User avatar
AmarilloLeaf
Posts: 199
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 6:20 pm
Delivery Date: 31 Mar 2011
Leaf Number: 617
Location: Amarillo, Texas

Re: Free charger == legal?

Fri May 06, 2011 9:14 pm

evnow wrote:
Gonewild wrote:How can one person got something that other don't? I do not have kids why do people who do get paid money/credits for having them? That not fair.

Most egragious of subsidies is the one given to farmers not to grow a particular crop.


It's 'egregious'.

As a former 'Conservation Reserve Program' participant, it actually makes a lot of sense.

It does make for a 4 second good sound bite, assuming that you are uninformed about why the taxpayers would pay for this.

The bottom line was that it is always less expense to the government to make CRP payments than to fund the 'crop insurance' for the land. CRP has restored an enormous amount of acreage back to its natural condition that allowed for migratory birds and wildlife to come back. And it prevents the 'dust bowl' conditions that decimated the central plains in the 1930s.

I'd be perfectly happy growing wheat on this land, and in fact would make more money doing that.

Like a lot of things, the 4 second sound bite doesn't bother to even attempt to understand why it's a good idea all around.
Delivered 3/31/11
Hers: Cayenne Red SL
ECOtality Blink WE-30K Level 2 charging station.
His: Tesla Model S - 85

User avatar
aqn
Gold Member
Posts: 815
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 12:59 pm
Delivery Date: 30 Apr 2011
Leaf Number: 1333
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Free charger == legal?

Fri May 06, 2011 9:53 pm

evnow wrote:Most egragious of subsidies is the one given to farmers not to grow a particular crop.
AmarilloLeaf wrote:As
a former 'Conservation Reserve Program' participant, it actually makes a lot of sense.

It does make for a 4 second good sound bite, assuming that you are uninformed about why the taxpayers would pay for this.

The bottom line was that it is always less expense to the government to make CRP payments than to fund the 'crop insurance' for the land. CRP has restored an enormous amount of acreage back to its natural condition that allowed for migratory birds and wildlife to come back. And it prevents the 'dust bowl' conditions that decimated the central plains in the 1930s.
The CRP does sound like a good idea. Certainly, it costs a pittance: $20B between 1987 and 2003, or a little over $1B a year, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office. But I kinda think crop subsidies came into being long before anybody knew how to spell "environment". At a glance, the significant portion of U.S. crop subsidies has zero to do with saving the environment.
Anna Nguyen

User avatar
AmarilloLeaf
Posts: 199
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 6:20 pm
Delivery Date: 31 Mar 2011
Leaf Number: 617
Location: Amarillo, Texas

Re: Free charger == legal?

Fri May 06, 2011 10:01 pm

aqn wrote:
evnow wrote:Most egragious of subsidies is the one given to farmers not to grow a particular crop.
AmarilloLeaf wrote:As
a former 'Conservation Reserve Program' participant, it actually makes a lot of sense.

It does make for a 4 second good sound bite, assuming that you are uninformed about why the taxpayers would pay for this.


At a glance, the significant portion of U.S. crop subsidies has zero to do with saving the environment.


Not to veer off topic too much, but EVNow was complaining about farmers paid for NOT growing crops, rather than subsidies for growing crops.

If you would like higher prices for corn, wheat, soybeans, chicken, pork and beef, I'd suggest that you stop crop subsidies.

Oh, and are you turning down your $7500 subsidy to purchase your Leaf ?

Just checking.
Delivered 3/31/11
Hers: Cayenne Red SL
ECOtality Blink WE-30K Level 2 charging station.
His: Tesla Model S - 85

User avatar
aqn
Gold Member
Posts: 815
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 12:59 pm
Delivery Date: 30 Apr 2011
Leaf Number: 1333
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Free charger == legal?

Fri May 06, 2011 10:58 pm

evnow wrote:Most egragious of subsidies is the one given to farmers not to grow a particular crop.
AmarilloLeaf wrote:As
a former 'Conservation Reserve Program' participant, it actually makes a lot of sense.

It does make for a 4 second good sound bite, assuming that you are uninformed about why the taxpayers would pay for this.
aqn wrote:[Re-quoted in full]
The CRP does sound like a good idea. Certainly, it costs a pittance: $20B between 1987 and 2003, or a little over $1B a year, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office. But I kinda think crop subsidies came into being long before anybody knew how to spell "environment". At a glance, the significant portion of U.S. crop subsidies has zero to do with saving the environment.
AmarilloLeaf wrote:Not to veer off topic too much, but EVNow was complaining about farmers paid for NOT growing crops, rather than subsidies for growing crops.
AFAIK, "crop subsidies" are not just for growing crops; it's also for not growing crops. Is there a term for "non-crop subsidies", to mean "subsidies to not grow crops"?

evnow says subsidies to not grow crops is egregious. You say "not necessarily", and I agreed with you, saying that it "does sound like a good idea" and that it "costs a pittance", costing a little over $1B a year, less than one tenth of one percent of the Federal government's outlays. I also said "the significant portion of U.S. crop subsidies has zero to do with saving the environment": to wit, farm subsidies currently run about $20B a year, 20 times the cost of the CRP program.

AmarilloLeaf wrote:If you would like higher prices for corn, wheat, soybeans, chicken, pork and beef, I'd suggest that you stop crop subsidies.
Gross revenue for U.S. farms was about $330B in 2010, according to a U.S. Farm Income report by the Congressional Research Service (Figure 9, page 10). (Net income was about $80B.) Direct subsidies is about $20B/year. So without that level of subsidies, in order to maintain the same net income, revenues has to increase by the same $20B amount. $20B is about 6% of $330B. Is 6% "higher prices"? Sure it is. Is it significant? There will certainly be disagreement here. Is it noteworthy to pay $1.06 for a pound of flour instead of $1?

AmarilloLeaf wrote:Oh, and are you turning down your $7500 subsidy to purchase your Leaf ?

Just checking.
No, I'm not turning down my $7500 tax credit. Did you turn down your CRP payments?

My $7500 and (presumably) your CRP payments is money very well spent by the Federal government. I claim the same cannot be said for crop subsidies in general.
Anna Nguyen

User avatar
evnow
Moderator
Posts: 11447
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 11:41 am
Delivery Date: 25 Feb 2011
Leaf Number: 303
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: Free charger == legal?

Fri May 06, 2011 11:26 pm

AmarilloLeaf wrote: If you would like higher prices for corn, wheat, soybeans, chicken, pork and beef, I'd suggest that you stop crop subsidies.

Exactly what I want to see. Let us subsidize healthy food instead of agri-commerce.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 ... -fix-them/

Yet — like so many government programs — what subsidies need is not the ax, but reform that moves them forward. Imagine support designed to encourage a resurgence of small- and medium-size farms producing not corn syrup and animal-feed but food we can touch, see, buy and eat — like apples and carrots — while diminishing handouts to agribusiness and its political cronies.

.....
The subsidy-suckers don’t grow the fresh fruits and vegetables that should be dominating our diet. Indeed, if all Americans decided to actually eat the five servings a day of fruits and vegetables that are recommended, they would discover that American agriculture isn’t set up to meet that need. They grow what they’re paid to grow: corn, soy, wheat, cotton and rice.

The first two of these are the pillars for the typical American diet — featuring an unnaturally large consumption of meat, never-before-seen junk food and a bizarre avoidance of plants — as well as the fortunes of Pepsi, Dunkin’ Donuts, KFC and the others that have relied on cheap corn and soy to build their empires of unhealthful food. Over the years, prices of fresh produce have risen, while those of meat, poultry, sweets, fats and oils, and especially soda, have fallen. (Tom Philpott, writing in the environment and food Web site Grist and citing a Tufts University study, reckons that between 1997 and 2005 subsidies saved chicken, pork, beef and HFCS producers roughly $26.5 billion. In the short term, that saved consumers money too — prices for these foods are unjustifiably low — but at what cost to the environment, our food choices and our health?)
1st Leaf : 2/28/2011 to 5/6/2013
2nd Leaf : 5/4/2013 to 3/21/2017
Volt : 3/25/2017 to 5/25/2018
Model 3 : 5/10/2018 to ?

Return to “Business / Economy and Politics”