USA FArm Subsidies.Socialism? Corporate welfare?

[Michaelangelica]

Politics?
economics?
socailism in the USA?
social welfare?
World poverty
Which heading should USA Farm subsides go in?

These has been world wide condemnation of these for years.
but like Guantanamo bay they go on and on

Some background info:

• From 1995 to 2006, the top 10 percent of recipients were paid 74 percent of all USDA subsidies.

A fascinating break up here
EWG || Farm Subsidy Database

Check out waht your State is getting here
Mulch
Who gets what

1 Riceland Foods Inc Stuttgart, AR 72160 $554,343,039
2 Producers Rice Mill Inc ∗ Stuttgart, AR 72160 $314,028,012
3 Farmers Rice Coop Sacramento, CA 95851 $146,174,314
4 Harvest States Cooperatives Saint Paul, MN 55164 $49,470,473
5 Dnrc Trust Land Management - Exem Helena, MT 59620 $38,396,957
6 Tyler Farms ∗ Helena, AR 72342 $37,009,744
7 Sd Building Authority Sioux Falls, SD 57117 $29,843,276
8 Ducks Unlimited ∗ Memphis, TN 38120 $29,387,612
NOTE: Over 80 percent of the payments listed for Ducks Unlimited are 'cost share' reimbursements for technical assistance to restore wetlands at many locations on private lands not owned by D.U. The technical assistance is provided to private landowners under contractual arrangement through USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service.

EWG || Farm Subsidy Database


some comment

Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Farm subsidies Corporate Welfare, Dead Farmers get Billions, Corporations get millions! More spent than on Homeland Defense!
Farm subsidies is largest Corporate Welfare program with more given to them than we spend on Home Land Defense. Dead Farmers get Billions, Corporations get millions and needy farmers get nothing but for Willie Nelson!
. .
Thinking that Farm Subsidies were out there to help average farmers, I should have known better but I was really caught off guard when I became aware that Washington spends more on corporate welfare than on homeland security and farm subsidies are America's largest corporate welfare program.

An Average American Patriot: Farm subsidies Corporate Welfare, Dead Farmers get Billions, Corporations get millions! More spent than on Homeland Defense!

Do your taxes feed the rich?
Posted by Ken Kolker | The Grand Rapids Press November 11, 2007 00:54AM
Categories: Top Stories

GRAND RAPIDS -- Not everybody who gets crop subsidies is a farmer.

Consider Dick DeVos. That Dick DeVos. The former president of Alticor Inc., the son of one of the richest men in the country, the Republican who ran the most expensive campaign for governor in Michigan history.

He got more than $6,000 in federal farm subsidies from 2003 to 2005, mostly for corn.

His wife, Betsy, got an equal share.

A close DeVos associate, Jerry Tubergen, who lives in a $1 million home in Ada Township, got a slightly smaller cut.

The DeVoses are joined on the farm subsidy list by other big names, including David Rockefeller, Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen and talk-show host David Letterman.

Critics of the far-reaching farm bill, being debated in the U.S. Senate, hope to change that. They say too many millionaires, absentee landowners and big factory farms benefit from a program born in the 1930s to help family farmers survive the Dust Bowl and Great Depression.

Do your taxes feed the rich? - Latest News - The Grand Rapids Press - MLive.com

Published on Monday, May 6, 2002 in the Philadelphia Inquirer

Why U.S. Farm Subsidies Are Bad for the World
They make it possible for us to export food so cheaply that farmers in poorer nations can't possibly compete.
by Andrew Cassel


Last year, I wrote about a documentary called Life and Debt that examined how globalization had affected ordinary people's lives in one poor country, Jamaica.

Why U.S. Farm Subsidies Are Bad for the World

Elizabeth Becker, reporting in the September 9 New York Times ("Western Farmers Fear Third-World Challenge to Subsidies"), underscores Mudd's analysis noting, "In the past decade, industrial-scale farmers have tipped their allegiance decisively toward the Republican Party, which supports the current system. Political contributions from agribusiness jumped from $37 million in 1992 to $53 million in 2002, with the Republicans' share rising from 56% to 72%, according to figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.

"Those commercial companies were not disappointed when President Bush signed into law last year a new farm policy that increases permanent subsidies by $40 billion a year, even though Mr. [Robert] Zoellick [U.S. Trade Representative] had promised the developing world that subsidies would be cut in this new round of trade talks."

Al Krebs: They Aren't "Farm Subsidies", But Corporate Welfare!

Seedy workings in U.S. farm subsidies
A farm tractor

Canada and Brazil are asking the World Trade Organization to look into whether the U.S. is violating international law by giving too much in subsidies to its farmers. Paul Brandus has more.

Marketplace: Seedy workings in U.S. farm subsidies

Brazil challenges US farm subsidies in new WTO case
The Associated Press
Published: July 12, 2007

GENEVA: Brazil has filed a new complaint against the United States at the World Trade Organization, alleging that U.S. payments to farmers have exceeded WTO limits.

The request for consultations marks the first step in what could become another lengthy dispute between the U.S. and Brazil over the billions of dollars (euros) Washington gives out annually in farm subsidies. They have argued for the last four years over the legality of U.S. payments American cotton farmers.

The new case also comes amid strained commercial relations between. . .(most countries?-m)

Brazil challenges US farm subsidies in new WTO case - International Herald Tribune

Full Disclosure: Who really benefits from federal farm subsidies

For decades, American taxpayers have provided tens of billions of dollars in federal farm subsidies to some of the largest and wealthiest farm businesses in the nation. But thousands of people who benefited from the subsidy flow were shielded from public view behind layers of partnerships, joint ventures, limited liability corporations, cooperatives, and other business structures that obscured their personal subsidy claims.

Not anymore.

A new online database, developed by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) from millions of previously unpublished USDA subsidy records, provides nearly full disclosure of federal farm subsidy beneficiaries for the first time.

Mulch

In Recession, Modest Help for Most Americans, But Big Bucks for Big Farms

WASHINGTON, April 14, 2008. Over the next few weeks, some American couples will get $1,200 of their own money back from Washington. This is the maximum, one-time tax rebate Congress provided last February in their desperate attempt to revive our faltering economy that has since been declared in recession.

By contrast, in a few months some other American couples, who operate some of the largest, most profitable farms in the country or merely own huge swaths of farmland, could be receiving 100 times that amount from the government-$120,000. That's what could happen if the House version of the 2008 farm bill becomes law later this week.

What's more, $120,000 will just be the first of five guaranteed annual crop subsidy payments that will bring them $600,000 through 2012.

The disparity owes much to the decades-old momentum behind farm subsidies which delivered $13.4 billion to farmers in 2006, according to the latest update of the Environmental Working Group's Farm Subsidy Database website (site and analysis).

EWG || Farm Subsidy Database

And life goes on just as before

US farm bill in trouble

Friday, 18/04/2008

A new US farm bill that could increase trade-distorting subsidies and streamline mandatory country-of-origin meat labelling rules, which Australia opposes, appears in big trouble.

A bitter fight in the Congress over farm bill tax breaks and extra spending has all but killed the bill for this year, raising the prospect of a long-term extension of current law.

Idaho Senator Larry Craig argues billions in new US farm, nutrition and bio-energy spending, plus new meat labelling rules, could be lost.

"We've acquiesced to finally implementing a mandatory country-of-origin labelling program, by September of this year. Well, I don't know if you can do it, if you keep shoving the farm bill out, keep extending it," he said.

The pending bill streamlines labelling rules, which is likely reducing retailer costs that could have discouraged use of imported Australian beef.

But it also slaps a US research and promotion levy on imported dairy.

US farm bill in trouble - 18/04/2008

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by Michaelangelica

Politics?
economics?
socailism in the USA?
social welfare?
World poverty
Which heading should USA Farm subsides go in?

These has been world wide condemnation of these for years.
but like Guantanamo bay they go on and on

Some background info:

• From 1995 to 2006, the top 10 percent of recipients were paid 74 percent of all USDA subsidies.

A fascinating break up here
EWG || Farm Subsidy Database

Check out waht your State is getting here
Mulch
Who gets what

EWG || Farm Subsidy Database


some comment

An Average American Patriot: Farm subsidies Corporate Welfare, Dead Farmers get Billions, Corporations get millions! More spent than on Homeland Defense!


Do your taxes feed the rich? - Latest News - The Grand Rapids Press - MLive.com

Published on Monday, May 6, 2002 in the Philadelphia Inquirer

Why U.S. Farm Subsidies Are Bad for the World

Al Krebs: They Aren't "Farm Subsidies", But Corporate Welfare!


Marketplace: Seedy workings in U.S. farm subsidies

Brazil challenges US farm subsidies in new WTO case - International Herald Tribune

Mulch


EWG || Farm Subsidy Database

And life goes on just as before

US farm bill in trouble - 18/04/2008

Like I said, our country is a republic that serves the wealthy, not the
Democracy that it should be serving the general population.

Mike C

[Ahmabeliever]

Seriously affecting NZ these farm subsidies. We don't pay our farmers a cent. Time the US subsidised farmers learn to farm - ie: make money off their land not bludge.

Wheat and corn = part of the unhealthy food pyramid designed to sell us food we don't really need. Boycott bread and boxed foods. Learn to garden and cook.

Soy = corporate strangulation of the copra economy putting many pacific islands out of business after the WWII blockade of the Pacific. Basically the coconut oil was cut off, so they grew soy, then it became a US farmer thing, now the world gets inferior cooking oil, the farmers get subsidised, and the people growing healthy oils get screwed into abject poverty despite having a superior product.

And this is typical - screw everyone else, go go usa...

[freeztar]

So why the heck is David Letterman getting a farm subsidy.

[Cedars]

Why pick on the USA?

The EU's agricultural support amounted to about $133 billion, Japan's to $49 billion, America's to $47 billion, South Korea's to $20 billion and Canada's and Switzerland's to $6 billion each. Moreover, in 2003, the British think-tank Policy Exchange found that EU consumers "pay 42 percent more for agricultural products than they would if the system were dismantled. Americans pay 10 percent extra, Japanese more than twice as much.

Who Pays for Farm Subsidies?

Another similar claim:
Rural News - 17/06/2003: Australia low on global farm subsidies list

I dont really agree with the idea that subsidies increase food costs. In reality, I have watched my grocery prices increase substancially when a subsidy is removed. .10 a gallon (milk) subsidy cut resulting in .60 - .80 cent increase for me on the shelf at the grocery store for that same gallon of milk. This was not related to fuel increase, milk production drop, or increased export (that came later).

And as far as poorer countries not being able to compete with large, developed countries? They wont be able to compete regardless of subsidies because they dont invest in their infrastructure, they cant keep from killing each other (generalized statement), and their farmland tends to be at the mercy of the elements (infrastructure issue mostly). Now there are many things I do not know about the details of Africa, Asia, etc, but key issues increasing farm productivity included the Rural Electrification efforts which subsidized Public Utility efforts to wire up these farms. Electricity runs wells, lights, machinery, etc. and very importantly refridgerators. I know what a working windmill looks like and cisterns, cuz they were used around me by the 'old timers. We had a horse drawn field plow that we converted over. I've milked cows by hand (just for the experience). These are the real issues that prevent third world countries from competing. And I watched some of these 'old timers get driven into the ground from self inflicted choices "I dont need these new fangled contraptions".

Related to the above is the migration of the poor to cities for wages. That happened here too and seems to be a problem in China now.

And lately we are watching the food prices soar that have no bearing on subsidies. Is the 'developing' world better off with higher food costs? I dont think so.

[Cedars]

More on Subsidies:
Europe
EU farm subsidies face sweeping review — EUbusiness.com - business, legal and financial news and information from the European Union

India:
International Political Economy Zone: US Farm Subsidies "Good" for India?

India flip flops (different source) and Brazil joins in on the cry:
Brazil, India urge developed countries to slash farm subsidies - International Herald Tribune

India again (more recently)
Baru calls for softening of India's stance on US, EU farm subsidies - Yahoo! India News

I guess the basic point is no one knows if the subsidy impact is really that important on the 'global' scale. People with no money cant buy food now and still wont be able to buy food if its more expensive.

And the reality is, the amount of my tax subsidy that went to milk, or corn, or wheat is much less of my gross income than what its turning out to be when subsidies are removed. And the poor in developing countries still cant buy milk, or corn, or rice.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Cedars

Why pick on the USA?

The EU's agricultural support amounted to about $133 billion, Japan's to $49 billion, America's to $47 billion, South Korea's to $20 billion and Canada's and Switzerland's to $6 billion each. Moreover, in 2003, the British think-tank Policy Exchange found that EU consumers "pay 42 percent more for agricultural products than they would if the system were dismantled. Americans pay 10 percent extra, Japanese more than twice as much.

Who Pays for Farm Subsidies?

Another similar claim:
Rural News - 17/06/2003: Australia low on global farm subsidies list

I dont really agree with the idea that subsidies increase food costs. In reality, I have watched my grocery prices increase substancially when a subsidy is removed. .10 a gallon (milk) subsidy cut resulting in .60 - .80 cent increase for me on the shelf at the grocery store for that same gallon of milk. This was not related to fuel increase, milk production drop, or increased export (that came later).

And as far as poorer countries not being able to compete with large, developed countries? They wont be able to compete regardless of subsidies because they dont invest in their infrastructure, they cant keep from killing each other (generalized statement), and their farmland tends to be at the mercy of the elements (infrastructure issue mostly). Now there are many things I do not know about the details of Africa, Asia, etc, but key issues increasing farm productivity included the Rural Electrification efforts which subsidized Public Utility efforts to wire up these farms. Electricity runs wells, lights, machinery, etc. and very importantly refridgerators. I know what a working windmill looks like and cisterns, cuz they were used around me by the 'old timers. We had a horse drawn field plow that we converted over. I've milked cows by hand (just for the experience). These are the real issues that prevent third world countries from competing. And I watched some of these 'old timers get driven into the ground from self inflicted choices "I dont need these new fangled contraptions".

Related to the above is the migration of the poor to cities for wages. That happened here too and seems to be a problem in China now.

And lately we are watching the food prices soar that have no bearing on subsidies. Is the 'developing' world better off with higher food costs? I dont think so.

Good points all.

US farm subsidies for those who deserve them and use them as intended; good business.

US farm subsidies for cheats and fat cats that put themselves above the law; outrageous.

[Michaelangelica]

Just because the EU does it does not make it right:-
.


Australian, like NZ agriculture is not subsidised. Last year drought relief (1B?)accounted for most subsidies. That is after most farmers in the country had NO income for 10 years! Farmers also pay huge taxes on fuel, as well as GST of 10% on many other farm inputs & outputs such as freight.
Part also of last year's Australian figures was a continuing "dairy reconstruction scheme" where farmers were paid to get bigger or get out. Most got out, and now we have a huge milk shortage and the highest prices in donkey's years. That 'brilliant' pollies scheme ends next month.

From your own link
Korean situation in 2002

• Korean farmers received over $US21 billion,
• Japanese farmers received over $US56 billion in subsidies
• European Union farmers $US113 billion."
  USA?

"Farm" is such a motherhood word, and conjures up a picture of the poor family-farmer tirelessly tilling his soil for us from dawn 'til dusk. In fact Most of the money goes to the largest, and usually richest, farms, corporations and multi-nationals rather than growers who most need help.
Farm Subsidies Common Globally, Bypass Small Farms CHARLES ABBOTT / Reuters 6aug03

The Agriculture Department forecasts that the average farm household will earn more than $89,000 in 2008, up 6.3% from 2007. That's a third higher than the average U.S. household income, which is projected to be $67,000.

Despite that, farm-bill negotiators are fighting to keep $5.2 billion in direct payments, which go to farmers regardless of how much they earn or whether they are growing a crop.

The White House wants to cut off direct payments to farmers who earn $500,000 or more. Farm-state lawmakers want to reduce payments for farmers with incomes of $950,000 or more. In California, where many farms are enormous enterprises with multiple owners, those caps would apply individually to each owner.

"It's the illusion of reform," Kind said.

High food prices may put farmers on a subsidy diet - Los Angeles Times

On subsidies hurting poorer nations

TRADE: U.S. Farm Subsidies Hurting Africa's Development
By Joyce Mulama

NAIROBI, Apr 15 (IPS) - In a renewed campaign, African trade ministers have urged the United States to remove agricultural subsidies that are hurting African farmers.

TRADE: U.S. Farm Subsidies Hurting Africa's Development

Published on Monday, May 6, 2002 in the Philadelphia Inquirer
Why U.S. Farm Subsidies Are Bad for the World
They make it possible for us to export food so cheaply that farmers in poorer nations can't possibly compete.
by Andrew Cassel


Last year, I wrote about a documentary called Life and Debt that examined how globalization had affected ordinary people's lives in one poor country, Jamaica.


Filmmaker Stephanie Black found it both ironic and outrageous that American imports could be sold on the island for less than home-grown Jamaican food.

As a condition for helping Jamaica service its large foreign debt, international lending agencies demanded that the country keep its tariffs low. The government was unable to bar American sugar, grain, and other food products from the island, so its own farmers were stuck.


By guaranteeing U.S. farmers a minimum payment for commodities such as corn, rice and soybeans, the government encourages overproduction. That drives down the market price, forcing even higher subsidies and creating surpluses that can be shipped to Jamaica and elsewhere.

Why U.S. Farm Subsidies Are Bad for the World

US farm subsidies fuel Mexico corn crisis. Oxfam calls to change rigged trade rules that are hurting the poor.

Mexico's 10,000-year heritage of corn production is being destroyed after just 10 years of rigged “free trade” rules with the United States, international agency Oxfam said today.

Also much US Foreign Aid to the poorer nations is tied to trade and political considerations
For example Aid to Israel accounts for over 12% of total US foreign Aid.
Many US aid programmes (about 90%) are "tied" to force recipient countries to buy USA services and products with the Aid the US gives.

[Zythryn]

Just because the EU does it does not make it right

It certainly doesn't. The point was not that it is ok because Europe does it. I think the point was why single out the US for your ire when there are many others doing the same.

I agree that the original idea of subsidies has grown into a monster, far beyond the initial goals.

[Michaelangelica]

Originally Posted by Zythryn

It certainly doesn't. The point was not that it is ok because Europe does it. I think the point was why single out the US for your ire when there are many others doing the same.

Fair cop.
I guess because it (USA subsidies) is in the news, because it is so large, bemuse it is so unfair to all, and many thought reform would go thought Congress this year.