etc but decide to build ponds to usda standards.added several times the cost and the money they recieved didnt cover the improvements.how do i know this?have one on my own place.basicaly we built ponds designed to last 50 years instead of twenty or less.other projects include windbreaks,grassing waterways,reseeding native grass lands,the list goes on.

name ONE!!!!

u mean sink like the banks and auto industry

ive never taken one single cent from the gov that wasnt a tax refund.you infer way too much. farm subsidies started exactly for the reason i stated,simply to keep farmers on the farm. heres a idea for you young fellows who want to start farming,go on the UN website, start checking for african nations that will GIVE you all the land you can farm,theres your chance ,zero down ,no payments,all 100% profit.see if you can make it, there. but be forwarned,everyone who has tried it has had their crops and equipment taken away by one or another rebel or gov group.youll find out shortly the difference a stable gov and a well fed populace makes.farm subsidies helps to make that happen thats the idea behind the program.come home if you survive and let us know how it worked out for you. ive made more money in my life than you will likely ever see,did it without handouts also. of course i could have maybe done more.I took two weeks off once just to see what it was like, felt guilty and was bored so went back to work seven days a week.

y dont u yalk about people having babies like rabbits and refussing to get a job welfare link card

> Not many businesses get gov money and if they fail they fail.

You've got to be kidding!!!!!!

Name a buisness that _doesn't_ get offered govt assistance?????

You've got to be kidding!

If the govt stayed out of the pricing of farm commodities, 99% of us would be happy to get the govt out of farming. But study up on it, the govt controls farm prices, exports, so how can anyone survive in that environment?

--->Paul

some reading.

Agricultural Subsidies Downsizing the Federal Governmentwww.downsizinggovernment.org/agriculture/subsidies

(quoted from post at 17:11:54 11/08/12) > Not many businesses get gov money and if they fail they fail.

You've got to be kidding!!!!!!

Name a buisness that _doesn't_ get offered govt assistance?????

You've got to be kidding!

If the govt stayed out of the pricing of farm commodities, 99% of us would be happy to get the govt out of farming. But study up on it, the govt controls farm prices, exports, so how can anyone survive in that environment?

--->Paul

Click to expand...

OK tell me about businesses getting government money that they DON"T HAVE TO PAY BACK. Sure there are some grants out here to reduce polution but most of the time a company that gets help from the government has to pay it back.

Rick