Shan wrote on December 19, 2007 08:51 AM: Why should the White House insist on ending subsidies to rich farmers when it refuses to end subsidies to oil companies, hard-rock miners, and hedge fund managers and continues to line the pockets of defense contractors with billions. At least the Congress is consistent in subsdizing all the wealthy!

Ken wrote on December 18, 2007 06:12 PM: J,

It is real easy to point out those that continue to abuse the system. Wealthy grape growers in the Napa Valley to huge tobacco growers in thr South.

Those farmers that I speak of do exist in great numbers. They are not hard to find. The mid west is full of family owned farms that struggle year to year. These families eek out a living to produce foods for both you and I.

A farmer once told me the secret to ending up with a million dollars farming - start with seven million.

tim wrote on December 18, 2007 03:01 PM: seeing how most farm aid goes to (rich farmers) i dont see how any congressman would vote against it. they gotta take care of their buddies. most of our lawmakers could give a rats butt about the average joe so dont expect the subsidies to end. until the people vote the bums out nothing will ever change.

J wrote on December 18, 2007 02:19 PM: Lets see, wheat at $10 per bushel, up from $1.50 to $2. Corn at highs, thanks to ethanol, which takes energy to make, takes energy to transport, and gives less energy when burned, which means you use more per mile.

Back in the 80's, I believe that was when it was, the family farmer was all but destroyed. Now when you drive by all those acres of corn and soybeans, it is land not owned by Joe farmer, it is owned by the likes of Monsanto or Conagra foods.

Then if the farmers do own the land, they have to buy the seed for the crop from Monsanto, thanks to the genetically modified seeds that the farmers cannot save seeds from the crops. Even if the farmers use seeds saved from crops that are not modified, Monsanto crops, cross-pollinate with the non modified and Monsanto sues the farmer for not paying Monsanto.

So yes Ken farmers work hard, but it is getting to hard to find a farmer like you are talking about, THE FAMILY FARMERS.

Look for the news stories from Texas of the people that bought houses, that the land was once a farm, it was sub-divided with I think up to 5 acre lots. Every year, the home owners get their farm subsidies check, even though they are NOT FARMERS AND HAVE NEVER PLANTED A CROP.

Subsidies do not go where you think, remember Farm Aid by Willy every year?

Why, even though we have a farm bill?

FS wrote on December 18, 2007 01:21 PM: Actually, if you do your research,you will find out that most of the acres included in farm subsidy bills are owned by rich democrats who are voting on a bill which puts money into their pocket. The few actual farmers that receive subsidies from these bills could probably use the money, but limits on the income of the recipients would screen out the fatcats that bought the land just to get the annual subsidies.

John F wrote on December 18, 2007 11:55 AM: Ken,

Over on the other page you say, "How much of my hard earned money should be taxed before I have a legitimate bitch,50% 60% 90%?" Now over here you're arguing in favor of farm subsidies. What's up?

Im in agreement with you on this, though. The current system provides American consumers with the highest quality, most varied, and least expensive food supply on earth. Farm subsidies exist as much to keep consumer prices low as they do to support agribusiness (thats why you should support them, Tim; they keep food prices low for those poor single mothers). Europeans love to taunt us because Americans are overweight, but if they had the quantity, quality, and variety of foods we have to eat they'd be overweight, too. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Tim wrote on December 18, 2007 10:58 AM: Hell, the farms are probably owned by rich Republicans. In its bias, the LVRJ Editorial Board has nothing against corporate welfare but hates welfare for poor, black single moms.

Ken wrote on December 18, 2007 10:01 AM: It doesnt sound like many farmers are here. Most farmers work can to cant hours.(From when they can till when they cant.) It is hard work. Many cant afford to employ anyone, much less illegal's. Having as many children as you can is still the norm in order to have help on the farm. On top of that a farmer receives about a penny per box of corn flakes that you pay $4.00 for. Then, figure in this. We can buy wheat and corn from China cheaper because they use nothing short of slave labor to produce the products.

So go ahead and remove the subsidies an see what happens.

JP wrote on December 18, 2007 08:50 AM: Don't count on any decreases in farm subsidies as long as the Iowa caucuses are viewed as an important step towards becoming president.

John wrote on December 18, 2007 06:26 AM: The bill passes the Senate 79-14 and it is the Democrats' fault? Seems like both parties are feeding at the public trough.

Even when the RJ is correct on the substance, it cannot help but be wrong on the politics. Credibility is clearly not a valued commodity for the RJ editorial board.

Lets see if President Bush exercises his veto and can convince enough of his Republican senators to back it.

I doubt it.

As an aside, Grumpy is correct. Agribusiness benefits greatly from cheap illegal labor. In essence they already receive a subsidy and probably do not need much more help.

Read All Comments