A simple question
I was wondering if anyone else saw the problem of paying farmers and agro corporations not to grow crops in an attempt to keep food prices up, while at the same time supplying food stamps to the poor in an attempt to insure they can afford the artificially inflated food prices? Had an argument with my older brother and he refused to believe that the government actually pays to have crops not grown.
Could you post some links on this? I haven't heard of this and would like to learn more about it.
They tried passing a farm bill in Missouri to help farmers that lost crops from the recent drought. 75% of it was for welfare. 25% would have went to farmers. It was defeated.
Since the 1930's the federal government has been paying farmers not to grow food, in an effort to control the costs of food, to keep the price of food from falling through the floor due to ever increasing crop yields due to increasing technology.
Originally Posted by chaard
Anything government gets involved with spending tax money is going to be abused by government beauracrats. We desperately need to get government out of our lives with all social and benevolence programs. Other than imposing tarifs on imported goods from countries like China, when those countries use unfair trade practices, government needs to stay out of the process of capitalism's supply and demand.
...seek, and ye shall find;..
So always seek the Truth, not just what you want to believe to be true…
Ecclesiastes 10:2 NIV
I've known for years about farmers being paid not to grow crops.
I was wrong about my earlier post. It wasn't a Mo bill. It was the federal farm bill.
But the %'s were right.
Last edited by chaard; 10-21-2012 at 10:24 AM.
Not being paid to not grow crops. This is incentive to protect the environment.
Conservation Reserve Program - the program that is aimed at protecting environmentally sensitive land
“By reducing water runoff and sedimentation, CRP protects groundwater and helps improve the condition of lakes, rivers, ponds, and streams,” according to the USDA. “Acreage enrolled in the CRP is planted to resource-conserving vegetative covers, making the program a major contributor to increased wildlife populations in many parts of the country.”
As stated in the article, not much about getting paid to not grow crops.
What's in the farm bill?
The short answer is: a lot. Here's a partial list:
price supports and/or crop insurance for commodity crops
conservation programs that affect land, water and soil use
agricultural exports and food aid, including humanitarian assistance to other nations
food assistance programs for poor Americans
direct and guaranteed loans to farmers and ranchers
forestry programs managed by the U.S. Forest Service
programs promoting renewable fuels such as ethanol
crop insurance and disaster assistance
The details of this year's bill are still being hammered out, but the Congressional Budget Office says the cost over 10 years will be about $969 billion. The vast majority — $768.2 billion, according to the CBO — will go to food stamps.
The same type of system that we have here in Canada with our dairy and egg industry. Basically produce as much as needed and get enough of a return to keep you in the game. Unlike our hog industry where when prices are good producers jump in until their is an oversupply where the prices drop below the cost of production, hogs are dumped as people go broke-get out of the industry, until there is a shortage in hogs where the price paid goes up and the cycle repeats itself.
Question: Why does the government pay farmers not to grow crops?
Robert Frank: Paying farmers not to grow crops was a substitute for agricultural price support programs designed to ensure that farmers could always sell their crops for enough to support themselves.
Our farmers are not happy about your support programs for your farmers, makes it harder to compete with them. Our government does not have the deep pockets yours does to level the playing field.
So the government described the program as an environmental one rather than an income maintenance scheme. As described to the public, it was compensation to farmers for retiring acreage to reduce fertilizer and pesticide runoff into the nation's water supply.
Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. —Mark Twain
Originally Posted by printer2
My problem with the programs printer is that on one hand, prices are being kept artificially high, by limiting supply while at the other hand we are stepping in to make sure people can live with the artificially high prices. Our food stamps program seems like it's a band aid to a very broken system created in the 1930's.
These programs existed before the environmental causes where stated making it look suspicious.
the old bill where they told farmers how much crops they can grow, was the same one they used to justify the health care bill to claim it was legal
Problems...??I wish they'd pay ME NOT to do HVAC.....I'd be a star employee....