Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

5.5 Billion for Farmers 100 Mill for Firefighters

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    OK it sucks...farmers, cops, etc. get all kinds of relief money from the Feds...we get very little or none. What do we do about it? Nothing. Sure you can write your Reps, Senators, Governor, President, etc. but it all boils down to the fact that 75% of the Fire Departments are volunteer and the Feds feel that the local townships and counties should be the ones providing money to us. If 10 departments in your county shut down would that wake up the Feds? Nope. The township would either have to get a paid department, give that money to other volunteer departments to cover your fire area, or they would find another way to figure out how to avoid paying out more money. The simple fact is that the more people that live in your area, the more houses that get built, the more businesses that open, the more money you will get from your township, and the harder you will work to cover your fire territory. We cover about 27 miles currently and only get about $100K (total combined dollars) a year from the three townships we protect. It sucks, wouldn't buy us a new truck if we needed one tomorrow, and we have to take used gear, equipment, etc. from other towns in our county to continue to run our department, but that is just the way it is. Until the public wakes up and realizes how valuable we are and starts to push for us to get more money then not much will get done. And don't count on the Feds to care about us...as you can see from the FIRE Act cut in money, (was triple what it is now) they don't.
    Never forget those who went before and sacrified to make us better and stronger as a fire service and a nation. 09-11-01 forever etched in time and our memories. God Speed Boys!

    Comment


    • #17
      EastKyFF -

      Please explain how one farm failing causes others to fail, as you seemed to suggest in your now deleted next to last post. After that, please explain how a number of farms failing stresses "the system" (and a related question - what is "the system"?). Finally, explain why I have some moral or social obligation to pay for this nebulous "system"'s bad planning.

      I love the backpedal on corporations, too. That was a good one - you went from "Big industry. Gigantic corporations that confine animals, erode the soil, pollute the water, and poison the product for the almighty dollar" (as if family farmers don't confine animals, erode the soil, and pollute the water) to "most corporations ARE excellent entities." Wow, how Democratic of you, East. Typical demagoguery, of course. Set up a straw boogeyman like "Gigantic corporations" then set it afire to prove your point. Very weak. And I'd love to hear you defend the statement that corporations "poison the product for the almighty dollar". So, they're in the business of killing off their customers, right East? Hmmm..seems like a flawed business model to me.

      This is a good one too: "And no, Mongo, I don't want permanent subsidies or annual bail-outs of everything." Yes, you do. Why would you not want them next year if you want them now? What could be so substantively different between two bad crop years that you would argue *against* bail-outs this year, but not in some other years? If a certain river floods or not? If the storm occurs on a day that begins with "T"? Illogical, pandering, and as see-through as my living room window, East. Of COURSE you want permanent bail-outs. That's the thrust of your whole argument.

      This is great, too!! - "They would all rather have good crop years every year and leave the government out of it." So why are you agitating for so much government interference and involvement? Are you actually representing the views of these people, or are you arguing because you know better than them what is best for them? Again, very Democratic of you, o Algore Jr.

      And this: "Is this all that different from the fire service?" Well, yeah. Fire service is a municipal service, whether provided directly or subsidized through fire tax, real estate tax, or whatever. It's not a for-profit business. It doesn't have owners per se, stockholders, or profit/loss statements. Last time I checked, farming was still a business, not a non-profit or municipal service.

      I appreciate that people FEEL badly about failing farms. You'd have to be a real hard-hearted assh*le not to feel badly. But what people need to do is THINK more about what it means to have their money taken from them and handed to failed business owners. How can you justify taking money that I legally and legitimately earned through hard work at my trade, and handing it to Farmer Bob? Is his job worth more than mine? Is his chosen vocation of farming worth more than mine? Is his life, or his family's, worth more than mine? These are the central issues that people need to confront. Tax money is OUR money. The government does not *earn* any money. They take the earnings of the people. So when you talk about throwing around millions of dollars of "government" money, remember that. What you're talking about, in essense, is transfer payments, social and economic engineering. And you're making an implicit value judgement that farmers are morally more valuable than other people and their families.
      "Let's roll." - Todd Beamer, one of a group of American soldiers who handed the terrorists their first defeat.

      Joe Black

      The opinions expressed are mine and mine alone (but you can borrow them )and may not reflect those of any organization with which I am associated (but then again, they just may not be thinking clearly).

      Comment


      • #18
        Mongo asked:

        You own a business, how much of your taxes are paid from your earnings?

        Depends on how you look at it.

        The corporation pays ALL of its taxes from its earnings - But it has to cover those taxes as an "expense" of doing business. Which comes from the fees we charge are customers - which translates to NONE of its taxes - they all get passed on to customers.

        Want a concrete example: Feds raised the tax on Diesel fuel by 10¢/gallon. We put a "fuel surcharge" on our prices (a price adjustment) of 3¢/mile. If a truck gets 3.33 mpg, we break even. But since we wouldn't run a truck that didn't make money....

        All our trucks get between 4 (the older Petes) and almost 7 (the brand new aero Freightliners) mpg, we actually make MORE money because of the fuel tax.

        And if you order a washer from Sears, and we pull it from the warehouse (in KCMO) to the store in Tulsa (250 miles), Sears paid us $7.50 more to ship it for them.

        So how long do you think it takes Sears to add that $10 to the price (no, that's not bad math, they'll make a profit, too).

        But if I add 10¢/mile, and everyone else adds 3¢, I lose runs. And if Sears adds $100, instead of $10, you buy your new washer at Costco instead.

        And what if one of my driver's rolls a truck? How about $250/month for $1,000,000 loss insurance on the load? Also a "cost" of doing business - that I (the business)also don't pay - You do.

        Then again, I just bought a new washer at Sears last month, didn't I? Damn.

        Comment


        • #19
          EastKyFF

          Farmers do insure, but when one farmer has a total loss, many others do too, and the system cannot handle it.

          Your point being that this is the hard working Americans fault and we should pony up the cash?

          How do you insurance fans feel about FEMA money going to people who live along known flood zones and still don't buy flood insurance?

          I think it sucks, build in a flood zone, reap what you sow (no pun intended).

          It's got to sell or be stored, and Uncle Sam does subsidize those functions to hedge against crop loss.

          Why when the farmers could do it cheaper?

          You'll ask how and I'll say when has the government ever gotten involved in anything and made it cheaper (or easier or better)?

          But the reality is that factory farming exists and sometimes does some very unsavory things.

          Yep, like feed most of us. Pretty unsavory if you ask me.

          Good thing nothing unsavory goes on on on the family farm...

          Agriculture is a unique industry in that it is so very vulnerable to so many factors beyond control of its operators, most markedly the weather. That makes the situation very different.

          Yep, roofs never fall in, businesses never flood, hail, hurricanes and tornados skip over businesses like they had the plague.

          That money is probably already spent on the year's production expenses.

          So now you got me paying twice for food.

          After all, Uncle Sam regulates them rather heavily for the privelege of being there when times get tough.

          And their going to leave us alone for the Fire Act?

          Sometimes things we consider vital need a little propping up to get them by. Ideally, it's not permanent, but sometimes it's necessary.

          What government welfare program has ever ended?

          I don't want permanent subsidies or annual bail-outs of everything. That's a waste. But I DO think that droughts, floods, etc. generate a very legitimate need for federal assistance to agriculture.

          So then you do think that farmers ought to be treated special.

          What about the rest of industry that is so vital to our nation?

          Energy, we're all throwing hissy fits because Bush wants more homegrown energy (that shouldn't get welfare). No gas, no tractor...

          And just so's you know, I come from a loooong line of Okie dirt farmers...

          Jaws of Jeff

          we start to loose our asses because of the supply and demand.

          Man I love competition, drives the prices down!

          I still owe too much on my boat which i purchased for 50,000...

          ...I wish the govt would throw in a few cents a pound for my product just to make it worth my while.


          The decision you made to buy a boat should now be us hard workin American taxpayers problem?

          Why?

          hctrouble25

          and the Feds feel that the local townships and counties should be the ones providing money to us.

          YES!

          And don't count on the Feds to care about us...as you can see from the FIRE Act cut in money, (was triple what it is now) they don't.

          I love this subtle, probably unintentional on her behalf most likely unknowing arguement to make Bush look bad because he cut the FA.

          Hey sweetheart, how much did your boy bill cut it?

          It was $5 billion dollars, clinton guts it to $100 million before he would even endorse it and then gives it to George.

          It wasn't cut by 1/3, it was cut by 49/50ths by our beloved and ever FF loving democrats.

          BucksEng91

          I was wondering when you'd show up for this.

          RJE

          Thank you sir!
          It's only my opinion. I do not speak for any group or organization I belong to or associate with or people I know - especially my employer. If you like it, we can share it, you don't have to give me credit. If you don't, we are allowed to disagree too (but be ready to be challenged, you may be on to something I'm not). That's what makes America great!

          Comment


          • #20
            Wow- this has become a very heated topic! Just a couple of points-
            Mongo-sorry, not Reagonomics. That was "trickle down" not "ripple" which is Keynesian economics.
            Also, many of you assume that because a farmer is failing it is automatically the result of poor business management. While in some cases that is true, I believe in most instances it is the result of external forces. Farmers in our economy are "price takers" and not "price makers". They cannot negotiate (much) for equipment prices or seed prices or whatever else they need. In addition, farmers are "told" what they will receive for their crops and critters.
            One (of many) good points made earlier that I agree with is that government doesn't produce anything- they only take it from one and give it to another.
            I believe the bottom line of this discussion is that we disagree with the priority given to the fire service by our elected officials. Unless we organize and forget the volunteer/career debate and make our united voices heard in our state capitals and in Washington we will still have low priority. Who is up for a mass parade on their respective state capitals during Fire Prevention Week?

            Comment


            • #21
              Hey Mongo....you are right I don't like Pres. Bush...but don't assume that my comment was a slam on him..it wasn't. You assume an awful lot in your posts...you know the saying about assume don't you? Besides it isn't just the President that determines if programs and money like this are cut or lowered. You see, I passed my 6th grade government/politics class.
              Never forget those who went before and sacrified to make us better and stronger as a fire service and a nation. 09-11-01 forever etched in time and our memories. God Speed Boys!

              Comment


              • #22
                We must have food independence just as we need energy independence

                Fundementally different beasts, despite the importance of both.

                As long as we use fossil fuels, we'll never be energy independent. They'll run out eventually, all we can do is postpone the inevitable -- running out of coal & oil and finally building modern Nuclear power plants.

                On the other hand, name another country or region on the planet with as much raw natural ability to support agriculture! We far and away excede everywhere else in the ability to produce food. Hands down, no contest.
                IACOJ Canine Officer
                20/50

                Comment


                • #23
                  Bucks:

                  I edited the last post because I rambled and got long.

                  One farm failing does not cause others to fail. But when the economic or environmental pressures are ripe for one farm to fail, others will too. Check out the ag credit mess of the early '80s.

                  As for "the system", it is all the infrastructure that exists in agriculture, just as it does in any industry.

                  This "nebulous system's bad planning" is very little more than variable weather. Good farmers plan very well. It's not a moral obligation that farmers get help, it's an economic necessity to stabilize our food and fiber system.

                  I don't back down from my opinion that some industrial entities do rotten things. I deleted that because it was off the subject and paints with too broad a brush.

                  And sure, family farms do erode and pollute, but in general, those who live on it keep it clean. And on confining animals: I meant the factory farming stuff, not just fenced pasture.

                  The poisoning I talked about is excess use of pesticides, hormones, medications, etc. Not literal poisoning, but a little something extra on your plate besides the parsley.

                  Let me clarify on the "subsidies every year" issue also. There should be subsidies in years when they're needed ONLY. I do NOT advocate having a blank check waiting on the farmer at the beginning of the crop year that's his to keep no matter how he finishes in the game.

                  And farming in river bottoms is not like having homes in river bottoms. Flood-prone areas are the best farming ground because they have deep topsoil and are very level. Houses can be built anywhere.

                  I am "agitating for so much government interference and involvement" because farmers CAN'T have good crops every year, and therefore they CAN'T leave government out of it. It's a necessary evil.

                  Yes, farming is a for-profit venture, but it is still a needed service that provides an essential product. Thus the stability of the industry is a public priority.

                  I'm glad you sympathize with farmers, but it's not a sympathy issue. The question is: Is food & fiber an economic necessity? And if so, is there unpredictability that warrants government "backup"? The answer to both questions is yes.
                  “I am more than just a serious basketball fan. I am a life-long addict. I was addicted from birth, in fact, because I was born in Kentucky.”
                  ― Hunter S. Thompson

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    chief14

                    not Reagonomics. That was "trickle down" not "ripple" which is Keynesian economics.

                    Nutshell - Reagans theory was that a little spent and/or taxes cut in the right place produces alot of return.

                    While in some cases that is true, I believe in most instances it is the result of external forces.

                    Same reason other businesses fail too.

                    Farmers in our economy are "price takers" and not "price makers".

                    In addition, farmers are "told" what they will receive for their crops and critters.

                    Wonder what would happen if you got the feds out of it...

                    hctrouble25

                    but don't assume that my comment was a slam on him..it wasn't.

                    I didn't, that's why I said unintentional

                    Besides it isn't just the President that determines if programs and money like this are cut or lowered. You see, I passed my 6th grade government/politics class.

                    Then why when he cut it, all you democrats were screaming that Bush screwed us?

                    EastKyFF

                    It's not a moral obligation that farmers get help, it's an economic necessity to stabilize our food and fiber system.

                    Then why up in states like Vermont are there minimum prices established by the federal government for stuff like milk? Dairys from other states can ship milk in cheaper than it is produced in Vermont so the feds did a favor to the Vermont dairy men and screwed the consumer.

                    The poisoning I talked about is excess use of pesticides, hormones, medications, etc. Not literal poisoning, but a little something extra on your plate besides the parsley.

                    You know, we've been living a lot longer since we started using those things...

                    I am "agitating for so much government interference and involvement" because farmers CAN'T have good crops every year, and therefore they CAN'T leave government out of it. It's a necessary evil.

                    No business can have a good year every year, businesses fail all the time.

                    Thus the stability of the industry is a public priority.

                    It can be stable on its own.

                    Is food & fiber an economic necessity? And if so, is there unpredictability that warrants government "backup"? The answer to both questions is yes.

                    Lets apply that litmus test to a bunch of different industries:

                    Energy? - Yep
                    Trucking? - Yep
                    Box manufacturing? - Yep
                    Computers? - Yep
                    Railroad? - Yep
                    WalMart? - Yep

                    And the list goes on and on and on and....

                    Unpredictability can wipe these out too, should the feds back up them up?
                    It's only my opinion. I do not speak for any group or organization I belong to or associate with or people I know - especially my employer. If you like it, we can share it, you don't have to give me credit. If you don't, we are allowed to disagree too (but be ready to be challenged, you may be on to something I'm not). That's what makes America great!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Mongo i agree that i DONT want american tax payers to foot the bill and competition is good. The fact is that the price of salmon has not gone down in your local super market. You still pay 6bucks a pound whether i get 40 or 80 cents a pound.Or at least thats the trend ive wittnessed. and im really happy that you would rather see the poor folks from chile make a little money. The thing that will probably happen is that we will be squeezed into forclosure of our loans because the numbers just dont crunch anymore and theres nothing i can do to stop it. Yes it was my decision and at the time, who would have thought that farm fish would be the preferred salmon of americans. Any way go ahead and disect this statement and twist it around to where you feel good about your own self.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I have raised hogs in the past and the market was 15 cents a pound less than it cost me to raise them. I ask that you figure how much an hour you earn in wages. Then go ask the farmer how many hours he works a year. Combines, tractors and other farm equipment cost 5 to ten times what they cost 15 years ago. Yet, crops and beef or hogs bring the same price as 15 years ago. A rancher could sell 10 calves in 1973 and pay for a new pickup. Now he must sell a 100 or more to get a new one. Your wages have went up, but the farmers have not kept pace with industry. Look at how much the taxes have went up on his property. You get a cost of living wage increase, he dose not. Go out and buy a farm or ranch and see if you can make it pay. your great grandkids may be able to do it. The only way to make it pay is to sell the land off to large corparations and they get big tax breaks.
                        Please don't knock em until you have been in their shoes. The farmers and ranchers appreciate it when we save their land from fires because they know that we are trying to help keep their production cost down.
                        What does a meal cost you to prepare now at home and at the fire station? Now go out to the most expensive resturant that you know of and pay for a meal. Imagine preparing meals at home for that cost. It could be that every day if agriculture folks did not have help. How long would your salary last?
                        thanks for letting me spout off. LC

                        [ 08-15-2001: Message edited by: larry cook ]

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          OK. I didn't want to do this, but here goes. Time for a frigging economics lesson.

                          Farmers are price takers regardless of what the feds do. You are exposing a blistering ignorance of economics to make this statement.

                          In almost any economics textbook, farming is the only perfectly competitive industry. This is characterized by a large number of producers, small market shares for each, and a perfectly homogeneous product.

                          Let's say you farm. You grow 100,000 bushels of corn on 1,000 acres (yes, 100 bu/ac is a good yield) and chug off to the grain elevator to sell it. You're told the market is $2.10 a bushel that day. Your cost of production is $1.50 a bushel, so if you sell, you have brought in a grand total of $60,000 in profit for a thousand acres of production. That's sixty bucks an acre profit.

                          This ****es you off. For sixty bucks an acre, you could raise sod. So you tell the elevator operator to go to hell, you want more. He tells YOU to go to hell because he's got fifteen farmers behind you that will take that $2.10 a bushel. You either 1) make jack squat or 2) go home and store your grain for twenty cents a bushel until later in the season, when the price might be twenty-one cents higher. Oh, boy! Big improvement--one cent! Or maybe you should store it until the drought, when prices might be better but by which time you've doubled your expenses in storing it.

                          Consequently the price of ag commodities is far beyond the control of any one producer because he/she does not have enough market share to make prices.

                          There is not another necessary product this country uses that has as many producers generating exactly the same thing, each in relatively small dabs.

                          And as for your logicless reference to trucking, Wal-Mart, etc., never has any of those industries grossed $0 in a year.

                          The feds haven't got a damn thing to do with the natural market forces of a perfectly competitive market. It takes government intervention to stabilize the industry.

                          "Then why up in states like Vermont are there minimum prices established by the federal government for stuff like milk? Dairys from other states can ship milk in cheaper than it is produced in Vermont so the feds did a favor to the Vermont dairy men and screwed the consumer."

                          Because there is the possibility that transportation problems, herd diseases elsewhere, or other issues could disrupt the flow of that cheaper milk. The Vermont farmers would no longer be around to back it up.

                          "You know, we've been living a lot longer since we started using those things..."

                          Oh, ha ha, chemicals in food are funny until we get sick.
                          “I am more than just a serious basketball fan. I am a life-long addict. I was addicted from birth, in fact, because I was born in Kentucky.”
                          ― Hunter S. Thompson

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            What would happen if all support programs for farmers were stopped tomorrow?
                            Most would be wiped out,declare bancruptcy.
                            With all the farm debt owed banks I think we might be in deep do do. Think:The great depression II.
                            So lets ween em off then?
                            Big fish eat the little fish.Big fish get bigger,until there are a few megafarms able to control the market.
                            You don't want to pay our price? Fine we'll create a shortage. Seen it with coffee,fuel,sugar,(backfired on sugar when corn sweetner replaced it,damn coke ain't tasted right since.)
                            Now maybe I don't have a clue and I'm sure somebodys gonna tell me that,but.
                            Is what we got now screwed up with the goverment involved? Yep no doubt.All I know is I'm probly 20Lbs overweight and it did'nt cost me much to get here.I spend less on food than people in most any other country in the world.As long as my belly is full and it did'nt take all the money in my billfold to fill it,I'm not gonna bitch with my mouth full.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              "Then why up in states like Vermont are there minimum prices established by the federal government for stuff like milk? Dairys from other states can ship milk in cheaper than it is produced in Vermont so the feds did a favor to the Vermont dairy men and screwed the consumer."

                              Because there is the possibility that transportation problems, herd diseases elsewhere, or other issues could disrupt the flow of that cheaper milk. The Vermont farmers would no longer be around to back it up.


                              Funny, since the Northeast Dairy Compact has gone into effect my town has gone from 4 farms shipping milk, to one. So, the higher price for milk are helping how?

                              The farms in my area (Northeast CT) that are expanding, purchasing farms that close, are small business. The help clock in, work their 40 hours, get health benefits, etc. The owners, like any small business, work longer hours. People wanting a new farm? Ain't gonna buy it here -- lands to expensive and they move to Upstate New York.

                              Only way we're (CT/RI/MA) going to preserve farms? Not through indirect supports like the Dairy Compact, but through actions like buying the State buying the development rights to the land so farmers can buy it at it's agricultural value. It's a win/win/win -- State preserves open space, towns have less school pressures, and farmers can farm. It's also a direct choice my State makes, taxed directly to achieve a state aim.

                              The Dairy Compact is an inefficient tax (higher prices of milk) that may or may not do the same thing.
                              IACOJ Canine Officer
                              20/50

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Alot of you are failing to realize that the "5.5 Billion" does not all go to the farmers. The money goes to the Dept. of Agriculture and do how many different sub-dept. it has to "feed". By the time it trickles it's way down to the farmers there is next to nothing left. I'm not against the FD's getting more money(we'd all like to see more for our Depts.), but it all comes full circle. Just be aware that the "5.5 billion" is split up amoung many other programs that "try" to benifit us all.

                                Comment

                                300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

                                Collapse

                                Upper 300x250

                                Collapse

                                Taboola

                                Collapse

                                Leader

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X