I can't recall the exact quote but there's a quote along the lines of "Tell me how a man earns his living and I'll tell you his political party."
I plays out daily -- Reps in OHIO support the massive gvt welfare their constituents get. The Welfare recipients all support the democrats.
You are 100% correct and this is not a new phenomena. I recall seeing this same analysis back in the 70's/80's.
True. ... they are both bad, beyond bad. The best thing that could happen for the health of the US would be if every single congressperson and cabinet secretary and the president was to dry up and blow away and be replaced in an election held over a one month period from the blowing away part. No 4 year campaigns.
The US is NOT a net exporter of "oil". We *might* be exporting *some* refined products but certainly not "net exporter" in terms of oil production. And we won't be for a long long time although there is a good chance we may be able to get our import needs from Canada and tell the Saudi's to shove it up their behind.
Actually the 60s. Viet Nam under LBJ was where the term guns AND butter was coined.
Government motors. Health care. Banks. Environmental regulations.
Polly want a tax break, and a job! Polly want....
. Christ>> Hello, dumbass right-wing parrot. Please provide at least three
On 9/4/2013 5:35 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote: ...
I never addressed that; only the misconception of the other poster that the credit went to the ethanol producer--it didn't, it went to the oil companies.
I never pretended a thing about it; merely pointed out who got the direct credits. But, however, note they were credits, not actual payments. Collections were reduced.
No, it does demonstrably lower certain emissions even in current vehicles.
Ethanol was not the cause of the rise in oil prices that raised gasoline prices; that rise and other policy decisions that caused marked increase in oil imports and no competing increase in US production for a long period of time brought about the call for alternative fuels.
Now, that many who were in the vanguard of that call also had (and still have) alternate agendas is still so but that's a "veritable plethora" of convoluted policies all tied up in the end power of who's won elections and controlled policy direction over the last 30 yr or so.
Grain prices are global, not US alone--and would have gone up regardless as it is impossible to raise any of the grain crops under the current input pricing cost for $2-3/bu. It isn't a viable alternative to allow very large numbers of producers to fail, either.
All in all, I can't complain that some money gets shifted into the rural and ag economies that suffered for decades while oil continued its "favored nation" status in national policy.
And since the blenders' credit has been gone for 18 months now (and counting), it doesn't have much current effect on anything.
A successful family farm *IS* a corporate farm.
You must be a lefty if...
You're lying again.
You might be a lefty if...
On 9/4/2013 5:40 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote: ...
Well, if it's farmland and growing cash hay crop, what's wrong with that? The landowner has every right to rent their ground; after all it is their ground and there are still at least a few areas of relatively free economic choices in the country. Or would you expect her to simply hold on to acreage and pay taxes and the upkeep for no revenue?
Hay is a valuable and necessary crop just as are corn or soybeans or any other marketable crop. Hay is _not_ insurable as are small grains, so if there were any drought relief it would come under what is called the "NAP" program -- Non-Insured Crop Disaster Assistance Program. There is a signup and all acres have to have paid an annual NAP fee (and _all_ other insurable crop production acres on the _entire_ farm have to have been insured) to be eligible. Even then, it requires at least a documented 50% or greater loss of yield and the payout is only 55% of the value of the excess over 50% loss. So the 50% loss is zero payout. You don't get made whole by any stretch of the imagination.
And, just to complete the picture from the other side -- not only does the producer of insurable crops have to have the insurance on every planted acre every year to be eligible for those years in which might have a loss, he also must have NAP coverage on his non-insured acre crops to actually be eligible for payout in case there is a loss. And, it's just like your homeowner's insurance premiums -- there's no return of premiums for the years you don't collect nor does one get the NAP payment back for those acres, either. Those $$ all are outputs to the producer.
On 9/4/2013 6:57 PM, snipped-for-privacy@attt.bizz wrote: ...
?????? Only 4% statistically are actually organized as corporations; quite a number of very successful farms still operate as sole proprietorships albeit the larger they get the more and more likely it is that the tax structure is such that the only sensible way to do it is to be a corporation (as noted earlier, very little different than any other family small business).
As someone whom I forget once said, "Farming w/o a profit motive is gardening."
Lying with statistics is still lying.
Now, read what you wrote.
You forgot the tax motive.
I thought you said "earns his living".
I must be missing something obvious. Your statement of U.S. supply exceeding demand doesn't seem to match this:
Actually, there aren't any "corporations" farming in my area as far as I know. The corporate farms around here are family farms whose owners decided to incorporate for whatever reason. A farmer acquaintance said once the hassle and the cost/benefit ratio about evens out when deciding whether to incorporate. Think of a father/son(s) operation or two or more brothers in an operation. Imagine how much hassle there can be if divorce is involved. That would be one reason to incorporate.
I don't think I've forgotten anything. Farming is a business just as any other; one uses the rules as they are in place there as in any business (or personal finances, too, for that matter).
Most of the midwestern states actually have state law against the "corporate-corporate" farms. There are specific rules for what are allowed.
...
And, as just another demonstration that nothing stands alone, the ethanol plant just up the road here (as do all) produces CO2 as a byproduct. That's bad, right? Well, hold on--they capture it and put it in a pipeline and ship down to the OK and TX panhandles where it is used for enhanced oil recovery. Thus, ethanol is a direct contributor to energy independence not only by the replacement of foreign oil for gasoline in direct substitution but by providing a necessary input for the production of additional oil and gas directly here in the US.
And, ethanol lowers the price of gas -- it's roughly 80% of the energy content by volume at approx. 2/3-rds the price (current spot market).
Nebraska's ban on corporate farming was ruled unconstitutional because it violated the Commerce Clause. It was actually in the Nebraska Constitution. I think another flaw it had was requiring active participation of the principals. That ran against the Americans with Disabilities Act if I recall correctly. I did a quick search but couldn't find any reference to a replacement ban.
You miss the point. BECAUSE of gvt manipulation of taxes they "farm" it, not because it makes true economic sense. The low taxes on "farmland" are just another subsidy to farmers who get almost all the benefit, but my sister tags along with a dozen acres because they haven't managed to squeeze the little guys, who really are NOT farmers, out of the process. I'd farm my front lawn if the gvt would say "OK, we'll reduce your tax bill from $3000 a year to $1000, even if my "produce" from my "farmland" cost me $300 out of pocket to produce. I'd still be netting $1700. Why should "farmland' be taxed at a different rate then "land"??? It's just another hidden farm subsidy if you look at it that way OR it's a complete screwing of those who don't farm if you choose to look at it the other way. Either way, it's gvt manipulation of things by rigging the tax system to the benefit of the FAT CATS who can afford the frigging lobbyists that crawl up the butts of our elected morons.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.