I took a couple of days off and when I get back if find this same debate going on. I thought you guys would have settled this thing, on way of the other, by now.

Actually, JJ, as you are a veteran of the Revolutionary War, I'd put you well past 50...

allow me to retort..............

exhibit A. if you really look close the past 4 weeks i have been working atleast 12 hours a day and if you look at the times i post, it is before 7am or after 7pm bout the time i get off.

b. if you look close our writing styles are totally different

c. im not anywhere close to 50, nor would i ever pretend to be! pretending on the internet can really do damage to the local radio stations....wakka wakka....swap shop

d. i dont talk to jody because i dont care about farms or dirty anhydrous tapping farmers! not because i am jody.

e. jody is only one j

f. smoking cheetah said it so it must be false and based off some wack logic

g. the joke is on you smoking cheetah! you think everyone with an opinion is me lol. you probably go through walmart and try to pick me out huh?

h. jody hates farmers for some freakin 2 shooters, grassy nole type crap........i just think they are dirt merchant, welfare living, cry babies.........

and finally

j............well j. isn't j.j. i am

I will wager there are two things the members of the Marshall Board of Education are extremely thankful for right now:

Farm Subsidy Programs and 9-1-1 Dispatch Centers:)

Good point on calling out Jody and JJ. Now I feel sick to my stomache thinking that I was actually sticking up for Jody.

Sorry for stepping on toes with my comments. To think that you can not trust anyones word here is disturbing. I guess that is what you get for being in Cyberspace.

I think that it is actually interesting that someone stated that Jody is a bully. I guess that means you think that JJ is one as well. Thank you for finally seeing the light. Too bad that both of them can't be banned from here. Maybe then discussions can actually be worthwhile.

Dear NanaDot,

I think you make some excellent suggestions, now getting the status quo in Washington to change, may be a problem. The one percent of Americans still left farming have adapted through the years, in a system they didn't create or have much control over. Despite what's been posted lately, most are not very political.

Your regional market idea makes me think of one of the Century Farm owners with land near Blackburn. His German immigrant grandfather, who had originally purchased the land, told him to never sell it. "You'll never starve here," he said, adding that the land could grow anything but grapefruits and oranges. I think he's still right today. We are fortunate to be blessed with good ground and adequate rainfall.

Even though this year the blessing of rainfall seems to be turning into a curse...

Smokin' Cheetah, I never thought of that, interesting theory.

Muffin, That's a good idea. They do have those kind of games. My boys play John Deere's American Farmer. It's not "real accurate" but does point out some of the pitfalls of farming.

Marcia

Marcia, and all,

Maybe my take on the last few days is a bit different, but I don't see that anyone is trying to GET RID OF farm subsidies. Farm subsidies are the American peoples' investment in farmers, as we also invest in our roads, schools, police, fire and public health.

The point IMHO is that the system has been seriously corrupted to NOT support farmers but corporate agribusiness. Premium Standard and their ilk.

We are the breadbasket of the world. There is nothing I love better than homegrown green beans, corn, potatoes, and fresh bread sitting next to the Sunday pot roast from last fall's butchering. I love rhubarb-strawberry Brown Betty. Like OK Reader, I wish for a world that has more Victory gardens and less Hamburger Helper.

But it IS all connected. Our CHEAP comes at a terrible cost to other farmers in other places. Frozen foods are cut by children in sweat shops. Our fruit comes from countries that still use DDT and where their workers are exposed to chemicals of all sorts. The Ogallalah and other aquifers are being depleted and contaminated.

We may have to look at more expensive food in order to change the way we produce it. But if we also attend to public health, providing education, and conserving and building alternative energy, it won't hurt us. But when people are nutritionally compromised, can't afford a doctor, can't afford college, and can't afford to get to work, then the price of food becomes more critical.

If we at least make honest efforts to re-allocate our subsidy dollars away from the biggest to more equitably spread the help to more and other producers, is that so bad? If we change the policies to support local and regional food producers, is that so bad? How about supporting local retailers who try to buy local/regional product and keep our local grocers, butchers, bakeries, and cheese-makers in business instead of making them 'luxuries' because it's made locally?

Subsidies are our public investment in what we think is important. We just have to make sure that our investments are actually being allocated to support those things and looking critically at the system may be uncomfortable, but it is necessary.

You're right too, but so is Jody. Gad-flies have a necessary place in our society. The bite stings, but we move...

C-Jay,

I think you are very correct. The idea of the farm program is to keep a steady, safe and cheap supply of food. In that way, for the most part it has worked. We pay less than 10 percent of our take home income for food, much less than any other country in the world. Of course, it's not a perfect system, I'm sure there could be a better program, I'm just not smart enough to know how.

Here is a website that explains the reason behind subsidies. http://www.alfafarmers.org/issues/farm_programs.ph...

According to that site: In Switzerland and Norway, for example, more than 70 percent of farm revenue is derived from government payments, compared with only 20 percent in the United States.

In dollars terms, the European Union spends more than $100 billion on farm supports payments, while the United States spends only $44 billion, despite that the U.S. farm economy is considerably larger.

Statistics show we have lost fewer farmers in the last 25 years, than the 25 years before that. In this area, very few farmers have been forced out of business and many young farmers have come back. I know for a fact in the tough 80's and 90's subsidies kept some in business.

However, everytime a smaller farmer quits, a bigger farm gets bigger. I, too, would like to see more small farmers getting started and stay in business, than more big farms.

River Ratt pointed out what happened in Northwest Missouri when they all went to CRP. No farmers equals no businesses. Now those counties are stuck with Premium Standard Farms.

All that money that has come into our county in subsidies since 1995, over $150 million, has mostly been spent in the county. No doubt in one way or another it has helped Saline County.

NanaDot, You're right.

J.J. You're right too. Food is overrated as well!

Marcia

The rain woke me up early today, but I wasn't worried, according to one of the 911 board members, the winds blow in Slater, so we are safe in Marshall from any winds. what a very impressive comment.

RiverRatt- no problem, no toes...

Marcia - so what? All civil service, teachers, police, fire, state, federal, county, and city employees who get paid with tax dollars all know their salaries are part of the public record. You take tax dollars, you are listed somewhere. so what.Or as homeland security says, if you got nothing to hide, don't worry about it.

Jody - no, you are not the 'only' left-of-Bushite around here, and yes, others have quoted the information you presented. Yes, this is a very typical small pond, yes, stagnation is a problem, yes, the bigger fish tend to be bullies and don't want to share, no, they don't care about the 'disposable' minnows, so what's new? It's the same all over. You've done your job: what do you want now?

farmers are overrated

To Smokin' Cheetah, Kathy, River Ratt and all the others who have tried to "argue" with Jody.

He's not listening. He has an opinion and instead of stating it and then being quiet as I was taught - he just keeps on talking.

"It's like wrestling with a pig in the mud, pretty soon you realize the pig is enjoying it."

I'm just not sure how we will ever be able to discuss anything else again?

And now Jody will come back on bashing me. (Of course, note I am using my "real" name, not hiding behind a screen name.) He will post my subsidy information, which is public information. http://farm.ewg.org/farm/top_recips.php?fips=29195

Too bad he doesn't use it to inform, but instead holds it like a club. I really think he would get his point across better.

He will now call me a corporate farmer, bash my writing, etc. etc. He is what they call an "internet bully."

I do wonder if Jody ever watched the movie King Corn?

I would like to bring up another topic. Why is it that so many people locally ask for services from the library and then don't attend or participate? As the director, I received many requests (in our suggestion box and via the internet) for small business help and entrepreneurial support in the form of programs and materials. I did that. There is now a business center in the library with a laptop computer dedicated to research. Last night, the MU Extension Service was kind enough to have a workshop on starting your own business.

So far, I have only seen three people use the computer and none of them were researching business. Only 2 people showed up to last night's workshop.

I've been to the State of Saline County events where it seems everyone spends their time whining about what's wrong without ever concentrating on how to fix it.

I've made efforts to contact people about some ways to revitalize the square -- based on my experience as the assistant director of Downtown Columbia and as director of Downtown Champaign. No one answers my phone calls.

I am trying hard to understand this way of approaching things. I always believed that if you see a problem, you find ways to fix it. Apparently that's not the way they do things in Saline County. Guess it's more fun to waste time whining.

To NanaDot:

You have missed the point entirely and I apologize for stepping on your toes. My point is that it seems unreasonable for one group of recipients of public aid to have their identity protected and another group of recipients to have their names and amounts published on the web.

And don't kid yourself into believing that there are no strings attached to the funds that farmers recieve.

Aw shucks, Eric. And here I thought I was getting to understand the "small town" newspaper you were edumacating me about when I wrote about reporter and column objectivity and you scolded me with:

"We're a small paper. Our reporters have to be very nimble. They write stories about anything and everything. They juggle notebooks and cameras. They stuff ads in the paper. We aren't big enough to hire our own opinion columnists. We do that ourselves, too." Which all but gives carte blanche for these staffers to do as they want....or that's how I read it. Oh well. Email me the rule book, 'k? Oh yeah, they're probably isn't one. *shrug*

So, for the poster noting that recipients of disability benefits and other types of assistance are *NOT* public record, I provide you in an ever so kindly way a web link where you can read why that does not happen:

http://www.mulchblog.com/2007/03/why_dont_we_publi...

Now, to take a part of it (....and I'll be CERTAIN to put in the quote marks correctly!) here we go. The stuff will be about Food Stamps and such....and remember....the food stamp program is but another "market" for the farmer: Were the food stamp program to shut down today, poor people would continue to eat; it's Agribusiness and the "family farmer" who would find some of their "markets" shrinking:

"The question of who is receiving food stamps might be of policy interest if the benefits that taxpayers provide under the program varied as dramatically as they do under the farm subsidy programs; but they don't. Some of the most important questions in farm policy arise precisely from the vast disparities we see across farm subsidy recipients, due to differences in what they produce (most farmers collecting no subsidies); farm size; and questions surrounding the income and wealth of the recipients (questions our database cannot answer)."

http://www.mulchblog.com/2007/03/why_dont_we_publi...

There is a lot more information there, too. However, at this point, I doubt any of the big hitters read any of it. They've got the wagons there in Marshall, MO. fairly well circled to protect that cash flow. Oh well.

River Ratt - if you had kids in school, you would know that those who receive public assistance are constantly tracked, told what they can buy, etc. There are serious means tests to most of these assistances. The Reaganomic 'welfare queen' was a political smear job of poor people to make everyone else afraid. 99.5% of all world scientists agree that global warming IS real, and is human-activity induced. The rest are paid by the oil companies to 'create doubt' - also well publicized. Look up James Hansen's work at NOAA. Being 'left' of the giant mulitinationals does not make anyone "leftist" = it makes them somewhat left of Bill OReilly and Dick Cheney - not a bad place to be IMHO.

Speaking of farmers' unions:

Iowa Farmers' Union: http://www.iafu.org/

Also, has anyone seen these? Makes me want to run over to Pilot Grove to buy something, any thing from the Coop there... or up to Eagleville...

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/0...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/feedarticle?id=7501879

Great!

One vote from Kathy Fairchild, late of Agribusiness, who votes that the Farm Subisdy System of the USA which provides billions of dollars per year to Agribusiness is not broken and does not need fixing. She also votes that the 2/3 of family farmers (which does not include fruit or vegetable "family farmers) who do not get subsidies are not getting the shaft and that everything is just peachy keen in rural America. She also votes that it's just fine for the state of Missouri (a Right To Work state which means it's anti-union) to be #10 in receipt of said subsidies is something to be proud of. I'll bet she has steak and fancy wine with the ADM folks, but I could be wrong. Great! Now we're getting somewhere.

Kathy Fairchild:

You noted you were allied with Argibusiness; probably getting a nice, fat pension check for doing same and also work with the column writer who suggested King Corn (the documentary) was all BS and got so upset with tears, the sky began to rain. That's enough for me to figure out the chances of an objective reality reaching out and touching the likes of you were slim to none.

I did not come here to offer a solution. I have one, but it's my own and I don't care to share it. You would not like it, needless to say (It centers around taking land and giving it to others; the creation of collective farming; and sharing the wealth.)

Irrespective, I came here to point out a problem, ask questions and educate....not fix. As I have posted several times before, first things first. The first aspect to any problem is its identification. How'm I doing? By my yardstick, I'd say pretty good!

Can people on this message board agree the Farm Subsidy program is broken and needs to be repaired? That's the starting point. Next is "brainstorming" as to the best way to repair it. It's called "participatory democracy" where everyone's ideas are considered no matter how seemingly odd; where no one is excluded; and where the bankers, the land holders, the petroleum industry (don't they make the fertilizer?) and other aspects of corporate America don't beat up the little guy.

And as for the remarks about the Bricklayers having a union (GOOD MOVE!), I'd say the lobbyists in Washington for Agribusiness pretty much make up a nice, big Union for the "family farms" out your way.

What's the regular guy make of that? The one's making $6.00 per hour at McDonald's or the bank teller pulling in...what....$8.00 per hour?

So, Kathy let me get this straight. It is okay for OTHERS to post crap to create a "stir" , or just to get under peoples skin, and to bring attention to themselves but NOT OKAY for someone to post their story and their oppinions? Boy, how wrong is that? Maybe you should get off your high horse and out of your desk chair. Think about what you say. Maybe you should comment back to others oppinions with just as much antimosity as you did Jody's!

Hmmmm, wonder who I am refering to?

WOW! gone for a couple of days and KA_BOOM!

If you go back a bit, Jody's original point was that the top 20% of farm subsidy recipients GET 86% of the $$$$, while the bottom 80% of farmers, mostly small family farms obviously, are getting the leftover 16% of the subsidy pie, averaging about $1500 a year. THAT means that the TOP 20%, of which Saline Co., MO. has SEVERAL, are getting some seriously disproportionate $$ IF the goal of subsidies was in fact to support smaller farmers in weak markets.

Jody's POINT that the system has been corrupted to rob from the poor to give to the rich seems to be accurate. Just because some of those TOP 20% recipients are on-line and not happy about it is neither here nor there. Skip the names of your friends and go back to the summary numbers...

How many people are REALLY going to argue that the system has largely been corrupted IN GENERAL in favor of the richest, most powerful corporations. BY their very nature, corporations are MONOPOLISTIC - they hate competition, and ALWAYS move to CONTROL MARKETS. They are in essence, psychopathic in nature.

Jody's points are valid. His points are documented, known, studied, and independently verified - but it sure as hell is not a popular view, and WHY? THEM THAT HAS IS NOT WILLING TO SHARE, change,or make equitable,They are not sustainable in ANY sense of the word or responsible to ANYone but their stockholders - PERIOD. And, unfortunately, that includes our bought and paid for government representatives. Them with the $$ gets the representation. THAT's why there is so much CHAOS in Washington - who do you think is WRITING the Farm Bill?

The recent spate on name-calling not-withstanding, the evidence is compelling and THAT is what people should be looking at - but no one expects that those that are already GETTING LOTS are going to like it....

Thanks, RiverRatt, for a cogent question.

Didn't you see what the Queen Bee of Marshall stated via song:

"...'cause the truth remains that no one wants to know."

Concluding, I provide all with this parting and ever so applicable ole timey voice (have the speakers on):

http://townie1.homestead.com/files/foolin.wav

Jody:

In an earlier post you said the following:

"In 2002, we founded the EWG Action Fund, a 501(c)(4) organization that advocates on Capitol Hill for health-protective and subsidy-shifting policies."

We? Are you part of EWG? If so, why don't you explain the goal of EWG in exposing the amount of subsidies recieved by agriculture, not to have those subsidies removed, but to have those funds redirected to such programs as CRP. Then all you have to do is look at the northern two tiers of counties in Missouri to see what a great program CRP is. When those farmers enrolled much of their land in CRP in the late 1980s, the economies of those counties were devestated. For CRP you don't need implement dealers, feed companies, fertilizer companies, grain elevators and farm supply stores and all of the jobs they bring to a community.

After CRP wrecked the economies in Mercer, Putnam, Worth, Grundy, and Sullivan counties, those communities welcomed wth open arms Premium Standard Farms, and now they get to live with factory hog farms. That is the result of the farm policy that EWG advocates.

Jody,

I wasn't pointing fingers. And as far as the grade b psycho babble, you paid it enough attention to analyze it and grade it:)

YOU don't come across to anyone (ME or I) as a concerned problem solver. YOU sound jaded. I understand, but to say I'm attacking you is pure hypocrisy based on the theme of your many posts. Frankly, you sound like a whiner. The fact that YOU would make a statement like "don't you worry about my dear ol dead daddy" is elementary...not to mention completely unnecessary. My dear old daddy was very fond of this phrase, which seems apt: Educated Idiot. Some say he raised one (there, beat ya to the punch:)

Are you familiar with the great literary works of the legendary Kris Kristofferson?

"If you waste your time talkin' to the people who don't listen to the things that you are saying, who do you think's gonna hear? And if you should die explaining how the things that they complain about are things they could be changing, who do you think's gonna care?

"There are other lonely singers (farmers, bloggers, pavers, bricklayers, Psycho Babblers) in a world turned deaf and blind who were crucified for what they tried to show. But if I never have a nickel I will never die of shame, 'cause the truth remains that no one wants to know."

BD42,

What? The "aginners" are out in force this am cuz the working stiff is at work and ain't got access to a computer? What's your story? You married to a wealthy farmer or just a semi-wealthy farmer? Maybe you're married to the owner of the "co-op" or the feed store?

We know Ms. Fairchild is employed via the business of agriculutural (per her remarks)...That cat person (Smokin' Cheetha) out here practicing grade b psycho babble and pointing fingers.....and yet no one is disputing the reality that the farm subsidy system in the USA is BROKEN and needs to be repaired?

I don't get it.....WAIT: Yes, I do! "We Have Met The Enemy and He Is Us". Pogo's a pretty smart character, isn't he?

Most Excellent, Eric! Thanks! (Needless to say the folks in Saline County Kansas get to have these fun exchanges with me also. The farmers are peeved. Pretty much the same wherever the money is going. Iowa posts are particularly nasty. The one's from Minnessota are very amusing.).

If you care to delete my post, I'll repair it as I've got the text saved.

Thanks again!

http://farm.ewg.org/farm/top_recips.php?fips=29195...

Jody,

Thank you for sharing your personal story. Mr. Crump was completely on target in stating (my words here) that the divulging of even a morsel of one's past makes their present more palatable.

Compassion you will find (any you guys thought I didn't have it). Understanding you will get. But, Jody.....

In plain text, you are jaded. You have taken all this space and time to post all these links and all these statistics and in my opinion, this is nothing more than pity for yourself that your personal experience didn't work out better. NEWSFLASH: You think you're alone? You think your daddy's hands are the only ones that blistered, seemingly needlessly, because it all went to hell in a handbasket anyway? You're an educated whiner, more or less. And you're over 50? Guess the old adage is true: Growing old is mandatory; growing up is optional.

It's a free country--do as you wish. It's easy enough to scroll past. But you are taking information from dozens of sources and trying to put them together in some sort of collage of conspiracy against YOU, and glue it all together with anti-Darwin pity, contempt, and paranoia.

Here's Cheetah's little credo for you:

Things turn out the best for those who make the best out of the way things turn out.

I will guarantee you, every *successful* farmer lives by this, consciously or not.

landreth:

Excellent point!: "there are a lot of comments on the farmer driving the nice new diesel trucks, but did anyone stop to think that they are actually one of the farmers equiptment."

And because they're "equipment" the payment on the thing is a corporation tax deduction; the depreciation on the thing is a corporation tax deduction; the fuel used in the thing is a corporatioin tax deduction (how many farmers running red diesel in 'em?); how many using bio-diesel? (my money says NONE); and on and on and on. Ain't that the way a "corporation" works: Using every single line of the IRS tax code to figure out ways to reduce tax liability and enhance that glory road bottom line?! Monkey see.....monkey do.

It's a great Nation!

Many a meal tasted better the second day, especially if initially prepared by a good cook. If I am serving up leftovers, at least they are of top quality. (In many cases, much better than I could present.)

Who was that feller? He come a ridin into town and pert nigh tore it up. He went a tearin down Main Street. Some lined up on one side of the street,some on the tuther. He kicked up so much dust folks could'n even see each other right smart fur awhile. Went to yellin at each other. Kinda like the dust had stopped up there ears too. Wull the dust cleared an he was gone. Folks wiped thur eyes, cleaned out thur ears. Sumbuddy says "hear tell his family wus wiped out by wolves...long time ago". Sum un else says "Jody huh?" "Naw that un wus Paladin." "Yup, or the Lone Ranger." Thing is whole lot a folk commenced a scratchin they heads, got to thinkin. Sum said they hurd a small voice yellin 'cum back Shane'.

kt-01, I read you post about farmers having their farms, houses and equipment handed down to them for nothing. You couldn't be further from the truth is you tried.

Case in point. 1980, old man Detring dies, he's 86. His son inherits the farm and has to borrow money to pay the estate inheritance tax. Son is 64 and dies of a heart attack six months later. His son is 42 and inherits the farm. He then has to borrow money to pay off the farm and his estate inheritance taxes. Now the farm that was originally free and clear has a debt of 70% against it. I think you'll see that they don't have everything handed to the free and clear.

Finally, the greater portion of a farmers net worth is in land. The last time I checked no one was eating dirt.

How you like me now? I could dish this out all week, just like others on this site. The difference is that I know this truth:

"It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought stupid, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt" Mark Reuter

The freedom of speech is worthless without the freedom of offensive speech. Goebbels and Himmler were for freedom of speech that was inoffensive to the state.

(Noam Chomsky)

get a clue...........enough personal attacts......mr. crump could you remove that please

too bad slater didnt get the 911 center.........that town is a giant mishap that could use a quick response

Jody is probably just Jody Julius Gates.

holy shnikes.......i dont get on the net for 4 or 5 days and i log on and my name is mentioned on the front page! and it doesnt appear the convo is in any way, shape, or form, more civil..... so for the last time...SHUT UP! ITS YOU AND IT ISNT ME! thats why your kids are losers. i started a blog and now every bozo in the county has one? (and none of them are half as interesting as the words i say in my sleep) holy geez......get off my coat tails....thats why people have daughters

BD42:

Isn't that what they said about John Adams (well, they said it in "1776" the musical, anyway)? And he was a Founding Father!

Jody says: "Am I wrong in thinking that folks had no clue this stuff was out for public scrutiny if only one knew where to go?"

I didn't know it was there. I'm glad you posted the source of information. I think it's interesting. The data doesn't proved to me the same thing it proves to you, but that's OK.

It wasn't a big secret, though. I've talked to people around here who were well aware of the subsidy data site.

Jody,

It is eye opening to come here and read truth and fact from someone that has lived it themselves.

A breath of fresh air from reading all the crap that JJ tries to force down peoples throats.

I commend you for sharring your story and love to hear more from you.

Smokin' Cheetah:

YES.

I GREW UP on a Jayhawk farm (Kansas is #2 in the nation in receiving farm subsidy payments; Missouri is a close #10; that's BIG MONEY). See can you find Kinsley, Kansas on the map. I'm a 5th generation REAL farm family hick hayseed.

Now for the "generalized rant" (this ain't aimed at anyone in particular, but if the shoe fits ....put it on....):

My Dad and Mom and us kids worked the farm right alongside each other. We ate chicken, not steak. I know all about the more affluent "family farmer" land grabbing from the smaller farmer; I know about and lived with the hick, small town bankers playing favorites with the select few. I watched my Dad work himself to death and my Mom was a close 2nd given what was going on throughout the '80's. I watched my Dad as he, essentially, just gave up...worn up from fighting and scratching as the neighbor farmers got loans and subsidies and "family money" with their fancy brand new combines and tractors and trucks and blah, blah, blah, blah. I know what it's like to work summers on a custom combine crew making our way up from Kansas to Montana. Those were fancy combines too! They had a/c, stereos, and I'll bet a dang beer dispenser was somewhere around.

I posted this stuff earlier and it was taken down. Why my personal life is of import escapes me. People simply don't like to read the facts. They "mentally argue" when said facts differ with their thought processes; and I'm talking about the facts relative to farm subsidies. They're FACTS, not opinions. That is what I have provided you as a community to work with.

More, I am an "old man"....way past 50 and that's all I'll say. I been to Viet Nam and back; it was a great little vacation for 18mos. back in the early '70's. I fought one lie and for the rest of my life, that shall be enough.

Go ahead, say my old man was a bad business man. He wasn't. He was honest and refused to take a dime of money from the government. Stupid? Perhaps. I didn't understand what he and my Mom were talking about when "...taking that damn welfare from the Extension...." was being discussed when I was still living at home. I sure as heck do now....and been knowing for many, many years and I been seeing it get nothing but worse and greedier.

The system is broken and anyone who suggests it's just swell is pure D stupid and want US to be even stupider. It's up to you all to figure out if the farmer in the dell needs that money. Remember 2/3 of farmers across the USA don't get penny one and most of those that DO get the money get less than a couple hundred bucks a year.

Corporate farms? Yeah, ADM is a big corporate farm but one that is 6000 acres is dang close. Why do "local farmers" want to be in bed with the likes of ADM? What a hoot to suggest it is not!

Rural America got a lot of problems...a LOT...from dying towns and migration to poverty that is unseen and not recognized. The money spent on give away subsidy programs could be spent to help rebuild rural America. It ain't now. If the people of Saline County Missouri like a handful of families telling you what to do, when to do it, how to do it and if to do it because they control the banks, the money, the paper, blah, blah, blah, you have noone to blame but yourselves. You have the power to reverse the bassackward program. I suggest you use it and start sending that money to where it's needed.

"The payments now account for nearly half of the nation's expanding agricultural subsidy system, a complex web that has little basis in fairness or efficiency. What began in the 1930s as a limited safety net for working farmers has swollen into a far-flung infrastructure of entitlements that has cost $172 billion over the past decade. In 2005 alone, when pretax farm profits were at a near-record $72 billion, the federal government handed out more than $25 billion in aid, almost 50 percent more than the amount it pays to families receiving welfare." ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic... )

For Jody:

I'm sure I could answer this myself if I had the 2 or 3 hours it would take to read the many posts, but I have a question for you.

Do you or have you ever farmed in any way, shape, or form? A simple no will be fine. If yes, please kindly expand a little.

Thank you. Just trying to feel this out a little.

For Kathy Fairchild:

You are hitting on an excellent point. Nationwide, regardless of income or what is or is not public record, debt-to-income ratios are fairly constant.

As for the working "6 months a year" figure, HA HA HA!!! I'd take 9-5 for twelve months solid over 3am to Midnight for 6 months any day!

My last thought for now: everyone with a day job, go ahead and complain about your menial tasks or low wages or poor benefits. Likely, everyone of you will earn a steady paycheck come hell or high water. Everytime a farmer buys a seed and sticks it in the ground, it is an outright gamble...make or break. No guarantee except maybe a puddle of a subsidy you guys are quibbling over. And to that point, every one of you pay mandated unemployment tax. Hmmmmm. Subsidy? Talk to any farmer that survived the 80's about how "great" and "easy" they have it now.

Opin, Muffin, and the ever-popular What the...: Excellent points from all of you. especially the mention of second jobs. I read a column in another newspaper a few years ago about how difficult it is to find anyone at home during the day at many farms. It's because BOTH husband and wife are working second jobs. American farmers are hard-working people who don't deserve being trashed because they receive subsidies so the people in the U.S., and, it should be mentioned, millions of people in the rest of the world can eat.

Very well said Muffin!

Jody - you make so many generalizations that just seem unlikely. Maybe some farmers have 'toys' as you put it. But, what you do not state is that lots of them have worked on the farm since they could walk. (Or shortly thereafter). So, lots of them have had they've had plenty of time to save up for those 'toys.' Bet if we looked at your house, we'd see a toy or two. So, just because they're farmers they don't deserve them??!?

Maybe you don't realize what it takes to keep a farm running well. Do you really think that $40,000 a year (since that's the highest amt I saw) really makes them rich? I doubt it even pays for the seed for some of these farmers. I think you'd be surprised at what they bring home per month as 'profit.' And working 6 months of the year? Yeah right!!! Try every single day if they have lifestock! No days off there!!! And definitely more than 6 months even if just crop farmers - it doesn't end when planting and harvesting ends!!!

I'd hate to see what happens if you succeed in cutting these payments off. Where would we get crops? Meat? How much higher can beef go? You might just get your answer!

It is evident, kt_01, you do not understand farming. So, you plant your crop, it sprouts only to freeze, or you plant, cultivate and no rain. Who do you think pays for the replanting of the frozen crop or suffers from a weak harvest? Becuase the weather my not be favorable Mother Nature doesn't kick in funds, the seed dealers, diesel fuel providers, implement dealers and the like don't forgive your debt that season. Like your union brick layer you take the good with the bad.

Perhaps you have farmers confused with union workers, of which there are many. May be it is those union workers who are driving $40,000 trucks and have all the toys. As you say, they are paid well.

Must be nice to have a group to lobby for higher wages, better work conditions, better benefit packages. Bet you don't know what type of benefit package a farmer has.

Kathy Fairchild:

Are you suggesting that the other people in debt in Saline County are less important and therefore not deserving of free money for the valued work they do? Do you actually think that "family farmers" are the only one's in debt? It HAS been pointed out that these "family farms" have a lot of "toys", new cars and trucks, RV's, etc., etc., etc. Welfare for the rich! Ah....a grand program to be proud of.

Please read the other posts about this "circle the wagons" mentality relative to farm subsidies. Surely everyone should have equal opportunity for a hand out.

Remember MOST (2/3) family farms might get a couple hundred BUCKS per year from this tired out and disgusting program. Don't forget vegetable and fruit farmers aren't even included in the program, please.

kt_01:

I meant to say Excellent Post to you and not that other person. My bad.

You've hit the nail on the head: Your husband works and yet when the weather prevents him from so doing, he don't get no subsidy. I guess it's his fault because he didn't inherit a "family farm".

I rather suspect (and hope) that the "family farmers" are MORTIFIED that all the free money they've been given is public record and anyone can take a look provided they're given the power (as in website) as to where to look.

The EWG is not a "hater of farmers" outfit. It's simply exposing just how BROKEN the Federal USDA farm subsidy system/problem really is.

However, if the community doesn't want to get involved by contacting Congress, it'll continue as status quos: You'll see them big fancy diesel trucks they're driving and you'll continue to have to listen to all the whining that is done about how poor they are. Oh really? Poor?

And the gaul of comparing the subsidy giveaway to Social Security! What a giggle!!

Excellent post, Ms. Fairchild. Here is some more information for the folks in Saline County to mull over from the EWG writings:

"We don't keep the money, it's not 'profit'," they'll say (farmers who receive the free money). "We just turn right around and pay it out to cover our expenses." Which expenses, they seem to believe, are higher than the urban majority (who "don't know where their food comes from") could possibly comprehend.

I've often wondered why so many farmers seem to think a New Yorker paying $2,300 a month for an efficiency (200 sq. ft. of living space), or a suburbanite buying a four dollar latte for the cup holder of her $40,000 SUV, will register shocked sympathy upon hearing that a combine (whatever that is) costs $180,000--when you couldn't touch a 1 BDR condo for that price on either coast. Someone's out of touch here, and I'm not sure its all of us who supposedly don't know milk doesn't come in a carton. My experience is just the opposite. I've seen many a farmer's eyes widen at the prices on a DC menu (though it must be said they invariably fight you for the check), and many a Beltway denizen drool over small-town real estate prices.

Nonetheless, this particular circling of the subsidy wagons amounts to saying that farm payments don't benefit the people or businesses who actually collect them from the taxpayer. The real beneficiaries, the argument goes, are the businesses farmers buy their inputs from, the banks that lend them money to own and operate their farms, the feedlots and grain conglomerates that buy the "cheap food" (or cotton) the subsidies pay farmers to grow in excess.

Translated to those of us in the paved world, this tortured defense amounts to saying that your salary isn't really paid to you, but to the bank that holds the note on your car or the mortgage on your home, or to the landlord who owns that $2,300-a-month efficiency you're renting. Will he ever fix the dishwasher? You're just the middleman, the pass through. After all, is it really your paycheck if most of it flies out the window to pay the cell phone, restaurant and dry cleaning bills, buy health insurance, keep your kid in college, or cover that vacation to Cancun?

No one knows how farmers who receive subsidies spend them, of course. No government rules stipulate how farmers must use their payments, any more than regulations out of Washington prescribe how seniors must spend their Social Security checks. Farm subsidies can be plowed into the farm or into a vacation home. It's no one's business but theirs.

Social Security and student loans aren't subsidies? Not intentionally, no.

But that's not the entire answer.

If I live for at least 5 years after I start collecting Social Security (which I am already eligible to do), I will have paid back every penny I put in. After that, additional payments are pretty much a subsidy, at least in my mind. And since I plan to live longer than another 5 years, as my parents did, it's not a small number of dollars.

That student loan I took 5 years ago? I got it at half the going rate for a conventional loan - the difference between the two rates absolutely amounts to a subsidy.

I guess whether it's a subsidy or not depends on whether you're the one paying it or receiving it. Or maybe for some, whether it's a farmer who's getting the money or someone else.

We all benefit in some way from a goodly portion of the tax money that winds up in government hands. I'm not all that thrilled to pay taxes, I do assure you, but putting it in the hands of farmers whose livelihoods feed us all doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.

So, Jody, farmers aren't hard-working people? If not, please tell my father to stop putting in 12 or more hours a day!!! They work harder in any one season than most of us work all year!!!

Oh, come on, Jody -- if you get a payment from the government for any reason, it's a subsidy.

Period.

I appreciate your discussion but I'm done with this conversation. You've made your points; I've made mine. We won't agree. And that's fine; that's America! Thank God.

Jody,

Subsidies are all over the place in our country. Have you ever been on unemployment, or had a parent on Medicare or Social Security? Ever had a kid get a grant for college?

Subsidy.

Major corporations get subsidies all the time, particularly from state and local governments. Otherwise, they threaten to leave and there are plenty of other cities/states willing to give away everything in order to get them. In the meantime, their execs continue to roll in the dough and the taxpayers get hosed. Enron, anyone?

Heck, the makers of King Corn got a subsidy from PBS and they've been very upfront about that. I don't begrudge them that at all. PBS bankrolls all sorts of films that would never see the light of day if corporate America had its way.

You seem to think farmers don't deserve subsidies at all. OK, that's your opinion. Mine is different -- and every bit as valid as yours. I'd rather subsidize food and domestically produced bio-fuel than big oil dependent on foreign governments.

I do believe farm subsidies should be revisited periodically to make sure we spend our money in the best way. I'm pretty sure Ms. Gorrell has made that point several times.

We all make choices.

It seems from looking over the info on the farm subsidy site that there is an interesting loophole you can take advantage of.

Not only do you incorporate your farm and receive benefits, you can also receive benefits by having a farm in just your own name. One farm, two names...two subsidies!

What a great country!

What I consider to be a corporate farm is owned by an absentee corporation that essentially contracts with family farmers for a product -- which the farmer has NO say over. Corporate farming has largely taken over the hog and chicken markets and made huge inroads into the vegetable markets. That's different than a family farmer who can choose to sell his or her product into the commodity markets, rather than a corporation that dictates all the terms and can put a family farmer out of business in mere seconds.

A family-owned farm can be incorporated for business reasons, but if the only people working it are family members, then it's definitely a family farm. Even if a farmer hires a hand or two, not of the family, but still works full-time supervising and working the farm his or herself, that's a family farm.

Not much different than somebody who starts a small business, say a restaurant, and everybody in the family works there, even though there may be unrelated workers.

My father and his brothers own a business (non-farming) that is a corporation in which all but a few employees are unrelated. While that business IS privately family-owned -- and the bosses are family -- I wouldn't consider that a really family business. If it was, all my siblings and my cousins would work there -- and only one cousin (out of several dozen) does.

But the corporate farming that most people are concerned about means corporations unconnected to the land who own farms and manage farmworkers just to make a profit for their shareholders, not just to make a living for themselves. Not unlike public corporations beholden to Wall Street's obsession with quarterly results, rather than the long-term health of a business.

Independent farmers, such as the Gorrells appear to be and appear to want to remain, work their own farms, sell their products on the open market and hope to make a living. It's called capitalism - a time-honored American tradition. And family farmers face enormous financial risks everytime they sow a crop - they can't control markets or weather or politicians -- the average family farmer has no connection to powerful Beltway lobbyists. I have spent my life working for corporations, who take that risk, rather than me. In return, I've gotten a regular weekly salary. Farmers don't get that -- they are much braver than me.

I -- a non-farmer -- want farmers to be able to make a decent, middle-class living and be independent businesspeople if they choose to be. I want to eat and use products grown in the United States as opposed to China (I'm still really ticked off about all the lead paint on my Thomas the Tank Engine products I bought for my beloved nieces and nephews).

As a taxpayer, I subsidize all sorts of things, some I agree with (family farms, health insurance for the elderly, unemployment, college students) and some I don't (Iraq war; large profitable corporations who pay no or little income tax; big oil, etc.) To me, profitable corporations who don't pay their share of taxes (both local, state and federal) should be the targets -- not a family farmer trying to make a decent living.

King Corn, the movie, brings up some good questions that need to be debated by thoughtful people. It did not call for the end to farm subsidies -- it called for them to be reconsidered and perhaps appropriated differently. It did not call for corn to be banned (as many movie critics seemed to think) -- but it sure wasn't in favor of HFCS.

I've never liked HFCS and avoid it like the plague, but I guarantee you if I looked into the fridges and cupboards of my 10 closest neighbors (all who are skinnier than me and think they live in very healthy way), I'd find a boatload of it (mostly in pop and "diet" products).

That's choice American consumers have made. Blaming a corn farmer makes no sense. Farmers grow what the market wants; just like Nike makes the sneakers the market wants or Hallmark makes the cards the market will buy. In the end, the consumer governs the choice.

Having said that, only 5 percent of the American corn crop goes to HFCS -- and, yes, the movie makes that clear. Most movie critics seemed to be dozing off during those segments.

I don't want the family farm to disappear. But at the same time, I recognize that family farmers these days are businesspeople who are managing millions of dollars. They aren't making big profits, percentagewise, but it takes a lot of money for equipment, seed and costs to produce crops.

I would prefer to subsidize American crop prices as opposed to foreign oil. And to other big businesses that are doing little to contribute to American productivity.

Why are my posts getting deleted???

"Agricultural Subsidy Opponent", huh?

How about Agricultural Fact Providor, Eric?!; Or Agricultural Subsidy Reform Advocatae? Remember, it was you yourself who noted the same nonsense my granny used to say "It's not what you say, it's how you say it....". I thought the idea then was a crock and still do.... I told granny this fact. She didn't like it, but grew to accept a fact is a fact, irrespective of how it is presented. (tears streaming down my face as I wring my hands....these attributes buy points in our wonderfully politically correct land....cry and you get your way....)

Thanks for the information, Jody. Since you arrived announcing your intention to educate us on these issues I knew you would cheerfully respond and so you did.

From the research you supply, it sounds like cellulose ethanol has great potential as an efficient source of energy and is at roughly a similar stage of develop that corn-based ethanol was a few decades ago: possible, but with some kinks to work out before the process becomes economically viable.

Like you, I imagine that with enough investment in research, the day will arrive, maybe not far off, when cellulose sources will be able to compete with corn in ethanol production.

That'll help all right.

But will the marketplace be so different then that subsidies to switchgrass farmers and cellulose ethanol producers will be unnecessary? If so, how do you think that can be achieved?

I know the research you've done takes a tremendous amount of time and patience. Thank you for being willing to share what you know.

Clever rhetorical tactic, Jody. Instead of answering my question, ask me why I "ignored" something I wasn't asking about. The old diversion trick.

Here's a followup question: Do you think cellulose ethanol will become a viable source of fuel free from government subsidies and unsullied by the greed of corporate America?

Can cellulose sources avoid the same fate as corn?

If so, how?

PS:

Why is the CELLULOSE ETHANOL over corn being ignorned in your reviewing(s) Editor Crump?

Corn ethanol does not need subsidies. Cellulose ethanol research does--it would actually do some good. But's what's needed is research, and very small-scale plants, not the big ones that are being built on pretense.

Oh, I quite agree that "buzz word labels" can be harmful. That's why I object to Jody's characterization of the Gorells with an equally unpalatable label (in the Midwest and elsewhere)as "corporate" farmers. Ya gotta call 'em as ya see 'em - I understand that - but it's hardly cricket to object when the same is done to you or anyone else.

NanaDot,

Just a quibble:

Ethanol isn't really a "quick fix." It's an option that has been developing for at least 3 decades. And it's still nowhere near (nor does it need to be) a replacement for oil-based fuels.

What puzzles me is the politics rather than the policy. But it seems like you're saying it's the policies and the economics of ethanol, not the fuel itself, that's the problem?

It's just that, if you'd told me in 1978 that environmentlists eventually would be allied with (or at least going in the same direction as) the oil industry in a concerted campaign against corn-based fuel, I would have scoffed. Repeatedly.

Though I certainly will never again call anyone an environmentalist to their face (sorry about that, Jody!), I was hoping someone who's informed about environmentalist positions might be able to shed a little light on this apparently strange change in political alignment.

I used to be better informed about this stuff than I am now, thus the question.

John Q - this is where Jody and EWG come in. That site has all those folks listed for all states. The problem is tracking down who and what corporations really are. It is truly a shell game and it does take some serious tracking... which is what Jody and crew are trying to do...