When you find the fantasyland where the whole world snaps their fingers at the same time and all government regulation and incentives are done away with, I'll wholeheartedly agree with you. Until then, I support some manner of the farm bill though I struggle with it.

country said:

---

When you find the fantasyland where the whole world snaps their fingers at the same time and all government regulation and incentives are done away with, I'll wholeheartedly agree with you. Until then, I support some manner of the farm bill though I struggle with it.

---

We don't' have to wait for the whole world to snap their fingers. We can deregulate and reap the benefits ourselves starting NOW. There is no advantage for government to intrude. So we would find ourselves at an advantage compared to the other countries that stupidly keep intruding into their economy.

schmellba99 said:

---

MarkTwain said:

---

Remove all the absurd nonsensical regulations against farmers involving water use and management, for just a small example rules that require farmers to monitor and regulate even small, temporary puddles on their land, excessively strict limits on irrigation water usage even in drought-prone areas, mandatory buffer zones along streams that significantly reduce usable farmland, or requiring permits for basic agricultural activities like tilling land that could be considered "disturbing wetlands," often leading to confusion and significant bureaucratic burdens for farmers, even when their practices do not pose a significant environmental threat. Absurd permitting regulations that are nothing more than a way of the bureaucracy to bleed out the little farmers and extort the biggest operators.

---

This is a great way to get back to the dust bowl era.

You do realize that there are a lot more uses for land out there than just farming, right? That that - especially int he case of riverine systems - upstream impacts can significantly effect downstream users, correct?

You also understand that water (fresh water) is a finite resource and if you allow everybody to punch a hole in the ground and pump to their heart's desire, the aquifers that have taken millions of years to form and that we use will deplete in a very short amount of time, correct?

The amount of farmland isn't a problem here - we have plenty. And plenty that goes unused.

---

Thanks for sharing Al Gore

Government was a big cause of the dust bowl.

Kansas Kid said:

---

mccjames said:

---

According to treasury they say revenue is 4.92 trillion
SS spending is 250 Billion, Medicare is 206 Billion Total of 456 Billion. So it doesn't look that impossible, difficult yes but not impossible.

Biggest issue is we are spending 6.75 trillion which is just not sustainable. 23% of GDP and that is a significant drop from the 30% during COVID years.

Last time we had surplus was 2001 but we were sub trillion in deficit for multiple years. It needs to be the target.

---

I'm not sure where you got your data but it is way off. SSA is about $1.5T alone.

---

These numbers are from the CBO:

For 2023, the federal government brought in $4.4 Trillion in revenue.

We spent $6.1 Trillion, meaning we took on $1.7 Trillion in new debt.

Mandatory spending (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc.) was $3.8 Trillion. That is 62% of the budget and 86% of revenue.

If you include interest on the debt, the total goes to $4.459 Trillion. This is $59 Billion more than the US received in revenue. Mandatory spending plus interest on the debt is now greater than total tax revenue.

It also represents 73% of the budget.

That means that the remaining amount of government spending (which is the actual day to day running of the government) has to be funded entirely with debt.

Social Security was 21% of spending, and 29.5% of revenue.
Medicare was 14% of spending and 19% of revenue.
Medicaid was 10% of spending and 14% of revenue.
"Income Security programs" was 7% of spending and 10.1% of revenue.
"Other mandatory spending" was 8% of spending and 11.4% of revenue.
Interest on the debt was 10.8% of spending and 15% of revenue.

The entire amount of tax revenue of the United States goes to entitlement spending and interest.

aTmAg said:

---

BBRex said:

---

Judging by U.S. manufacturing, IT departments, and, apparently, sugar production, going a full free-market route will likely lead to corn, soybeans, and beef being grown elsewhere and imported. Then, in a crisis, the rest of the world can laugh at us the way we laughed at parts of Europe for relying on Russia for oil.

---

The REASON manufacturing has moved overseas is because our government has regulated, taxed, and welfared the cost of living so high that it is no longer viable to produce here anymore. It was not simply because CEOs suddenly decided "let's hire people thousands of miles away and ship their goods over the ocean for the hell of it!" They did it to survive. Government is the cause.

The correct answer is to roll back all of that government to make production viable again. Adding MORE government on top (subsidies) will only make it worse.

---

That's a great story. If only it was all true. How much of that manufacturing was moved overseas to maximize shareholder profit and CEO bonuses? How much does it continue because Americans don't really care about foreigners working in unsafe job sites or near slave conditions as long as we get cheap consumer goods? You have to remember that much of that regulation is a response to the garment-factory fires, Sinclair's "The Jungle" and the more.

I think the agriculture subsidies could be updated and improved. But I think going full free market will have some unintended consequences.

BBRex said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

BBRex said:

---

Judging by U.S. manufacturing, IT departments, and, apparently, sugar production, going a full free-market route will likely lead to corn, soybeans, and beef being grown elsewhere and imported. Then, in a crisis, the rest of the world can laugh at us the way we laughed at parts of Europe for relying on Russia for oil.

---

The REASON manufacturing has moved overseas is because our government has regulated, taxed, and welfared the cost of living so high that it is no longer viable to produce here anymore. It was not simply because CEOs suddenly decided "let's hire people thousands of miles away and ship their goods over the ocean for the hell of it!" They did it to survive. Government is the cause.

The correct answer is to roll back all of that government to make production viable again. Adding MORE government on top (subsidies) will only make it worse.

---

That's a great story. If only it was all true. How much of that manufacturing was moved overseas to maximize shareholder profit and CEO bonuses? How much does it continue because Americans don't really care about foreigners working in unsafe job sites or near slave conditions as long as we get cheap consumer goods? You have to remember that much of that regulation is a response to the garment-factory fires, Sinclair's "The Jungle" and the more.

I think the agriculture subsidies could be updated and improved. But I think going full free market will have some unintended consequences.

---

You have fallen for leftist propaganda lies. It's funny how many liberal buzzwords you squeezed in there.

Have you bothered to wonder why moving manufacturing overseas only started maximizing "shareholder profit" [sic] and CEO bonuses in the mid 20th century? Why wasn't that the case during the industrial revolution?

Of course, your (wrong) answer will be "because WE had 'slave' labor in the US during the industrial revolution!!" Of course, that too will be a lie. People would not immigrate here by the millions for decades to be enslaved. They came here because this was the best place on Earth to work. Where people could keep more of their wages and elevate themselves into the middle class.

The real answer is because we added so many ridiculous regulations that we no longer could compete against foreign manufacturers.

And if you actually read up on the garment factory fire and Sinclair, you would realize you were fed lies there too. The owners of the garment factory had their families there the day of the fire. They wouldn't do that if they thought it was a powder keg waiting to explode. Furthermore, they had recently signed a union deal. Did that union deal demand safer conditions? No. They demanded higher wages. Nobody realized how dangerous it was. In fact, the factory BANNED cigarettes, but workers hid them and smoked them anyway. A discarded match or cigarette was thrown into a pile of scrap fabric. It was all a tragic accident that socialists used to push for more government. Long before OSHA existed, factories were becoming safer. Nobody sane thinks that factories in 1970 (prior to OSHA) were as dangerous as they were in 1900.

Sinclair too was full of crap. He was an avowed socialist wanting to run for office. Teddy Roosevelt himself said of Sinclair. "I have an utter contempt for him. He is hysterical, unbalanced, and untruthful. Three-fourths of the things he said were absolute falsehoods. For some of the remainder there was only a basis of truth." He was no better than Michael Moore today.

Yeah all that shareholder profit on the income statement is sickening man.

Hint: corporations make a profit or loss (income statement) which shows as equity on a balance sheet (via retained earnings) and increases shareholder equity.

A garment factory fire truther!

Something new here every day!

aTmAg said:

---

Government was a big cause of the dust bowl.

---

How?

Aggies1322 said:

---

Yeah all that shareholder profit on the income statement is sickening man.

Hint: corporations make a profit or loss (income statement) which shows as equity on a balance sheet (via retained earnings) and increases shareholder equity.

---

I never said that was bad in and of itself. The problem is that sending certain critical work overseas can have ramifications on national security, and CEOs can look past that in the name of making a buck because of what they see as their fiduciary duty. Look at the scramble to start making chips here again.

You don't see an issue if we wind up importing most of our food?

CanyonAg77 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Government was a big cause of the dust bowl.

---

How?

---

https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/bd485084a7f343ef8ebb87ff45903d0c

BBRex said:

---

Aggies1322 said:

---

Yeah all that shareholder profit on the income statement is sickening man.

Hint: corporations make a profit or loss (income statement) which shows as equity on a balance sheet (via retained earnings) and increases shareholder equity.

---

I never said that was bad in and of itself. The problem is that sending certain critical work overseas can have ramifications on national security, and CEOs can look past that in the name of making a buck because of what they see as their fiduciary duty. Look at the scramble to start making chips here again.

You don't see an issue if we wind up importing most of our food?

---

If we maximized freedom in our country and didn't impose all the stupid regulations that you love so much, then we would build and grow all of that stuff here.

You don't see the issue with running all of those manufacturers and farmers off?

One of my favorite quotes: "A little government and a little luck are necessary in life, but only a fool trusts either of them." The current crop of Republicans seems to forget that first part (while ridiculing libertarians and not seeing the irony).

I would prefer to have as few regulations as possible. At the same time, I think there are a few reasons why having the government help stabilize agriculture might be a good idea.

aTmAg said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Government was a big cause of the dust bowl.

---

How?

---

https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/bd485084a7f343ef8ebb87ff45903d0c

---

Did you read it?

Inane and inaccurate. For instance, it talks of the price for wheat being "set" high during WWI. There was no setting of wheat prices. It was demand that drove it.

They have a bit of a point, in that the government encouraged homesteading.

Beyond that, the writer didn't have a clue.

My favorite:

Quote:

---

The dark green areas are counties with the biggest changes in population from 1930-1940, and the red counties are those with the least amount of population change during this time.

---

Say wut?

To the original OP on farm support, I've had some hands-on exposure to farming and ranching but still far from an expert. Huge respect to those who take the risks and toil in frequently challenging conditions to produce our food.

I have however run large supply chain organizations for multinational corporations and understand what it takes to get product from its source all the way to its destination. It's all about managing capacity at each step of the production chain and your risk tolerance for interruptions.

There are many products that aren't life-or-death, and we live with periodic interruptions for those items and temporarily gripe about the inconvenience and cost impacts, but seemingly justify the tradeoffs.

Food -- as a life essential -- is different. If we want a stable supply, we need to provide reasonable capacity protection for the production processes that are most vulnerable to interruptions. For farming, it starts with ensuring that we have adequate acreage available. You can't grow crops on land that's not available for the upcoming planting season. Hand-in-hand with that is retaining enough farmers (and equipment) who can plant, nurture, and harvest those crops. That's where the farm subsidies help provide an income floor to partially cover their ass during a tough year when everything goes to hell. Yes, they make hay sometimes when the sun is shining and have bumper crops at great prices, but those years are few and far between. Meanwhile, we have to eat every day during that interim.

Further down the line, you have storage and converting capacity to think about. I don't know much about those specifics, but I do know they won't be available if the farmers aren't delivering a somewhat consistent supply into them. And yet even further down the line comes transportation and food processing capacity, which probably are better able to deal with supply volatility because they are more diversified across multiple sectors than a farmer.

Is the farm subsidy model perfect? No. Nothing's perfect. I'm a hard-ass conservative budget hawk and want to take a chainsaw to government spending, but farm support, national defense, border protection, and a reliable supply of clean water are some of the last items I would mess with.

Non-recourse govt backed loans are the only true "safety net." All the other acronym programs (there is an assortment) are straight up cash welfare.

Livestock producers receive $0 in support, all these billions go to a handful of specific row crops.

The row crop lobbies are well funded (hmmm wonder how...) and well connected. They are masters of federal policy manipulation with many decades of experience and thus nearly unbeatable.

BBRex said:

---

One of my favorite quotes: "A little government and a little luck are necessary in life, but only a fool trusts either of them." The current crop of Republicans seems to forget that first part (while ridiculing libertarians and not seeing the irony).

I would prefer to have as few regulations as possible. At the same time, I think there are a few reasons why having the government help stabilize agriculture might be a good idea.

---

Don't pretend to be "moderate" now. Don't walk back from the leftist BS you spouted You were the one citing socialists propagandists like Upton Sinclair and those spreading BS about the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire. You were the guy decrying "CEO bonuses" and "shareholder profits." (Did you mean corporate profits? Shareholder dividends?) You might as well have pasted directly from democratic underground or reddit.

Your post shows fundamental economic ignorance. Under the free market, factories and workers have inherent incentive to find the perfect balance between safety and worker compensation as defined by the WORKERS. The more dangerous a job, the higher the wage needs to be to entice workers to work. Employers do not want to overpay for employees and lose candidates to safer competitors, so they make the jobs more safe. Likewise, workers do not want jobs to be "too safe" at the expense of too low wages. An employer could require every employee to wear a suit of pillows, but employees would rather dispense with that nonsense, and have a higher wage. Especially when the cost of pillow suits would naturally come out of their paychecks just like health insurance, parking spaces, toilet paper, etc.

OSHA was created in 1971. And yet, factories were still far more safe in 1970 than they were in 1870. Why? Because safety lessons were learned along the way through experience and employers strived to incorporate those lessons in their factories in order to compete for workers. In fact, the OSHA in many ways have made factories focus on BS safety measures like colored ladders. That directs money away from real safety measures or higher wages to workers. But hey... at least leftists can crow about "caring".

Regarding meat inspections.. .did you know that long before Sinclair's book, that large meat packers were already lobbying for and getting government inspectors? Why? Because 1) they wanted to raise the barrier of entry to keep smaller competitors out, 2) they thought a government certification would open them to markets in Europe (but Europe was really just 'saving' their packers from American competitors), and 3) they could charge higher prices. It was protectionist, it wasn't to protect consumers. In fact, notice how many of the largest recalls in US history were not due to inspectors finding anything? They are defacto rubber stamps for big firms. Rancho Feeding Corp recall happened after an insider tipped off the USDA, not because the USDA found tainted meat. Many others happened after people got sick or died. People simply assume that the USDA is not like every other government agency and assume their food is fine.


The only regulations that should exist are those that effect 3rd parties. For example, the cost of pollution is paid not by the manufacturer or consumer, but by 3rd parties. So it makes sense for government to to charge polluters to compensate those effected. But that should be done at a local level, not federal. That way there is competition. No region could get too lenient or strict out of fear of screwing over people and manufacturers.

A "bit of a point"? The Homestead Act IS THE point. Effectively paying a crap ton of people top people to move to an area and farm an area that is unsuited is what caused it. It's like when FEMA effectively subsidized people to rebuild the same beach house after it gets destroyed every year. If people pay the full price, they would not waste their money on it.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

To the original OP on farm support, I've had some hands-on exposure to farming and ranching but still far from an expert. Huge respect to those who take the risks and toil in frequently challenging conditions to produce our food.

I have however run large supply chain organizations for multinational corporations and understand what it takes to get product from its source all the way to its destination. It's all about managing capacity at each step of the production chain and your risk tolerance for interruptions.

There are many products that aren't life-or-death, and we live with periodic interruptions for those items and temporarily gripe about the inconvenience and cost impacts, but seemingly justify the tradeoffs.

Food -- as a life essential -- is different. If we want a stable supply, we need to provide reasonable capacity protection for the production processes that are most vulnerable to interruptions. For farming, it starts with ensuring that we have adequate acreage available. You can't grow crops on land that's not available for the upcoming planting season. Hand-in-hand with that is retaining enough farmers (and equipment) who can plant, nurture, and harvest those crops. That's where the farm subsidies help provide an income floor to partially cover their ass during a tough year when everything goes to hell. Yes, they make hay sometimes when the sun is shining and have bumper crops at great prices, but those years are few and far between. Meanwhile, we have to eat every day during that interim.

Further down the line, you have storage and converting capacity to think about. I don't know much about those specifics, but I do know they won't be available if the farmers aren't delivering a somewhat consistent supply into them. And yet even further down the line comes transportation and food processing capacity, which probably are better able to deal with supply volatility because they are more diversified across multiple sectors than a farmer.

Is the farm subsidy model perfect? No. Nothing's perfect. I'm a hard-ass conservative budget hawk and want to take a chainsaw to government spending, but farm support, national defense, border protection, and a reliable supply of clean water are some of the last items I would mess with.

---

As a "life essential", the best way to maintain a stable supply is to get government OUT OF IT. Rather than allowing regulatory capture to reduce us to fewer monster farms, we should allow the free market to diversify farming to many farms and crops all over the country. There are plenty of free market mechanisms such as insurance and speculation to enable farmers to avoid losing their ass. Government should get out of those industries to to maximize competition and quality while reducing prices.


The fact that you guys can see examples all over the place of government screwing everything up that they touch, I find it weird that you trust them HERE of all places. It makes absolutely no sense.

Quote:

---

Effectively paying a crap ton of people top people to move to an area and farm an area that is unsuited is what caused it.

---

Even more people live there now and there is no dust bowl

Quote:

---

Rather than allowing regulatory capture to reduce us to fewer monster farms, we should allow the free market to diversify farming to many farms and crops all over the country

---

The free market is EXACTLY what drives producers to monster farms.

This is an interesting concern.

Without continued governmental interference in food production. In you opinion, how long could a periodic disruption last. A season? 6 months? A year? 3 years?

Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell should be required reading.. and this thread is proof of why.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

Effectively paying a crap ton of people top people to move to an area and farm an area that is unsuited is what caused it.

---

Even more people live there now and there is no dust bowl

---

And without FEMA, people would still live on beaches. But they would take responsibility and willingly pay the expense of building houses that can endure 100 year floods or paying the high insurance premiums to have their house re-built on occasion. Yet when FEMA foots the bill, than rando people build homes there without taking any precautions since they know FEMA will come to the rescue.

Likewise, people moving there NOW are willing and knowledgeable enough to take proper precautions to ensure they don't get dust bowled.


Your conservative card is revoked.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

Rather than allowing regulatory capture to reduce us to fewer monster farms, we should allow the free market to diversify farming to many farms and crops all over the country

---

The free market is EXACTLY what drives producers to monster farms.

---

Not THIS monstrous. Regulatory capture always moves it too far towards the monster direction. Under a free market, farms would move towards the optimal size. Which may still be large, but not THIS large. In addition, smaller farms would still be viable.

aTmAg said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

Effectively paying a crap ton of people top people to move to an area and farm an area that is unsuited is what caused it.

---

Even more people live there now and there is no dust bowl

---

And without FEMA, people would still live on beaches. But they would take responsibility and willingly pay the expense of building houses that can endure 100 year floods or paying the high insurance premiums to have their house re-built on occasion. Yet when FEMA foots the bill, than rando people build homes there without taking any precautions since they know FEMA will come to the rescue.

Likewise, people moving there NOW are willing and knowledgeable enough to take proper precautions to ensure they don't get dust bowled.


Your conservative card is revoked.

---

You haven't met any young first generation farmers have you? Particularly in the "dust bowl" areas. They don't have a clue about any of that. It's the old timers or multi-generational farmers that know how to farm in that area.

aTmAg said:

---

The fact that you guys can see examples all over the place of government screwing everything up that they touch, I find it weird that you trust them HERE of all places. It makes absolutely no sense.

---

60 years of life has taught me to be a realistic conservative, not an absolutist one.

There are many worries in life, but fortunately food supply and cost aren't one of them for Americans. Sure, when food inflation perks up we don't like it, but that's because it eats into our i-phone budget, not because food is fundamentally unaffordable.

There are many reasons why we're a top ag producer that have nothing to do with the government, but I support the overall intent of the farm program to try and provide stability for farmers and ag markets.

There are so many other areas to target for sharp reductions in government spending to people who aren't producing anything for society except laziness, crime, and conflict. Let's leave the farmers alone and go tackle those other areas.

Exactly what regulations do you think are driving toward monster farms?

Quote:

---

There are many worries in life, but fortunately food supply and cost aren't one of them for Americans. Sure, when food inflation perks up we don't like it, but that's because it eats into our i-phone budget, not because food is fundamentally unaffordable.

---

iPhones can double in price, people will grumble and maybe upgrade next year instead of this year.

Let milk, meat and eggs double in price, and riots will follow.

Worst, politicians don't get reelected.

USDA policy is cheap food, not support of farmers. The latter is the side effect, not the purpose.

Hagen95 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

Effectively paying a crap ton of people top people to move to an area and farm an area that is unsuited is what caused it.

---

Even more people live there now and there is no dust bowl

---

And without FEMA, people would still live on beaches. But they would take responsibility and willingly pay the expense of building houses that can endure 100 year floods or paying the high insurance premiums to have their house re-built on occasion. Yet when FEMA foots the bill, than rando people build homes there without taking any precautions since they know FEMA will come to the rescue.

Likewise, people moving there NOW are willing and knowledgeable enough to take proper precautions to ensure they don't get dust bowled.


Your conservative card is revoked.

---

You haven't met any young first generation farmers have you? Particularly in the "dust bowl" areas. They don't have a clue about any of that. It's the old timers or multi-generational farmers that know how to farm in that area.

---

Irrelevant to my point.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Exactly what regulations do you think are driving toward monster farms?

---

Go read up on "regulatory capture" and get back to me. It happens in every industry. Farming is not immune.

Agree with all those points

MemphisAg1 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

The fact that you guys can see examples all over the place of government screwing everything up that they touch, I find it weird that you trust them HERE of all places. It makes absolutely no sense.

---

60 years of life has taught me to be a realistic conservative, not an absolutist one.

There are many worries in life, but fortunately food supply and cost aren't one of them for Americans. Sure, when food inflation perks up we don't like it, but that's because it eats into our i-phone budget, not because food is fundamentally unaffordable.

There are many reasons why we're a top ag producer that have nothing to do with the government, but I support the overall intent of the farm program to try and provide stability for farmers and ag markets.

---

The only way I am "absolutist" is in that I want the best outcome for Americans as possible. Through my research I have learned when regulations make sense and when they do not. I have also learned that wealth redistribution (including subsidies) NEVER make sense. They create a deadweight loss that can never be recovered.

And I support the stated INTENT of nearly every liberal policy: to help the poor, to improve health, etc. The difference is that I understand that their policies never achieve their intent. Farm subsidies are no exception.

I care about RESULTS, not intent. That is why I'm opposed to subsidies.

Quote:

---

There are so many other areas to target for sharp reductions in government spending to people who aren't producing anything for society except laziness, crime, and conflict. Let's leave the farmers alone and go tackle those other areas.

---

This thread is about farm subsidies. So here I am writing about how they are bad. In other threads, I talk about how those liberal policies are bad.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

There are many worries in life, but fortunately food supply and cost aren't one of them for Americans. Sure, when food inflation perks up we don't like it, but that's because it eats into our i-phone budget, not because food is fundamentally unaffordable.

---

iPhones can double in price, people will grumble and maybe upgrade next year instead of this year.

Let milk, meat and eggs double in price, and riots will follow.

Worst, politicians don't get reelected.

USDA policy is cheap food, not support of farmers. The latter is the side effect, not the purpose.

---

What policies claim to achieve and what they actually achieve are different things. The USDA, just like every other government agency, sucks.

The entire reason farmers pushed for the USDA in the first place was to increase the barrier of entry and to protect themselves from smaller competition. They did so in ORDER to be able to jack up prices. Not to keep them down or keep riots from happening or any of that nonsense.