On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 13:07:48 -0700, Persephone wrote:
If you want to lookup some actual numbers from past years in
your local area look here:
Click on your state and maybe county, then click on say Top
Recipients in 2005. You should see some familiar names from
local farmers and what there "take" was in 2005.
IIRC they no longer get money for *not* growing their crops.
I'm not sure what your definitions are of "elderly" and "wealthy" but
my gentleman friend is 62, farms 100 acres of cotton and 45 acres of
wheat and gets the subsidies. He may not fit your idea of elderly but
he sure as hell isn't wealthy. However, he's very opposed to the
government farm program. Last year his cotton crop was so bad that he
made more money selling his water rights since he has a well so
doesn't need his share of the canal water.
Sue - Central California
The "family farmers", per the article, seem to be eligible for this
money, too. The ones who are having trouble are the ones who lease
rather than own the land and are not having their leases renewed. I
was responding to this statement:
"Nothing goes to the elderly farmer who still works dawn to dusk
trying to pay for his own farm, but to the very wealthy." I saw
nothing in the article to back up this statement.
Now, I have been told that Queen Elizabeth used to get US farm
subsidies because she did (or perhaps still does) own quite a bit of
property here. I have absolutely no proof of this.
I've read the article now and see what you're talking about. My
statement about the way things used to be was based on my gentleman
friend no longer having to have a "set aside" to get the subsidies for
his cotton. There was some very careful calculation about how many
acres were under cultivation thereby how many acres he couldn't plant.
Well, I'm more worried about the meager livelihood of my gentleman
friend (his pick up truck is about 15 years old and his tractor is
older than that which I point out to demonstrate that he is *not*
wealthy) than I am of farmers in the Third World. And, as I said, he
is very much against the subsidies.
I've read it now, but where is government spending *not* absurd. I
work in a welfare office and it sickens me at some of the stuff we do.
But, that's just a point of view thing.
I'm goin' out to plant the herbs now.
Guess people are missing the point from reading the thread. Don't expect
"help" in any fashion from the U.S. government for your welfare. Any "help"
will result in distortion and dilution of its surface intent. Their only
true intent is intrusion and control for its own sake. Many people will not
be better off with such "help". If you want to garden, fine. If you want
to raise edible food in the garden for your own consumption, fine. Keep the
U.S. government, and its piggyback, large corporations, out of your garden.
The only problem with this is that with government support comes government
controls; just imagine the regulations you'll have to comply with to get
your garden deduction. Every special-interest group in Washington, D.C.,
will get their hands in it to ensure that you end up with a garden properly
balanced among the government's definition of an acceptable diet. Plus, I'm
sure that your garden would have to be representative of the diversity of
our population to qualify for tax relief. Finally, anything you save on
taxes by the garden deduction will be offset by higher government spending
to employ the thousands of home gardening inspectors they'll need to ensure
compliance with the new regulations. Not that I'm cynical.
And once the government inspections are in place, if you should happen
to feed your kid a sprig of parsley from your flowerpot herb garden
and neglect to get it inspected first, then you'll be charged with
child abuse and youth services will be writing you up every time you
leave a crumb on the table until your kids graduate from college.
Heck, if the cat gets into the uninspected catnip patch it will
probably be "animal cruelty".
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.