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