And it sounds like such a great idea.. :P The only turn off for me with the folks who are trying to dispel the misinformation is the guy who said it would make the corn farmers richer.. like they are already rich, I'm wondering what corn farmers he knows.... because he and I don't hang with the same crowd of farmers...
Back on the actual subject.. I also wonder if we aren't going to get what we need from ethanol, and research can prove we wont see the results we are hoping for, than why are we continuing to waste money trying to make it work when we could be putting that money into researching alternatives to ethanol and oil? If it isn't going to work fine, lets move on..
"The only turn off for me with the folks who are trying to dispel the misinformation is the guy who said it would make the corn farmers richer.. like they are already rich, I'm wondering what corn farmers he knows.... because he and I don't hang with the same crowd of farmers..."
But, corn farmers ARE rich...The average annual income for a farmer in the United States is $86,400. On the whole, farmers are not a struggling sector of our society. The current farm subsidy laws were put on the books after the great depression, when our economy was based highly on agriculture and farmers were nearly destitute. Things have changed. Today, 75% of subsidies go to the richest 10% of farmers. This is why the government needs to get out of the farm subsidy business. In fact, these numbers show that farm subsidies only hurt poorer farmers.
Farmers now represent less than 10% of the population of the US, with a lot of farmers running huge, highly lucrative enterprises. Our government pays subsidies to farmers to grow grass instead of grain in order to ratchet down supply of their commodities (which only makes the farmers richer). Meanwhile, 850,000,000 people are starving around the world and farmers in developing countries are starving because their commodities can't compete in the world marketplace against our farmers highly sought after, highly subsidized goods.
Marlo Lewis is actually speaking of giant farming conglomerates such as Archer Daniels Midland. They are a huge receiver of subsidies and a huge producer of Ethanol. The fact is that they ARE getting richer off Ethanol because the government is propping it up right now. They have always produced it in some capacity; it just isn't a good competitor in the market. Without government subsidies, you'd never even hear about it. It's easy to think of a farmer as a poor guy out on a couple acres of land, struggling to get by (and maybe you know someone like that); but the fact is that today, most farms are gigantic, modernized money presses with government backing. Things have become consolidated, ADM is just one example of this.
"Back on the actual subject.. I also wonder if we aren't going to get what we need from ethanol, and research can prove we wont see the results we are hoping for, than why are we continuing to waste money trying to make it work when we could be putting that money into researching alternatives to ethanol and oil? If it isn't going to work fine, lets move on.."
This is all politically motivated. States like Iowa are big campaign states (the primaries start there). Hillary Clinton voted against Ethanol something like 17 times before she ran for president. Now she supports it. Ethanol is probably the oldest chemical reaction known to man. As Marlo Lewis states in the video, it's literally thousands of years old. It's been tried in the past and petroleum is just simply better (it's cheaper, has a higher energy output and better fuel economy). Also, as the other guy in the video states, this is a way for politicians to look "greener."
The scary part is this: "President Bush eventually seeks to generate a western-hemisphere dominated [energy] industry that can produce as much as 35 billion gallons [of ethanol] (130 billion liters) a year, equal to the entire world's production as of 2007." - The Financial Times
"But, corn farmers ARE rich...The average annual income for a farmer in
the United States is $86,400. On the whole, farmers are not a
struggling sector of our society."
I live in a mostly rural area of Illinois and of every farm family I know, some 50 odd families that I really know, (my hubby knows more) That figure might apply to one farmer and his family around here. And yes they all grow corn, as well as soy beans. And I don't know what exactly that figure takes into account, but after the purchase and maintenance of equipment, nobody around here is making that. Most of them are struggling to do anything more than just survive. Not every farmer, or even most farmers are getting rich off government subsidies. Not to mention those subsidies are the only thing that has raised the price of corn in the last 20 or so years.
I'm not saying I'm for Ethanol, and I'm not denying there is someone getting rich off of it, but it isn't all the corn farmers. It maybe a select few corn farmers. Overall the Iowa, Illinois and Indiana farmers aren't the ones propagating the loads of garbage still being spoonfed to the public about ethanol.
It may well be the Farm bureaus and departments of agriculture from those states propagating the myths, but the Department of Agriculture is no more run by the real farmers than Nasa is run by me.
I do understand political motivation, And while petroleum maybe more efficient it is not renewable, so on the surface I do see what makes ethanol look like a better choice. I also understand change takes time.. I just dont understand why as a society we insist on wasting it beating a dead horse.
"President Bush eventually seeks to generate a western-hemisphere dominated [energy] industry that can
produce as much as 35 billion gallons [of ethanol] (130 billion liters)
a year, equal to the entire world's production as of 2007." - The
Financial Times" I dont know why this is scary if he has not managed it yet, I seriously doubt he has the time to accomplish it before he leaves office, and after he leaves he wont have that kind of influence or motivation.
"I live in a mostly rural area of Illinois and of every farm family I know, some 50 odd families that I really know, (my hubby knows more) That figure might apply to one farmer and his family around here. And yes they all grow corn, as well as soy beans. And I don't know what exactly that figure takes into account, but after the purchase and maintenance of equipment, nobody around here is making that."
Like I said, this may be true of some; but the average income of a farmer (I was wrong, by the way, farmers are only 2% of the workforce) in this country is 86K. Farm subsidies and ethanol hurt 100% of us. First, we're paying twice for goods because we're paying taxes for them to be made and then we're paying at the pump\grocery store (Ethanol is about $3.71 a gallon right now, more than gasoline). This is not fair. Second, corn prices are skyrocketing which is REALLY hurting other sectors of the agricultural industry, such as cattle ranchers (not to mention consumers). Third, we're now importing wheat for the first time in our history, which makes no sense at all.
"Most of them are struggling to do anything more than just survive. Not every farmer, or even most farmers are getting rich off government subsidies. Not to mention those subsidies are the only thing that has raised the price of corn in the last 20 or so years."
Who isn't struggling to survive? Everyone I know is struggling to survive right now, including myself. Everyone is in debt, no one can afford fuel prices, we're being taxed to the hilt and now food prices are going up. With all due respect, why are farmers better than everyone else? Florida's government is a billion dollars under budget and the housing slump here is worse than anywhere, which has put us in a state wide recession. I myself have been unable to get a job for six months after my business failed. I'm sorry that your farmer friends are struggling, but it's wrong to make everyone else suffer for their sake. Also, as I mentioned, farm subsidies only hurt poor farmers. You should watch this video:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XWQrdPNqXWU
"I dont know why this is scary if he has not managed it yet, I seriously doubt he has the time to accomplish it before he leaves office, and after he leaves he wont have that kind of influence or motivation."
It's scary because Congress supports this and is discussing biofuel bills. All politicians support it right now, it's not something that's just going to go away when Bush is gone. In fact, one of the bills before Congress calls for such a large amount of biofuel production that it would require 75% of the world's farmland to produce it. The technology is simply not there yet, but these politicians think that they can force things to do what they want, which is scary. It's called megalomania.
I really hate to be dragged into an argument. First I'd like to point out, I did not ever say I thought farmers where better than anyone else, nor do I think it. As the wife of a truck owner-operator I am painfully aware of how the price of one commodity (corn or oil) can drive up the price of everything down the line. In this case you are preaching to the choir.
I would also like to share this piece of info with you and maybe you will understand why it annoys me to hear someone talk about the family farmer as though he is some rich bugger who is just using the rest of the country for their tax dollars and government subsidies.
"In recent years, 85-95 percent of farm household income has come from off-farm sources (including employment earnings, other business activities, and unearned income). The relative importance of off-farm income varies considerably from farm to farm, and declines as farm commodity sales increase. But even among the largest farming operations (the 8 percent of farming operations with annual sales exceeding $250,000), off-farm income accounts for 24 percent of farm household income, on average. For the 82 percent of U.S. farming operations that have annual sales of $100,000 or less, off-farm income typically accounts for all but a negligible amount of farm household income. As a result, for the majority of U.S. farm households, the availability of off-farm income is a more significant factor for financial well- being than are returns on farm production. While off-farm income can include interest, dividend, and social security payments, in nearly 70 percent of family farm households the operator or the spouse reported having an off-farm job in 2004. Over 40 percent of farm operators consider something other than farming to be their primary occupation. The health of the local economy has a direct impact on the well-being of these households through the availability of off-farm jobs and the profitability of nonfarm businesses owned by farm operators and their spouses."
"While larger farms comprise a relatively small proportion of farm households, they account for a large proportion of agricultural production (the 18 percent of farms with sales of $100,000 or more produce about 88 percent of total farm sales) and rely on farm profits for a higher percentage of household income than smaller farms. Over 80 percent of farm commodity program payments go to farming operations with sales of $100,000 or more. Government payments accounted for 5 to 8 percent of total gross cash farm income over the last several years. For larger farming operations that received Government payments in 2004, these payments dropped from roughly 10 percent of gross cash farm income for farming operations with $100,000 to $250,000 in sales to 5 percent of gross cash farm income for farming operations with over $500,000 in sales."
And when I tell you about my experience with family farmers it is the people who are eating mac and cheese to make ends meet, and who do not go to movies because it is simply too much money. it is not the large cash operations that the government is subsidizing. They are not the same thing. Not the same thing at all.
"It's scary because Congress supports this and is discussing biofuel
bills. All politicians support it right now, it's not something that's
just going to go away when Bush is gone. In fact, one of the bills
before Congress calls for such a large amount of biofuel production
that it would require 75% of the world's farmland to produce it. The
technology is simply not there yet, but these politicians think that
they can force things to do what they want, which is scary. It's called
megalomania." Then it is scary because of all politicians, not because of george bush.
And arguing with me wont accomplish anything, I'm not in favor of biofuel, its as useless as the paper or plastic debate, if you don't take time away from it to contact your representatives.
"maybe you will understand why it annoys me to hear someone talk about the family farmer as though he is some rich bugger who is just using the rest of the country for their tax dollars and government subsidies."
There really is no argument here. I think the problem is that you perceive an attack on our country's outdated policy re farm subsidies as an attack on people you know. This is what has been stated:
"Martin Wolf in the Financial Times had a wonderful column just a few days ago in which he described Ethanol as a farm program, basically corporate welfare, FOR A CERTAIN SEGMENT OF FARMERS masquerading as energy policy and climate policy, so that's the problem." - Marlo Lewis in the youtube video
"MARLO LEWIS IS ACTUALLY SPEAKING OF GIANT FARMING CONGLOMERATES SUCH AS ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND. They are a huge receiver of subsidies and a huge producer of Ethanol. The fact is that they ARE getting richer off Ethanol because the government is propping it up right now." - me
This is not really about poor farmers. In fact, I said: "farm subsidies only hurt poorer farmers."
This is what you quoted: "While larger farms comprise a relatively small proportion of farm households, they account for a large proportion of agricultural production (the 18 percent of farms with sales of $100,000 or more produce about 88 percent of total farm sales) and rely on farm profits for a higher percentage of household income than smaller farms. Over 80 percent of farm commodity program payments go to farming operations with sales of $100,000 or more."
This basically is exactly what I'm saying. Farm subsidies are helping the rich get richer and making it harder to compete in the marketplace. In the long run, they're not helping your friends at all, they're helping companies like ADM.
"And when I tell you about my experience with family farmers it is the people who are eating mac and cheese to make ends meet, and who do not go to movies because it is simply too much money."
Again, not to be argumentative; but this describes me and most of my friends as well. I've been to the movies twice in the past four years. Rakel (Rakel is my wife) and I live on $50 a week for food most of the time. On principle, I believe that just because someone is struggling it doesn't justify government handouts and bad policy. America is the Land of Opportunity, after all.
"Then it is scary because of all politicians, not because of george bush."
??? My point really had nothing to do with George Bush. I merely quoted an article in the Financial Times that mentioned him. Also, not to be technical, but if it's scary because of all politicians, it's necessarily scary because of George Bush. He's a politician, after all.
Again, I'm really not arguing or trying to convince you of anything. And I AM trying to support local candidates that support my views (3rd party candidates). It's just slow going. However, I do disagree with your statement that it's useless for me to inform regular people of my views. The average American's views are far more important than some politician. In the long run, the people are the only ones who ever affect lasting changes.
Wow, it's amazing how the shortest post I've written has inspired the most debate! Well, maybe not the most, but you guys have definately written more than I had on the subject. KeyLimeTwist: I don't think fiveminuteplan (my hubby) is trying to say that all farms are affected by subsidies, I know for a fact we have talked about this before. It is my understanding that small farmers are often ignored when the subsidies are handed out -- they go to larger farmers who, inevitably make more and push up the average salary (after all, that's what an average is, mathematically speaking).
Also, I don't think anybody is attacking George Bush right now, but politicians in general... and not so much attacking rather than making conversation. That's not to say he's my favorite President by any stretch of the imagination, but if you want to play the blame game, congress is a good place to start. After all, they are the ones that pass the bills, right? I think that people are too caught up with the President... and I've been saying this since I learned about our government in high school... the congress is just as important if not more. People need to pay more attention to their local government. You are absolutely right on that.
I don't want to argue. I certainly feel like you have not understood what I meant, maybe I should have been more clear, or maybe not posted at all.
I dislike the over generalization that was used. period. I like most people don't think of "corn farmers" as ADM, I think of
corn farmer as the guy whose field is across the road, the guy who does the actual work farming. All of those
below average income farmers. (I think of ADM as a corn processor not a farmer.)
I can see that you and I aren't necessarily disagreeing, but I'm simply annoyed with the way he phrased something, I'm not doubting that someone is benefiting from subsidies, and I have know for a long time that farm subsidy plans aren't working the way the general population thinks they are, and are not benefiting the majority of the farming population.
And when I said it was a waste of time to argue it with me, I meant me only, not regular people or anyone else, because you are only arguing with me, and I'm not for subsidies for the "all ready doing well" segment of farm society. And as the daughter of mechanical engineers I already know ethanol isn't good for my car, been there been told that, and so I'm not all for its production, nor it's use.
Lastly, when I said I didn't understand why we could not move, I should have worded that differently. I do understand it takes time to get the word out there and to break through the lies and crap to get to the truth.I am frustrated that we cant just take a good in depth look at the facts make a decision on move along, rather than continue to beat a horse and waste tax dollars as we do it.
And really I don't care if you want to say things about Bush. I'm not defending him, the quote you used targeted him and made it sound like he one handedly was behind the push for Ethanol production. And I guess I agree here with Rakel, we give the presidency too much weight, and it looked like that was the point of that quote,
Like I said, I don't want to argue. I wanted to voice my irritation on the corn farmer comment, and with the lack on moving on, really nothing more. I wasn't trying to open an argument or even a discussion.
I feel like this has gotten out of hand, maybe because I've seen enough net drama to last me a lifetime and I try to avoid it like the plague. This doesn't feel like a simple discussion, and I don't thrive on arguing for entertainment. :)
I'm sorry that you have gotten frustrated, I know that the both of us were not looking at this as anything other than a good natured discussion. I apologize that our wording offending you, it was definitely not my (or John's) purpose to target small farmers. I think we got everything straightened out now... and thank you for helping us fine-tune our wording and be more descriptive. After all, what is communication if the other person does not understand what you wish to communicate? I welcome and value all comments on my blog... even if it does get a little heated! :)
Comments
Back on the actual subject.. I also wonder if we aren't going to get what we need from ethanol, and research can prove we wont see the results we are hoping for, than why are we continuing to waste money trying to make it work when we could be putting that money into researching alternatives to ethanol and oil? If it isn't going to work fine, lets move on..
But, corn farmers ARE rich...The average annual income for a farmer in the United States is $86,400. On the whole, farmers are not a struggling sector of our society. The current farm subsidy laws were put on the books after the great depression, when our economy was based highly on agriculture and farmers were nearly destitute. Things have changed. Today, 75% of subsidies go to the richest 10% of farmers. This is why the government needs to get out of the farm subsidy business. In fact, these numbers show that farm subsidies only hurt poorer farmers.
Farmers now represent less than 10% of the population of the US, with a lot of farmers running huge, highly lucrative enterprises. Our government pays subsidies to farmers to grow grass instead of grain in order to ratchet down supply of their commodities (which only makes the farmers richer). Meanwhile, 850,000,000 people are starving around the world and farmers in developing countries are starving because their commodities can't compete in the world marketplace against our farmers highly sought after, highly subsidized goods.
Marlo Lewis is actually speaking of giant farming conglomerates such as Archer Daniels Midland. They are a huge receiver of subsidies and a huge producer of Ethanol. The fact is that they ARE getting richer off Ethanol because the government is propping it up right now. They have always produced it in some capacity; it just isn't a good competitor in the market. Without government subsidies, you'd never even hear about it. It's easy to think of a farmer as a poor guy out on a couple acres of land, struggling to get by (and maybe you know someone like that); but the fact is that today, most farms are gigantic, modernized money presses with government backing. Things have become consolidated, ADM is just one example of this.
"Back on the actual subject.. I also wonder if we aren't going to get what we need from ethanol, and research can prove we wont see the results we are hoping for, than why are we continuing to waste money trying to make it work when we could be putting that money into researching alternatives to ethanol and oil? If it isn't going to work fine, lets move on.."
This is all politically motivated. States like Iowa are big campaign states (the primaries start there). Hillary Clinton voted against Ethanol something like 17 times before she ran for president. Now she supports it. Ethanol is probably the oldest chemical reaction known to man. As Marlo Lewis states in the video, it's literally thousands of years old. It's been tried in the past and petroleum is just simply better (it's cheaper, has a higher energy output and better fuel economy). Also, as the other guy in the video states, this is a way for politicians to look "greener."
The scary part is this: "President Bush eventually seeks to generate a western-hemisphere dominated [energy] industry that can produce as much as 35 billion gallons [of ethanol] (130 billion liters) a year, equal to the entire world's production as of 2007." - The Financial Times
I live in a mostly rural area of Illinois and of every farm family I know, some 50 odd families that I really know, (my hubby knows more) That figure might apply to one farmer and his family around here. And yes they all grow corn, as well as soy beans. And I don't know what exactly that figure takes into account, but after the purchase and maintenance of equipment, nobody around here is making that. Most of them are struggling to do anything more than just survive. Not every farmer, or even most farmers are getting rich off government subsidies. Not to mention those subsidies are the only thing that has raised the price of corn in the last 20 or so years.
I'm not saying I'm for Ethanol, and I'm not denying there is someone getting rich off of it, but it isn't all the corn farmers. It maybe a select few corn farmers. Overall the Iowa, Illinois and Indiana farmers aren't the ones propagating the loads of garbage still being spoonfed to the public about ethanol.
It may well be the Farm bureaus and departments of agriculture from those states propagating the myths, but the Department of Agriculture is no more run by the real farmers than Nasa is run by me.
I do understand political motivation, And while petroleum maybe more efficient it is not renewable, so on the surface I do see what makes ethanol look like a better choice. I also understand change takes time.. I just dont understand why as a society we insist on wasting it beating a dead horse.
"President Bush eventually seeks to generate a western-hemisphere dominated [energy] industry that can produce as much as 35 billion gallons [of ethanol] (130 billion liters) a year, equal to the entire world's production as of 2007." - The Financial Times" I dont know why this is scary if he has not managed it yet, I seriously doubt he has the time to accomplish it before he leaves office, and after he leaves he wont have that kind of influence or motivation.
Like I said, this may be true of some; but the average income of a farmer (I was wrong, by the way, farmers are only 2% of the workforce) in this country is 86K. Farm subsidies and ethanol hurt 100% of us. First, we're paying twice for goods because we're paying taxes for them to be made and then we're paying at the pump\grocery store (Ethanol is about $3.71 a gallon right now, more than gasoline). This is not fair. Second, corn prices are skyrocketing which is REALLY hurting other sectors of the agricultural industry, such as cattle ranchers (not to mention consumers). Third, we're now importing wheat for the first time in our history, which makes no sense at all.
"Most of them are struggling to do anything more than just survive. Not every farmer, or even most farmers are getting rich off government subsidies. Not to mention those subsidies are the only thing that has raised the price of corn in the last 20 or so years."
Who isn't struggling to survive? Everyone I know is struggling to survive right now, including myself. Everyone is in debt, no one can afford fuel prices, we're being taxed to the hilt and now food prices are going up. With all due respect, why are farmers better than everyone else? Florida's government is a billion dollars under budget and the housing slump here is worse than anywhere, which has put us in a state wide recession. I myself have been unable to get a job for six months after my business failed. I'm sorry that your farmer friends are struggling, but it's wrong to make everyone else suffer for their sake. Also, as I mentioned, farm subsidies only hurt poor farmers. You should watch this video:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XWQrdPNqXWU
"I dont know why this is scary if he has not managed it yet, I seriously doubt he has the time to accomplish it before he leaves office, and after he leaves he wont have that kind of influence or motivation."
It's scary because Congress supports this and is discussing biofuel bills. All politicians support it right now, it's not something that's just going to go away when Bush is gone. In fact, one of the bills before Congress calls for such a large amount of biofuel production that it would require 75% of the world's farmland to produce it. The technology is simply not there yet, but these politicians think that they can force things to do what they want, which is scary. It's called megalomania.
I would also like to share this piece of info with you and maybe you will understand why it annoys me to hear someone talk about the family farmer as though he is some rich bugger who is just using the rest of the country for their tax dollars and government subsidies.
"In recent years, 85-95 percent of farm household income has come from off-farm sources
(including employment earnings, other business activities, and unearned income). The relative
importance of off-farm income varies considerably from farm to farm, and declines as farm
commodity sales increase. But even among the largest farming operations (the 8 percent of
farming operations with annual sales exceeding $250,000), off-farm income accounts for 24
percent of farm household income, on average. For the 82 percent of U.S. farming operations
that have annual sales of $100,000 or less, off-farm income typically accounts for all but a
negligible amount of farm household income. As a result, for the majority of U.S. farm
households, the availability of off-farm income is a more significant factor for financial well-
being than are returns on farm production. While off-farm income can include interest, dividend, and
social security payments, in nearly 70 percent of family farm households the operator or the
spouse reported having an off-farm job in 2004. Over 40 percent of farm operators consider
something other than farming to be their primary occupation. The health of the local economy
has a direct impact on the well-being of these households through the availability of off-farm
jobs and the profitability of nonfarm businesses owned by farm operators and their spouses."
"While larger farms comprise a relatively small proportion of farm households, they account for a
large proportion of agricultural production (the 18 percent of farms with sales of $100,000 or
more produce about 88 percent of total farm sales) and rely on farm profits for a higher
percentage of household income than smaller farms. Over 80 percent of farm commodity
program payments go to farming operations with sales of $100,000 or more. Government
payments accounted for 5 to 8 percent of total gross cash farm income over the last several years.
For larger farming operations that received Government payments in 2004, these payments
dropped from roughly 10 percent of gross cash farm income for farming operations with
$100,000 to $250,000 in sales to 5 percent of gross cash farm income for farming operations
with over $500,000 in sales."
And when I tell you about my experience with family farmers it is the people who are eating mac and cheese to make ends meet, and who do not go to movies because it is simply too much money. it is not the large cash operations that the government is subsidizing. They are not the same thing. Not the same thing at all.
"It's scary because Congress supports this and is discussing biofuel bills. All politicians support it right now, it's not something that's just going to go away when Bush is gone. In fact, one of the bills before Congress calls for such a large amount of biofuel production that it would require 75% of the world's farmland to produce it. The technology is simply not there yet, but these politicians think that they can force things to do what they want, which is scary. It's called megalomania."
Then it is scary because of all politicians, not because of george bush.
And arguing with me wont accomplish anything, I'm not in favor of biofuel, its as useless as the paper or plastic debate, if you don't take time away from it to contact your representatives.
There really is no argument here. I think the problem is that you perceive an attack on our country's outdated policy re farm subsidies as an attack on people you know. This is what has been stated:
"Martin Wolf in the Financial Times had a wonderful column just a few days ago in which he described Ethanol as a farm program, basically corporate welfare, FOR A CERTAIN SEGMENT OF FARMERS masquerading as energy policy and climate policy, so that's the problem." - Marlo Lewis in the youtube video
"MARLO LEWIS IS ACTUALLY SPEAKING OF GIANT FARMING CONGLOMERATES SUCH AS ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND. They are a huge receiver of subsidies and a huge producer of Ethanol. The fact is that they ARE getting richer off Ethanol because the government is propping it up right now." - me
This is not really about poor farmers. In fact, I said: "farm subsidies only hurt poorer farmers."
This is what you quoted: "While larger farms comprise a relatively small proportion of farm households, they account for a large proportion of agricultural production (the 18 percent of farms with sales of $100,000 or more produce about 88 percent of total farm sales) and rely on farm profits for a higher percentage of household income than smaller farms. Over 80 percent of farm commodity program payments go to farming operations with sales of $100,000 or more."
This basically is exactly what I'm saying. Farm subsidies are helping the rich get richer and making it harder to compete in the marketplace. In the long run, they're not helping your friends at all, they're helping companies like ADM.
"And when I tell you about my experience with family farmers it is the people who are eating mac and cheese to make ends meet, and who do not go to movies because it is simply too much money."
Again, not to be argumentative; but this describes me and most of my friends as well. I've been to the movies twice in the past four years. Rakel (Rakel is my wife) and I live on $50 a week for food most of the time. On principle, I believe that just because someone is struggling it doesn't justify government handouts and bad policy. America is the Land of Opportunity, after all.
"Then it is scary because of all politicians, not because of george bush."
??? My point really had nothing to do with George Bush. I merely quoted an article in the Financial Times that mentioned him. Also, not to be technical, but if it's scary because of all politicians, it's necessarily scary because of George Bush. He's a politician, after all.
Again, I'm really not arguing or trying to convince you of anything. And I AM trying to support local candidates that support my views (3rd party candidates). It's just slow going. However, I do disagree with your statement that it's useless for me to inform regular people of my views. The average American's views are far more important than some politician. In the long run, the people are the only ones who ever affect lasting changes.
KeyLimeTwist: I don't think fiveminuteplan (my hubby) is trying to say that all farms are affected by subsidies, I know for a fact we have talked about this before. It is my understanding that small farmers are often ignored when the subsidies are handed out -- they go to larger farmers who, inevitably make more and push up the average salary (after all, that's what an average is, mathematically speaking).
Also, I don't think anybody is attacking George Bush right now, but politicians in general... and not so much attacking rather than making conversation. That's not to say he's my favorite President by any stretch of the imagination, but if you want to play the blame game, congress is a good place to start. After all, they are the ones that pass the bills, right? I think that people are too caught up with the President... and I've been saying this since I learned about our government in high school... the congress is just as important if not more. People need to pay more attention to their local government. You are absolutely right on that.
I dislike the over generalization that was used. period. I like most people don't think of "corn farmers" as ADM, I think of corn farmer as the guy whose field is across the road, the guy who does the actual work farming. All of those below average income farmers. (I think of ADM as a corn processor not a farmer.)
I can see that you and I aren't necessarily disagreeing, but I'm simply annoyed with the way he phrased something, I'm not doubting that someone is benefiting from subsidies, and I have know for a long time that farm subsidy plans aren't working the way the general population thinks they are, and are not benefiting the majority of the farming population.
And when I said it was a waste of time to argue it with me, I meant me only, not regular people or anyone else, because you are only arguing with me, and I'm not for subsidies for the "all ready doing well" segment of farm society. And as the daughter of mechanical engineers I already know ethanol isn't good for my car, been there been told that, and so I'm not all for its production, nor it's use.
Lastly, when I said I didn't understand why we could not move, I should have worded that differently. I do understand it takes time to get the word out there and to break through the lies and crap to get to the truth.I am frustrated that we cant just take a good in depth look at the facts make a decision on move along, rather than continue to beat a horse and waste tax dollars as we do it.
And really I don't care if you want to say things about Bush. I'm not defending him, the quote you used targeted him and made it sound like he one handedly was behind the push for Ethanol production. And I guess I agree here with Rakel, we give the presidency too much weight, and it looked like that was the point of that quote,
Like I said, I don't want to argue. I wanted to voice my irritation on the corn farmer comment, and with the lack on moving on, really nothing more. I wasn't trying to open an argument or even a discussion.
I feel like this has gotten out of hand, maybe because I've seen enough net drama to last me a lifetime and I try to avoid it like the plague. This doesn't feel like a simple discussion, and I don't thrive on arguing for entertainment. :)
And I realize neither of you where attacking the small farmer, but thanks for making sure it was cleared up.