USDA Finds Farm Subsidy Fraud, So Naturally Repukes Demand Cuts to Food Stamps

It's not like farms are turning record profits, and more people need food stamps due to a sluggish economic recovery ...

Oh, wait ...

(please take special note of the highlighted passage)

The Department of Agriculture doled out more than $20 million in excess financial assistance last year, with the largest overpayments coming in the form of farm subsidies for crop insurance.

In a report released this week, the USDA inspector general said the agency spent nearly $15 million on undue payouts through the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation while issuing no major overpayments for nutrition assistance, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — formerly known as food stamps.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2013/09/06/largest-usda-overpayments-go-toward-farm-subsidies-report-says/

This is from 2002, but pretty much covers the problem.  Farm subsidies are not going to farmers who need them and are often collected by people who are not engaged in farming at all.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/05/another-year-at-the-federal-trough-farm-subsidies-for-the-rich-famous-and-elected-jumped-again-in-2002











Seriously, should the taxpayer subsidize DAVID ROCKEFELLER?

Interactive US map of farm subsidies and crop insurance by state...apparently the insurance racket is more of a scam than the direct subsidies. Everywhere you look, the majority of farm subsidies are collected by the top 10-20 percent.

http://farm.ewg.org/index.php

again, what is your problem with farm subsidies. im not for welfare for the rich either and I think thats where your going. But from what I understand is that these subsidies keep the price of these products artificially low, I only heard that back when there was talk about no subsidies for milk.

I can bet if we start digging around into this little scam, I bet we find that these subsidies are the result of more government intervention in our daily bussiness.

Floridatexan wrote:This is from 2002, but pretty much covers the problem.  Farm subsidies are not going to farmers who need them and are often collected by people who are not engaged in farming at all.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/05/another-year-at-the-federal-trough-farm-subsidies-for-the-rich-famous-and-elected-jumped-again-in-2002











Seriously, should the taxpayer subsidize DAVID ROCKEFELLER?

It only "COVERS" the problem if it is from 2012 or 2013.

You have no clue. Most of what's subsidized in this country is corn, wheat, and soy. Most of that has been taken over by genetically modified seeds from Monsanto, to the point that Monsanto feels they have the power to sue farmers who are not trying to grow Monsanto seeds, but find that their crops have been polluted by the mutant crops...hence the legislation to indemnify Monsanto from judicial action.

It is like almost every other enterprise here . . . . . a game . . . . . they learn how to play the game and they game the system . . . . . year in and year out. We decry the fraud and abuse in the 'welfare' system but just overlook these abuses . . . . I know big farmers, not corporate, but family inherited fertile bottom land owners along the Ohio River (about 8000 acres). Last year was a drought, extreme heat, low yield . . . . a year one would expect would be a financial disaster. Wrong! The owner (Will) told me that because their land is low and fertile his yield was actually average . . . . that's great Will . . . . he then told me he collected a check from the Federal Crop Insurance program for $1,561,000 . . . . I didn't conceal my shock and just told him that's complete bullshit! He laughed and agreed saying he wished his Daddy was alive to witness such bullshit as it is so ridiculous and he knows it. As I speak, he is busy bringing in his annual crop and collecting his checks and laughing all the way to the bank!!

Ask him about the reductions in food subsidies to our poorest and he would shrug and smile . . . . . it's a game folks!

Floridatexan wrote:
You have no clue.  Most of what's subsidized in this country is corn, wheat, and soy.  Most of that has been taken over by genetically modified seeds from Monsanto, to the point that Monsanto feels they have the power to sue farmers who are not trying to grow Monsanto seeds, but find that their crops have been polluted by the mutant crops...hence the legislation to indemnify Monsanto from judicial action.  

Are you afraid to post anything current? Why?

no body going to answer?

isn't it true that farm subsidies keep food prices down?

The left has found an area where they want less gov interference. How interesting that its farm subsidies which keeps food prices down. Is this strategic in order to increase the cost of foo to appoint where even middle class families will need gov food assistance?

no body going to answer?

isn't it true that farm subsidies keep food prices down?


Subsidies interfere and moderate market forces. When we subsidized ethanol production from corn, we did not keep the food prices down. We almost doubled the price of corn in a two year period. Subsidies also are selective. Few subsidies are available for vegetables and fruits. It is mostly focused on the strongest lobby group which is the grain farmers and ADM and other corporate agribusiness investments. When healthy foods lose relative economy of scale because of the grain subsidy, you find less healthy foods going to the market cheaper, and healthy foods costing more, as the long term health costs mount, and we think that farm subsidy has anything to do with moderation anymore, rather obscene power lobby pay dirt.

Markle wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:
You have no clue.  Most of what's subsidized in this country is corn, wheat, and soy.  Most of that has been taken over by genetically modified seeds from Monsanto, to the point that Monsanto feels they have the power to sue farmers who are not trying to grow Monsanto seeds, but find that their crops have been polluted by the mutant crops...hence the legislation to indemnify Monsanto from judicial action.  

Are you afraid to post anything current?  Why?

Don't like my info? Post your own. Something other than a shot of an aged Rangel at the beach supposedly in "basic training". Are you afraid to tell the truth and cut off your cash cow?

2seaoat wrote:no body going to answer?

isn't it true that farm subsidies keep food prices down?


Subsidies interfere and moderate market forces.  When we subsidized ethanol production from corn, we did not keep the food prices down.  We almost doubled the price of corn in a two year period.   Subsidies also are selective.   Few subsidies are available for vegetables and fruits.  It is mostly focused on the strongest lobby group which is the grain farmers and ADM and other corporate agribusiness investments.   When healthy foods lose relative economy of scale because of the grain subsidy, you find less healthy foods going to the market cheaper, and healthy foods costing more, as the long term health costs mount, and we think that farm subsidy has anything to do with moderation anymore, rather obscene power lobby pay dirt.

I see you attempt to put a focus on corn subsidies. I will agree with you on that because corn for fuel is stupid and non productive.

Can you answer a simple question with a simple yes or no?

Do farm subsidies lower the cost of food for the population?

answer this and I will continue to debate it.

It depends on who is paying the subsidy.

As a general rule subsidy does not lower food prices in any given year. Our farm subsidies are complex. Areas are put into conservation and taken out of production and the farmer gets a check, and the total amount of grain is reduced and the price goes up. Is that conservation payment not a subsidy, and does it not have a policy goal. However, subsidy allows farmers to make longer term investment in tools which lead to higher productivity. Since the 70s we have seen almost a doubling of our corn output per acre with huge savings in productivity and equipment. This abundance of product lowers the price.

So to answer your question, the price of food is supply and demand. If subsidy allows greater investment in tools to expand productivity, you will see the price of food go down in indexed prices. If however the subsidy increases conservation land, or subsidy is given to burn food, the price of food goes up. Now farm insurance subsidies may keep the farmer solvent, but it does little for the price of corn in a drought year. So not only do you have complexities with subsidy as to type, but there are timing issues which have little to do with the subsidy.

The truth is that tariff's, restrictions on type of crop, transportation costs, and the weather have more impact on lowering the cost to consumers than the arbitrary application of often contradictory subsidy.

2seaoat wrote:It depends on who is paying the subsidy.

As a general rule subsidy does not lower food prices in any given year.   Our farm subsidies are complex.   Areas are put into conservation and taken out of production and the farmer gets a check, and the total amount of grain is reduced and the price goes up.   Is that conservation payment not a subsidy, and does it not have a policy goal.  However, subsidy allows farmers to make longer term investment in tools which lead to higher productivity.  Since the 70s we have seen almost a doubling of our corn output per acre with huge savings in productivity and equipment.   This abundance of product lowers the price.  

So to answer your question, the price of food is supply and demand.   If subsidy allows greater investment in tools to expand productivity, you will see the price of food go down in indexed prices.  If however the subsidy increases conservation land, or subsidy is given to burn food, the price of food goes up.   Now farm insurance subsidies may keep the farmer solvent, but it does little for the price of corn in a drought year.  So not only do you have complexities with subsidy as to type, but there are timing issues which have little to do with the subsidy.

The truth is that tariff's, restrictions on type of crop, transportation costs, and the weather have more impact on lowering the cost to consumers than the arbitrary application of often contradictory subsidy.

let me sum up your response....

no.

please explain this graph.



why was there a farm aid concert?

should we worry about it when the large major farms loose their crops to drought, floods and the corps opening dams with bombs?

why does the WTO tell us to stop subsidies because it effects prices on the world market?

see, im a fair person and Ive already said I don't understand this topic but im willing to investigate it.

I read about it here and a few other places.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Agriculture_Improvement_and_Reform_Act_of_1996

I also read this article and all the comments were very enlightening.
http://www.alternet.org/comments/story/152827/if_we_end_farm_subsidies%2C_does_that_mean_our_food_system_will_be_healthy#disqus_thread

I would like to inject logic though. If a farmer looses his crop and cant produce. what do you suggest at this point? do you think another farmer will buy him out and continue to produce the worlds food, the nations food?

I think we need to be very careful before we go messing with our food supply. Im not saying we shouldn't cut subsidies. Im saying we need to be really freakin sure we wont put a bunch out of business and then we have a national food crisis.

Farm Aid...the concert...was meant to help the small farmer...not the big agribusiness companies that have the effect of undercutting small scale farming operations. If we're going to subsidize crops, they should be nutritious foods, and not the perpetuation of a system that relies on GMO corn, wheat and soy...which we also export to the rest of the world...with disastrous consequences, unless the country destroys or bans the mutants.

First it is a total bs chart. It does not have the last 10 years of the chart because it does not want to show where profits have gone with the exports to China, India, and the impact of the ethanol subsidy.

Why don't you find a chart which shows information through 2012. When you find it you will see historic highs in farm profit, all the while subsidy abounds.

The markets for American agricultural products has an inverse relationship to the loss of industrial jobs. As our middle class has been sacked, middle classes have developed in India and China with new dietary expansion which puts American products in demand. High demand increases prices.

Additionally the chart does not take into account productivity. Without the same, it has very little meaning.

Floridatexan wrote:
Farm Aid...the concert...was meant to help the small farmer...not the big agribusiness companies that have the effect of undercutting small scale farming operations.  If we're going to subsidize crops, they should be nutritious foods, and not the perpetuation of a system that relies on GMO corn, wheat and soy...which we also export to the rest of the world...with disastrous consequences, unless the country destroys or bans the mutants.

The only thing that you and I have ever agreed on is GMO's.

But you have avoided any conversation with me about it all these years because I don't buy into your label of politics.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/02/27/us-farm-subsidies-absurd.aspx

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/09/07/king-corn-documentary.aspx?e_cid=20130907Z1_DNL_art_1&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20130907Z1