My previous questions about WELFARE have prompted me to share a farm subsidy website. www.ewg.org I have always felt like a criminal for past uses of Gov't programs such as medicaid,food stamps,heating assistance during a period of time when we lost 50 head of cattle. We have three children and we all worked our butts off til 3 in the morning.Yet now knowing some huge somes of monies have been paid to deserving or not so deserving trusts,corporations or maybe,just maybe some poor struggling saps like us. We only received $300.00. I don't know how we can call ourselves homesteaders if we need the gov't to take care of us, even as puny as our amount may be.I'd rather trust in the "GOOD LORD". We've been through some nightmarish ordeals when dealing with Gov't programs of any sort.

-- carla (herbs@computer-concepts.com), February 09, 2002

Answers

Hello Carla,

The monies that our government return to the people in this country is "a drop in the bucket" compared to the monies that they give the rest of the countries that never really appreciate their generousity! Remember Somalia? We sent troops and food over there to help the starving masses only to have the warlords attack and kill several hundred of our best soldiers. They even dragged one of our men through the streets tied to the back of a truck!

Though WELFARE is an issue with many homesteaders, it is good to know that when we face difficulties like crop failures, diseased or dying livestock, or natural disasters that the government is willing to help us. Other countries CAN NOT match the generousity of the United States when it comes to helping needy people.

The plight of the American farmer has always been a difficult one and as years go by more and more farmers are in need of assistance, just to keep up. At one time nearly everyone was a farmer of some sort up into the 20th century. Now, there is less that 5 percent of the population that is willing to put up with the difficult task of farming. Its hard sometimes to make ends meet and the government knows it. Offering subsidies to the ones that qualify need not be considered wrong or shameful.

AS for food stamps and the like, it is my understanding that many employed peoples are eligible just because they do not make the money as prescribed by the per capita of their area. I know for a fact that many of the state troopers in southern states make so little that they too are eligible for food stamps, etc. That is not their fault that they do not make as much money as the average person in their state.

The state of Missouri guarantees that ALL CHILDREN living in the state will have medical assistance regardless of the parents income. This makes many, many families elegible for Medical Assistance if they do not have adequate compensation from their employment. That is a good thing and we should honor the Missouri Legislature for helping to keep our kids healthy.

I am not all that pro-government but, I do believe in "taking care of your own", and that is what the US does....as much as possible.

There are of course a few that fall in between the guidelines that are inelegible due to various reasons but, overall it is a pretty good system to have around when one needs it.

Sincerely,

Ernest

-- http://communities.msn.com/livingoffthelandintheozarks (espresso42@hotmail.com), February 09, 2002.

Maybe the Lord uses the government to assist those in need sometimes. I would much rather help the folks in our own countries then spending millions "bribing" other countries into liking us.

-- Mike (uyk7@hotmail.com), February 09, 2002.

I am not giving my name & e-mail on purpose. My husband is disabled and has not worked for 3 years. We have not insurance so he was unable to aford a Dr. untill about 6 months ago we found a clinic that would take us for 5$ a visit. So he was unable to sign up for Social Security. In April of 2000 I was injured at work, but kept working untill the Dr. finaly said no more. I had back surgery in August of 2001 and still not O.K. I've been drawing 238$ a week workmans comp. I went to sign up for food stamps about 2 weeks ago. Guess what I have too much money coming in. They said I was elgiable for the whapping sum of $10.00 a MONTH. I told them where they could put the ten dollars. They said they did not count what money went out only what came in. There was people there driving brand new cars. I have a 1988 chevy s10 pickup. That makes you lose all faith in goverment.

Sorry just had to get this off my chest.

-- just venting (somewhere@home.com), February 09, 2002.

Government is little more than a necessary evil. The less of it we have, the better. Unfortuneately it is taking more from the workers all the time and that is only going to foster a viscious cycle of dependency as they will have the mentality that "I paid something in, now I need/want/deserve something back." The U.S government has been out of control for years and it is inevitable that it is only going to get worse.

-- John (lookin38@hotmail.com), February 09, 2002.

Just Venting........BEEN THERE,DONE THAT!!!

-- tim (herbs@computer-concepts.com), February 09, 2002.

I'll keep my name and E mail to myself also. We have over the years done the unemployment,heating assistance and food stamp thing in the past. The system is terribly abused and unfortunately this takes away funds and makes it more difficult for those who truly need assistance. When we needed these programs we were greatful they were there although it does little for one's self esteem to be in such a situation. There have also been times we would have qualified for assistance but we knew it was only a temporary set back and things would change. I have been angry in the past thinking that if the government let me keep more of the money I broke my back to earn I would not have to ask for help now. At the same time I am also greatful to live in a nation which tries to address the needs of the less fortunate among us. It is sad that There are among us those who seek to profit from the good intentions of others. We firmly believe that there should be no free ride and that everyone should to the best of their ability make it through life by their own hand. We have been humbled when receiving help, yet have gladly given it to those in need. Would a govt. grant allow me to buy the new truck I want or would it help me expand my business and create new jobs in my community? If my business expands due to the grant I will profit, but I will also pay more taxes, as will the people I was able to hire. Having been forced to use the system and also feed the system I can honestly say there are no answers. There are many abuses, however I believe that many of the stories fall into the "urban legend" catagory also. If someone receives a thousand dollars a month in food stamps while driving a new car, they are doing so illegally and not through some over generous program. Does the system need fixing? Of course it does, it's run by people. Once it's fixed it will need fixing again. Such is life. If you feel bad about having to use a certain program than by all means use it. Your "guilt" is an indication of your good character and are the type of person my taxes were intended to help. If your need is real, I don't mind at all. Just use it wisely then move on and prosper.

-- Ben Theretoo (Just me@here.com), February 10, 2002.

In the county where I reside in Md, the top subsidy was almost 600,000 and there were a couple more over a half million. Obscene. Our local paper printed the names of the top recipients on the front page. I was absolutely in shock. I had NO idea. No clue. The government has single handedly made some people with the knowledge and the clout to work the system. . . . quite wealthy.

I was even astonished to note a dairy-farmer acquaintance whom I thought was just a hard working local farmer received over $93,000 in government funds.

I have to tell you I am more than a little annoyed. In my county the people receiving the big bucks are the people with the big bucks.

-- J Mc (JAMS Hundred@aol.com), February 10, 2002.

Well, naturally the folks with the bigger farms will get more money. This is not a welfare program based on _need_. It is a subsidy program based on keeping several major ag products cheap.

The money sums being tossed around is from a 5 year period. So, $500,000 might sound like a lot, but that's $100,000 a year. That would only be a 2000 acre farm. Some places that might be big, but other areas that is kinda small.

Also lumped into these sums are several conservation programs. The govt pays about the going rent to have land seeded to natural grasses. There are several such programs, some 10-20 years, some are lifetime. Getting the lum sum for the lifetime option could greatly inflate the amount a person gets - they can not use this land forever, but must pay taxes, control weeds, maintain native grasses for the rest of their lives on it... I don't think it is fair to lump these programs in with farm subsidies. They are a different deal. Quite a % of the whole 'farm program payments' is actually these conservation programs.

I have never talked to a farmer that is _happy_ with the subsidy programs. But that is where the major grains are at right now. It is what the govt wants. The govt usually gets what it wants.

Without the subsidies, grain production would decrease in the USA, and we would depend upon imports from South America. Is that what we want?

6-7 years ago the govt came up with the 'freedom to farm' plan, where they would give farmers money for 7 years, and then the subsidies would be over. Farmers had 7 years to figure out markets & costs to survive on their own. Hey, sounded like a good plan to me!

Took 2 years, and the govt came up with the LDP plan, which offers a base price support. This defeats the Freedom to Farm idea, because you have to maximise production to work the LDP plan.

Freedom to Farm never got a chance. I wish it had. But, the govt wants the cheap food & control of ag that they get with the subsidy programs.

If we stop farm programs cold turkey, major ecconomic hardship & disaster for the ag industries. And the govt defeated the program designed to wean ag off the farm programs.

So, that is where we are. Perhaps the money looks like huge sums to you, but a combine costs $200,000, another $100,000 for the head to do anything. A tractor is $100,000-150,000. Then you need the implements you pull with it.... Farming is huge sums of money these days. Getting $20,000 or $100,000 a year is but a very small part of a farm income in today's world.

Obviously, many folks 'here' are on 10-20 acres, have an 8N tractor, and raise a couple acres of garden crops and a couple livestock. Maybe some direct marketing. Great! Glad that works for you.

What works for most of the city dwellers is the current ag industries with govt subsidies. Shooting all the farmers won't really help things. :) It's a bigger problem than that.

--->Paul

-- paul (ramblerplm@hotmail.com), February 11, 2002.

Paul writes- "The money sums being tossed around is from a 5 year period. So, $500,000 might sound like a lot, but that's $100,000 a year. That would only be a 2000 acre farm. Some places that might be big, but other areas that is kinda small.

Also lumped into these sums are several conservation programs. The govt pays about the going rent to have land seeded to natural grasses. There are several such programs, some 10-20 years, some are lifetime. Getting the lum sum for the lifetime option could greatly inflate the amount a person gets - they can not use this land forever, but must pay taxes, control weeds, maintain native grasses for the rest of their lives on it... I don't think it is fair to lump these programs in with farm subsidies. They are a different deal. Quite a % of the whole 'farm program payments' is actually these conservation programs".

Not sure where you are getting these figures from, but if they are derived from the previously-referenced EWG tables, then they DO NOT include conservation payments.

Paul, again- "Without the subsidies, grain production would decrease in the USA, and we would depend upon imports from South America. Is that what we want?"

Wrong. We currently export huge percentages of the subsidized crops produced by American farmers. Examples- In 2000,

wheat 53%

Rice 42%

soybeans 35%

sorghum 46%

cotton 45% Sounds like it would be a very long time before we were importing grain from South America.

Your argument about how much it costs to buy equipment, etc, only reinforces my argument that your type of farming in not economically feasible. And, further, you state that "the government wants cheap food...." so, don't sell to the government. Sell to someone who will pay you what your crop is worth.

This entire thread has only reinforced in my mind that a lot of farmers want the taxpayers to subsidize their chosen lifestyle, because if you guys aren't earning a living from your efforts, then that is what it amounts to- a lifestyle you can't afford on your own. Consider this- to fund that paltry $100,000 subsidy that you dismiss as such a pittance, I have to earn $263,157.89 BEFORE taxes, and that doesn't include the cost of all the administration that goes along with it.

-- Elizabeth (ekfla@aol.com), February 11, 2002.

Elizabeth, you are not grasping the point I am trying to get across. :) I don't have time right now to do a better job explaining things. May I e-mail you a more personalized explination? I don't like to just send out e-mails, I feel it deprives others in the thread of the conversation, and you may not wish to hear from me to begin with... ;)

For the record, I farm a very small corn/soybean/oats/cattle farm, about 1/5th the average size around 'here' and my combine is worth about $10,000 with all the heads. A lot of my neighbors are good people. They have big farms, but they are good, nice folk who work very hard in an extremly competitive world market. They hold the same ethics and down to earth values that many homesteaders have. I don't like to see you badmouthing them, but I feel it is because you don't understand, not because you are mean.

No one sells grain to the govt, I must have said things wrong. The government spends all sorts of money on all types of business. Tax increment financing, tax forgiveness, free land, access roads, on & on. The various govts are in the business of gathering business under them. These ag subsidies are just like that. They are not, and never have been, a _welfare_ program. It is a _business_ program. Bigger businesses obviously will get a bigger govt portion.

I really don't understand where you are coming from with your comments, Elizabeth, I hope we can start understanding each other.

--->Paul

-- paul (ramblerplm@hotmail.com), February 11, 2002.

Paul- You are welcome to email me off-forum if you like, but I was hoping that others would jump in on this thread and share their views as well. I agree that taking this off-forum might deprive other readers who might have input to offer, but if you feel more comfortable emailing that is ok with me.

Please allow me to clarify one thing- I am sure that you and your neighbors are all fine, moral people with a strong work ethic- I don't know too many lazy farmers :<) Since I don't even know you or your neighbors please don't accuse me of badmouthing them (or you) simply because I am expressing criticism of their farming practices. I disagree with the subsidy programs which you and/or they take advantage of. I do not think that those programs accomplish what they were designed to do (like so many other social programs in the country!). I do realize the distinction that you are making that the programs are "business" arrangements and not welfare handouts. BUT, I have both an education and practical experience in business and I still say, these are BAD business practices. I would love it if you, or anyone else, could persuade me that I am wrong.

Here's some food for thought- if the government really wants to help the small family farmer, maybe they should fund a program similar to the one that Heifer Project International sponsors, though obviously on a larger scale, since most family farmers want to do more than subsist. From my POV, all the government is doing now is throwing good money after bad to bail out people who are engaged in poorly managed businesses.

-- Elizabeth (ekfla@aol.com), February 11, 2002.

I am sorry I left my response at the wwrong thread! Oh well! We think of all the things about farm subsidies that really make no sense at all is that there is no accountability.We know of no programs in which there is no accountability!Food stamps go directly to the store for "only" food! Medicaid is paid directly to the Doctor or Pharmacy.So that limits the chance for misuse of funds.We as the public have no idea if the farmers who receive the enormous amounts,are good stewards of the money or not and are actually purchasing farm supplies with the money. To take the mystery out of the use of these funds, we feel that vouchers could be applied in farming subsidies to see that no misuse of funds is to happen. Iknow that would raise a lot of devils because my have shared the idea to those who have a "paper farm"and they were totally enraged at the suggestion of it! What does anybody else think of the idea? I appreciate everyone's openness to be able to share opinions in our free country without being upset,since it is only opinions being posted here. No one should have to hide their name and address for fear of retribution or judgement,but I can appreciate everyone's opinion.If we all shared the same ideas and opinions we wouldn't need a forum!!

-- Carla (herbs@computer-concepts.com), February 12, 2002.

I see a very anti-farmer sentiment here. No use bucking that. Mis-use of farm subsidy money??? How _can_ you mis-use it????? That is nonsensical. To me it just sounds anti-farmer.

--->Paul

-- paul (ramblerplm@hotmail.com), February 12, 2002.

No way Paul, no anti-farmer sentiment here. Anti-SUBSIDY, yes, but not anti-farmer.

-- Elizabeth (ekfla@aol.com), February 12, 2002.

Ok most of you are so far out in left field I can't see you .Lets kill the goverment for FINALLY helping {or trying to} there own.But it's ok to send trillions overseas to anybody who asks .To buy meat and grain and produce from foreign markets when we produce the same here .We send all types of food ,medical and housing aide to 3rd world countries, yet we have sick here who cannot afford care , hungry who cannot afford food and homeless.Untill everyone in our country has proper medical care a home and food on the table , not 1 penny should be sent over seas.Where will we be if all farms go under in the usa ? We will rely on over seas markets , will they give a shit about us ? Well lets look in the past , the answer is NO !Dairy farms went under in the 1,000's not to long ago to low milk prices .Try to survive on 10.00 per 100 pretty hard to do , add a bad growing season and say bye bye to the farm.

-- Patty {NY State} (fodfarms@hotmail.com), February 12, 2002.

Paul...... We are NOT anti-farmer! We as most people who subscribe to Countryside and to the practices of homesteading and animal husbandry,CALL OURSELVES FARMERS.So to slam farmers would be to slam ourselves.We just don't get the financial backing to succeed. We have dreams too....We want to prosperous too....We want people to believe in our dreams too....We love the land ....We love what we do it's just not on as big a scale as the guys who get the big bucks that the gov't pours into their dreams.All Homesteaders would call themselves farmers to some extent.The gov't doesn't see us little tiny guys.Maybe the big bucks would be better spent to show everyone how to fish....not give them the fish.God love the farmer,but he must be also as accountable as a Hallmark store owner.We feel there are undeniable abuses in Farm Subsidies...just as in food stamps or any other program.

-- Carla (herbs@computer-concepts.com), February 12, 2002.

Carla & Elizabeth, perhaps this article will make some impression:

http://industryclick.com/magnewsarticle.asp?newsarticleid=286703&magaz ineid=14&SiteID=5

(Oh dear, a long address, you will need to edit out the space/return that will appear in it.)

Anyhow, we live with a govt that finds it most important to ensure a strong Wall Street trade. To keep this, our dollar is kept _very_ strong compared to other countries. We have also tried to open up world trade with lower import tarriffs, while other countries have _not_ done so. Add our world-policing policies and the dislike some countries have for us. Add to that the ecconomic investment our country makes in third-world countries.

All of the above is actually pretty good policy. _Except_ for what it does to bulk trade goods - such as agricultural products. No one else in the world can _afford_ our surplus food. Other regions of the world are benifiting from our technology & investment dollars to produce crops _much_ cheaper than the USA can - and in surplus themselves.

Do you want to lose agricultural production in the USA? Do you want to rely on those countries that hate us for our _food_ supply? Do you want to be subject to an OPEC of food????

There isn't a farmer out here that would _love_ to get the govt out of production agriculture. The farm programs _suck_. We hate them. It is keeping agriculture alive in the USA - but we farmers _hate_ it.

But when the USA creates a strong USA dollar, uses food exports as a weapon, and gives money to other countries to expand their ag production, what does that do to American agriculture? How can we compete with this?

Elizabeth, you don't think conservation programs are contained in the EWG's figures? When you visit their site & look up several names, you will see the first line is 'total USDA payments.' The second line is 'subtotal, farm payments.' Sometimes these numbers are the same, when the farmer is only involved in farm programs. Sometimes these numbers are different, when the farmer is involved in non-farm programs. My guess is enviornmental programs - you can guess what you want I suppose. In addition, have you ever applied for any of the farm subsidies? You are aware of the sod-buster, swamp-buster, wetlands, and Highly Erodable Lands provisions that these programs _require_ us farmers to follow. Surely some of the dollars collected go into complying with these issues? If we don't follow the rules, we don't get the subsidy...

You also seem to think these are welfare programs. In the court case that allowed this info to be public information, the judge specifically said it is not welfare - welfare programs cannot be public info because it would shame the recipients. Ag subsidies are just that - subsidies to an industry, not welfare.

You say that we export huge sums of ag products. Yes we do! We also import huge sums of ag products. Do a little math, and you will find that we are getting very close to even on this. But what is happening now is not important. What happens if the ag subsidies are removed? Farmers will go broke and quit producing. We won't have any crops to export, nor consume. We will be importing all our food from, for example, Brazil, where they have 'cheap' dollars, no enviornmental laws, cheap labor, and 'strong' USA dollars helping to clear out native lands and turn them into farm land. You seem to be missing that point? It would be a _short_ time until we are importing South American grain - our supplies are less than a year's worth, and with no USA production... Well, that is a scary future for _me_!

Machines to raise crops cost a lot of money. It would cost _more_ to do the labor by hand - again this is based on ecconomic conditions in the USA beyond the control of a farmer. Yes you are _very_ correct - people in the USA are not willing to pay enough to keep agriculture ecconomically viable. Add to that the govts efforts to kill all export demand, and create an ecconomic environment favorable to Wall Street & detrimental to agriculture. So what do you suggest? People in NYC & LA are gonna eat, and they won't buy your $6 organics from a roadside stand in the middle of Nebraska. We need a stable food supply in the USA. Food can best be produced in the middle of the country and needs to be transported to the coasts (and export terminals) where the people are. The government (we the people) have decided that it is best to do so with ag subsidies to keep the food supply stable, and to keep our whole ecconomy most stable.

Me, I'm _all_ for getting the govt out of agriculture. End the meddling!!!! But this would mean the govt cannot meddle with our _markets_ or relative _dollar_ values either - and the govt will not stop doing that. So, govt subsidies to agriculture will continue.

You 2 state a couple times that you have nothing against farmers, but most of your comments show a deep lack of understanding of how agriculture, govt, and the ecconomy works. Most of what you say is indeed anti-farmer. (Who sells crops to the government? Where did you get _that_ from, Elizabeth?) You aren't complaining about the subsidies to airlines, medical, minimum wage laws, union laws, public transportation subsidies.... and on and on. No, you just want to bash the farmer.

Carla wants vouchers so there is no "misuse of funds"?????? What does that even _mean_???? Could that be explained in English? You can't mis-spend a _subsidy_. The ag programs are based on a payment per acre, or a payment per unit of production. There is no needs test, no particular use of funds in mind. It would be like me saying the govt should provide vouchers instead of a minumum wage law, so the union folks don't misuse their wages. Does that sound odd? same as asking for a voucher for ag subsidies. There just can't be such a thing.

So be it. Me, I do not like the govt subsidies that we farmers need to survive. But I fear the alternative a lot more. I hope you never get your wishes, Carla & Elizabeth. That would not be a nice place to live.

--->Paul

-- paul (ramblerplm@hotmail.com), February 21, 2002.