Quantcast

New farm bill would end direct payments to farmers (more than 50 percent of the subsidies go to farmers making more than $100,000 in income): I hope subsidies to the Oil Companies (who are making $200B in profits yearly) are next. Comments?

the_old_coach 2012/06/03 16:22:41

Hey, just call this what it is: WELFARE FOR THE RICH. It isn't helping them or the economy, it's just tax dollar giveaways.

I am ALL FOR people making money. But if they ARE making money, WHY do they need to be subsidized, especially with MY (OUR) TAX DOLLARS?

BIG OIL, BIG PHARMA, BIG MED: YOU SHOULD BE NEXT.

New farm bill would end direct payments to farmers

Associated PressBy JIM ABRAMS | Associated Press – 2 hrs 7 mins ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — A program that puts billions of dollars in the pockets of farmers whether or not they plant a crop may disappear with hardly a protest from farm groups and the politicians who look out for their interests.

The Senate is expected to begin debate this week on a five-year farm and food aid bill that would save $9.3 billion by ending direct payments to farmers and replacing them with subsidized insurance programs for when the weather turns bad or prices go south.

The details are still to be worked out. But there's rare agreement that fixed annual subsidies of $5 billion a year for farmers are no longer feasible in this age of tight budgets and when farmers in general are enjoying record prosperity.

About 80 percent of the bill's half-trillion-dollar cost over the next five years represents nutrition programs, primarily food stamps now going to some 46 million people. About $100 billion would be devoted to crop subsidies and other farm programs.

The Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee last month approved a bill that would save $23 billion over the next decade by ending direct payments and consolidating other programs. The bill would strengthen the subsidized crop insurance program and create a program to compensate farmers for smaller, or "shallow," revenue losses, based on a five-year average, for acres actually planted.

Getting a bill to the president's desk will be a challenge. Most of the bill's spending is on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamps, at an annual cost now of about $75 billion. The Republican-led House is looking for greater cuts to this program than the Democratic Senate will accept.

The House also is more sympathetic to Southern rice and peanut farmers who say that shallow loss program hurts them. They want to keep some form of target price subsidy.

The current farm bill expires at the end of September.

But the Senate bill, and presumably the yet-to-be-written House counterpart, "makes clear that the era of direct payments is over," said Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, who heads the Senate committee. She said the Senate bill "represents the most significant reform in American agriculture policy in decades."

Read More: http://news.yahoo.com/farm-bill-end-direct-payment...

You!
Add Photos & Videos

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • keeper 2012/06/03 18:36:28
    keeper
    +2
    I agree that "Welfare for the Rich" should be ceased, but to me that includes Corporate Farmers that are subsidized to not plant crops....
    None to pharmas either, or the AIGs of the world!
  • Rusty Shackleford 2012/06/03 17:53:03
    Rusty Shackleford
    +2
    I would like to see the end to ALL subsidies.
  • Schläue~© 2012/06/03 17:06:17
    Schläue~©
    +2
    Allow the farmers to plant & grow what they want and stop regulating them.

    There goes your problem right there and nobody would need any subsidies.

    Either they grow something that is in demand, are able to compete with other growers, or go out of business and try something else. The Federal govt. being involved in price fixing on the global market and determining what is grown, how much, and where it is shipped to is what created the problem to begin with.

    Wanna knock out subsidies to oil companies? (2% profit margin) Open up Federal lands and start using our own natural resources. Had this been done 10 years ago (or anywhere along the line) we would have been energy independent by now, and not have to kow-tow to OPEC and follow their rules.

    The Federal govt. LIES, about the amount of resources we have is appalling. Hearing 0bozo say we have only 2% of the world's supply of fossil fuels is a blatant lie.
    He disguises the truth by adding the disclaimer "proven reserves" but knows full well that we have close to 50% of the world's supply, right here and enough to last over 200 years at current consumption levels.

    Further exploration will reveal even more deposits that we aren't aware of now.
  • Roger47 2012/06/03 16:48:55
    Roger47
    +1
    It is a step in the right direction. But why subsidize the insurance of farmers? My insurance does not get subsidized.

News & Politics

2013/05/25 08:40:36

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals