A day without illegal immigrants...

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by WGJ

We have Republicans and a Republican led Congress to thank for this appalling waste.
WGJ

I don't agree with much of the farm subsidy program and just wait until we have to use a large percentage of ethanol instead of fossil fuels and then see how much it costs to run your car.

BUT----it doesn't take someone very smart to know that the Republicans have only controlled Congress for a few years versus the long run of Democratic controlled Congresses. You can't lay the problem at the feet of Reps when it is proudly owned by Democrats.

Get real WGJ. Think!!!!

Lee

[WGJ]

Originally Posted by lhopp77

I don't agree with much of the farm subsidy program and just wait until we have to use a large percentage of ethanol instead of fossil fuels and then see how much it costs to run your car.

BUT----it doesn't take someone very smart to know that the Republicans have only controlled Congress for a few years versus the long run of Democratic controlled Congresses. You can't lay the problem at the feet of Reps when it is proudly owned by Democrats.

Get real WGJ. Think!!!!

Lee

"The original intent was to make a step in the
direction of eliminating farm programs," said
then-House Majority Leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.),
who led an unsuccessful fight in the 1990s to trim the
subsidies. "By 1998, there was no zeal left."


This is a perfect example of why these discussions with you are a waste of time for you. You've been presented with documented evidence of Republican f**kups as long as my arm and either the evidence isn't good enough ie; I can't put you in a time machine and place you on the scene, making you an eye witness (even then I'm sure you'd deny what you're seeing) or you change the subject or you refuse to accept the source and then there's the endless ad hominems (ie;constantly questioning others intelligence instead of providing evidence). You're incapable of straight ahead logic much less lateral leaps in logic and BECAUSE YOU NEVER AGREE to ANYTHING except the most blatantly obvious. You're so invested in your position that even when Republcians admit they screwed up YOU CAN'T (SEE ABOVE. Please note the DATES QUOTED from the Rebublican House leader).

George Bush could literally walk up to you , pull his dick out and PISS ON YOUR LEG and TELL YOU IT'S RAINING and YOU'D BELIEVE HIM! And then you have either the balls or the stupidity to tell me to think?
I keep reminding you, one finger pointing at me, three pointing back at you, but you don't get that either.

WGJ

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by WGJ

"The original intent was to make a step in the
direction of eliminating farm programs," said
then-House Majority Leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.),
who led an unsuccessful fight in the 1990s to trim the
subsidies. "By 1998, there was no zeal left."


This is a perfect example of why these discussions with you are a waste of time for you. You've been presented with documented evidence of Republican f**kups as long as my arm and either the evidence isn't good enough ie; I can't put you in a time machine and place you on the scene, making you an eye witness (even then I'm sure you'd deny what you're seeing) or you change the subject or you refuse to accept the source and then there's the endless ad hominems (ie;constantly questioning others intelligence instead of providing evidence). You're incapable of straight ahead logic much less lateral leaps in logic and BECAUSE YOU NEVER AGREE to ANYTHING except the most blatantly obvious. You're so invested in your position that even when Republcians admit they screwed up YOU CAN'T (SEE ABOVE. Please note the DATES QUOTED from the Rebublican House leader).

George Bush could literally walk up to you , pull his dick out and PISS ON YOUR LEG and TELL YOU IT'S RAINING and YOU'D BELIEVE HIM! And then you have either the balls or the stupidity to tell me to think?
I keep reminding you, one finger pointing at me, three pointing back at you, but you don't get that either.

WGJ

Think for a change, Williford.

Lee

[Electrophil]

Originally Posted by lhopp77

I don't agree with much of the farm subsidy program and just wait until we have to use a large percentage of ethanol instead of fossil fuels and then see how much it costs to run your car.

BUT----it doesn't take someone very smart to know that the Republicans have only controlled Congress for a few years versus the long run of Democratic controlled Congresses. You can't lay the problem at the feet of Reps when it is proudly owned by Democrats.

Get real WGJ. Think!!!!

Lee

The farm subsidy is exactly why we won't be spending alot if we go to higher levels of ethanol.

Demand for corn skyrockets, landowners find it's more profitable growing corn instead of idling the land for the subsidy, and it all evens out. With of course the added benefit that less money is needed in the farm subsidy area. My father in law gets a check for some $300? $350 a year? for not growing corn on his land. He'd much rather be leasing the land to a grower as he was. He made more money on it that way, and the government can use that $300 to pay off a micron of debt.

[WGJ]

It's obvious from the previous post that your incessent call for others to:

"Think for a change, Williford."
Lee

is a classic case of projection...you insist we think because you won't or can't. All anyone has to do is read the previous post and it's obvious you've gotten it wrong again and don't have a leg to stand on, but rather than own up, you fall back on exactly the tactics I discribed:
"you change the subject or you refuse to accept the source and then there's the endless ad hominems (ie;constantly questioning others' intelligence instead of providing evidence)."

I am thinking of a change...getting the Bush crime family out of politics. I'm also thinking what a change it would be for you to either have the balls to admit when you are wrong or actually come up with some evidence.
WGJ

[WGJ]

HARVESTING CASH: Working a Farm Subsidy
Growers Reap Benefits Even in Good Years
Crops That Sell High Qualify for Payments

By Dan Morgan, Sarah Cohen and Gilbert M. Gaul
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, July 3, 2006; Page A01


EDEN, Md. -- Roger L. Richardson, a vigorous 72-year-old who grows corn on 1,500 acres of prime Eastern Shore farmland, had a good year in 2005. Thanks to smart planning, shrewd investing and a little luck, he grossed a healthy $500,000 for his crop.

But the federal government treated him as if he needed help and paid him $75,000.

The federal government has guaranteed minimum prices, or floors, to farmers for generations. Loan deficiency payments, created in 1985, have become the largest component of that guarantee. The subsidies -- available for major commodity crops including corn, wheat, cotton and soybeans -- can vary each day for each crop in each county where it is produced. Here is how the LDP works, based on market conditions and estimates for corn published by the U.S. Agriculture Department last year for the Eastern Shore of Maryland.

Cash for Corn
After Hurricane Katrina caused a brief dip in Midwest corn markets, farmers across the country were able to claim loan deficiency payments, whether or not they sold their corn at the distressed prices.

About This Series
As Congress prepares to debate a farm bill next year, The Washington Post is examining federal agriculture subsidies that grew to more than $25 billion last year, despite near-record farm revenue.
Day 1: A look at direct income-support payments made to landowners, even if they do not farm. Read the story: Farm Program Pays $1.3 Billion to People Who Don't Farm.

The money came from a little-known, 20-year-old U.S. Agriculture Department program that was intended to boost farmers' incomes when prices are low.

The farmers do not have to sell at distressed prices to collect the money. They can bank the government payments and sell when prices are higher.

Since September, the program has cost taxpayers $4.8 billion. Most of that money -- $3.8 billion -- went to farmers such as Richardson who sold at higher prices, according to a Washington Post analysis of USDA payment data.

The subsidy is called the loan deficiency payment. Although it has cost taxpayers $29 billion since 1998, it is virtually unknown outside farm country. But in rural America, the LDP is a topic at backyard barbecues and local diners along with the high school football team and the weather. Despite its name, it is neither a loan nor, in many cases, payment for a deficiency. It is just cash paid to farmers when market prices dip below the government-set minimum, or floor, if only for a single day.

WGJ
Full story:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...referrer=email

[lhopp77]

You seem to blame the farm subsidy program on Bush just like you blame everything else on him. You know full well that the program started in under Roosevelt and for most of the years since has been the "darling" program of the Democrats.

The Republicans have reduced some of it and have tried to make further reductions. When you really look at the supporters, it is determined by the agricultural lobby in any particular state. In some states or areas it gets Democratic support and in others Republican support.

Blame this one on big government not one particular party. I suspect I could make a case that shows that Republicans are less to blame, but the difference would be insignificant.

I assure you that I probably know more about this program than most of you on here as I have been intimately involved with it and have not been happy with what I have seen. If you want to see some corrupt and unbelievable programs check out peanuts and tobacco.

I am still running up warning flags about any huge dependence upon ethanol made from corn or any particular crop. Mark my words, you will see the consumer take it in the ear even worse than with oil dependency.

Lee

[lhopp77]

There are a few relationships that many do not consider. One of them has to do with inheritance tax (that you liberals love so much) and the demise of family farms and corresponding growth of large corporate farms.


It does not take a large number of acres to reach the assessed value subject to huge inheritance taxes. Many family farms have been lost because the family could not pay the taxes when it was passed from father to son. Corporations benefitted from this and have bought much land to build huge corporate farms.

Inheritance taxes should be set at a fairly high level and/or even have special rules applying to family farming operations. We are definitely better off with family farms versus corporate farms.

The subsidy program should be applied very differently to corporate farms versus family farms. While there has been attempts to severely limit subsidies to corporate farms, it has been less than totally successful. Corporations can better absorb bad crop years than a family business. One single bad crop year can wipe out a family business.

We could really get involved and discuss the roles that banks, insurance companies and lawyers play in all of this, but that might get a bit complicated.

I am amazed at the single focus of Bush Haters on here instead of looking at the real issues facing both parties and all of us. Social security, environment, legal reform, insurance, health care costs, lousy educational system-----etc, etc, etc. These problems can ONLY be tackled with bipartisan cooperation.

Lee

[Electrophil]

I am for anything that reduces our dependency on other countries, especially oil. It doesn't matter if that dependency is with Iran, or Brazil, or fatadedeen.

Independent means just that.

Cost is a big factor, and at this point in the game, it's not cost effective. We are still at the point where gas is cheaper than producing ethanol. But we are real close. I think the difference today is around 15 cents per gallon. With an increase in technology, and if the price of oil goes up any higher, we will reach the threshold where people will invest in large scale operations.

It is successful in Brazil now, but they produce it with sugar, which has a much higher energy content. We don't have the luxury of a large scale sugar producing climate.

[NapaBavarian]

All over? No more fighting?

[Noir]

Originally Posted by NapaBavarian

All over? No more fighting?

so you think.

don the gloves and get in the ring. time for me to beat ya down.

[Electrophil]

The radipublicans have moved on to giving Millionaires more estate tax breaks in exchange for a minimum wage hike. Illegal Immigrants is just yesterday's campaign hype.

It never was an issue. Just something to side line the ADD group while the republicans were in trouble.

[ensteele]

Here in Washington State, it isn't much of an estate before you have to pay major taxes on it. Especially when they do the estimates of what things are worth. I don't understand where you think only the rich will benifit on that.

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by Electrophil

The radipublicans have moved on to giving Millionaires more estate tax breaks in exchange for a minimum wage hike. Illegal Immigrants is just yesterday's campaign hype.

It never was an issue. Just something to side line the ADD group while the republicans were in trouble.

The Democrats planned on making the lack of minimum wage increases a campaign issue this year, so now they are very upset with having to vote on it. The Republicans were crafty enough to tie it to some other reasonable tax provisions.

I agree with Earl that it does not take much of an estate in many areas to reach the $5Mil exemption included in this legislation. Like I have said before, a family farm of a few thousand acres and some expensive equipment can reach that level in a hurry. I think that is very fair to exempt estates of less than that figure. It still taxes the super rich like the Kerry's, Kennedys, etc. Well, actually I am kidding myself since they keep their money overseas and in trusts and just want to tax everyone else.

Wake up and smell the roses, Robert.

Lee

[Electrophil]

Originally Posted by ensteele

Here in Washington State, it isn't much of an estate before you have to pay major taxes on it. Especially when they do the estimates of what things are worth. I don't understand where you think only the rich will benifit on that.

How many citizens have a $5 million dollar estate after deductions are made? How many actually have a $1 million dollar estate?

There's really not that many. This tax cut falls directly into the "good of the few outweigh the good of the many."

The "many" are going to have to pay for this tax cut, as we are going to have to pay for all the others. It's a National debt has doubled thing.