Star Tribune Article

[Leeland]

This sounds like more trouble on the horizon for Pheasant conservation.


http://www.startribune.com/business/130169158.html

[onpoint]

Everybody wants less taxes, less government, fiscally responsible spending and deficit reduction. as long as it don't effect them.

Damned if you do damned if you don't.

[jmac]

Originally Posted by onpoint

Everybody wants less taxes, less government, fiscally responsible spending and deficit reduction. as long as it don't effect them.

Damned if you do damned if you don't.

Wow, First part of this was dead on. Went down hill after. " as long as it don't effect them." Imho no one owes you Sh34. ON point thats not an attack on you. thank you.

[onpoint]

I have not a clue what set you off. I didn't think I said anything to offend any certain person. All I said was it's OK to cut government money to folks, as long as it's not government money that's going to them.

This is a touchy subject and I see it going no where but negative. If I was a moderator I would nip this before it gets any further.

I'm done

[jmac]

Originally Posted by onpoint

I have not a clue what set you off. I didn't think I said anything to offend any certain person. All I said was it's OK to cut government money to folks, as long as it's not government money that's going to them.

This is a touchy subject and I see it going no where but negative. If I was a moderator I would nip this before it gets any further.

I'm done

no need to close. Onpoint I said not an attack on you. You posted and I comented. I hope i didn't offend you Because was not ment to offend you.

[onpoint]

No harm no foul...I believe I read your post wrong. My fault. Be cool!

[OKIEGunner]

I read the article and found it to be an interesting topic. Of course it’s dealing with a Political issue, which, on a forum can always go south.

OnPoint, for what it’s worth, I found nothing Offensive in your post, it was more of reality that we will all be faced to deal with soon. In today’s Political arena we will soon be witnessing some sort or form of Class Warfare, whether it be Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Federal Retirements, VA Disability or Farm Subsidies issues.

One interesting note here is the fact that this article was written by the StarTribune in the state of Minnesota. The last I checked the majority of Minnesotan’s voted for this administration. My point here is, I hope we all start paying closer attention to who we send to represent our future interests and values.

Bottom-line: If we keep spending at the rate we have for the past 10 years, No One will have to worry about receiving a check from the Federal Government.

[onpoint]

Something does have to be done about Farm subsidies that's a fact. They were put in place to help the struggling family farmer long ago. It is now exploited in nearly every way possible by those who it was never intended for.

I know a family that nearly every single person for multiple generation's collect's farm subsidies. Family members who haven't farmed for 30 years and have lived in town for that 30 years but they still collect. No if's and's or but's totally wrong IMO. Time to clean it up and long over due.

[omsrud]

First off, the President's plan is dead on arrival. Notwithstanding, I like the direction that Agricultural Spending appears to be heading. I think that at the end of the day, there is still a better than 50% chance that any deficit reduction will fail to make meaningful cuts to subsidizing production agriculture. But, if Social Security is the third rail in American politics, farm subsidies used to be third rail alternate B. Politicians are no longer afraid to discuss cutting direct subsidies, even entirely, and altering crop insurance subsidies. The subsidies eliminate much of the risk of farming marginal ground. Until there is risk involved, CRP and other conservation programs will remain unattractive to farmers farming marginal crop land.

What many people fail to realize is that crop insurance is highly subsidized. It really isn't a true risk policy like you or I pay on our auto or life insurance. Farmers only pay something like 40% of the actual premium and the insurance companies are subsidized to underwrite the policies. Furthermore, farmers can farm a previously unfarmed/unbroken piece of ground, or farm a marginal piece of ground, for five years and their yields (and thus their claims paid) are based not upon the production record of the property or what an actuary might estimate yields to be, but upon the county average for yield. This is a "benefit of the doubt" given to the producer for five years. For example, here in my county, the farmland is generally quite good, providing excellent yields. I don't know the exact number, but assume the average corn yield is 180 bushels per. There are corridors of light, sandy and poorly drained soil along a few small rivers, however. The most recent acquisition by our PF chapter involved a farm owned by none other than an insurance agent. Not surprisingly, he owned the property for 5 years during which he custom farmed it, and then sold it to the chapter, as no farmer would pay him even what he paid for it 5 years prior. This farm probably averaged, in all actuality, 120 bushel per. But crop insurance paid him claims based on 180 (the county average) for five years even though the farm was previously in production and the records easily ascertainable through the farm program.

Even though there are proposals in the Presidents plan to decrease funding for conservation programs, there may be addition by subtraction. Changes in the farm programs have taken nearly all risk out of farming marginal ground. Farmers are willing to take a chance because of the "safety net." Until the safety net is removed from farming marginal ground, CRP dollars cannot compete with row crops.

[haymaker]

Originally Posted by onpoint

Something does have to be done about Farm subsidies that's a fact. They were put in place to help the struggling family farmer long ago. It is now exploited in nearly every way possible by those who it was never intended for.

I know a family that nearly every single person for multiple generation's collect's farm subsidies. Family members who haven't farmed for 30 years and have lived in town for that 30 years but they still collect. No if's and's or but's totally wrong IMO. Time to clean it up and long over due.

I am a farmer and I agree with you. There is nothing wrong with a saftey net because things will not always be like this. However a saftey net shouldn't mean you can get prevented planting on sloughs. Or plant 10 acres of corn on a half section and plant the rest to wheat, and then collect a prevent plant payment and harvest a wheat crop.