|
| i really don`t have a dog in the fight, they can keep subsidies or end them. but if you end the safety nets and say the bottom 1/3 of farmers are purged (bottom 1/3 are probably eventually doomed anyway) it`s going to be a much different landscape in the country. many in the top 1/3 are probably licking their chops for the "opportunity" they believe will present itself. probably the 800 acre family farmer who is a volunteer softball coach will be negatively impacted. probably the gravity defying 30,000 (iowa acres) farmer will be the big winner. the 2,000 acre wanna be might pick up a couple quarters, but it would be massive changes.
as far as being an anti-socialist purist though admirable isn`t practical in the modern world. there`s socialist property taxes that have to be paid regardless if your farm is planted or not or profitable or not. you miss 3,4 "rental payments" (property taxes) and the sheriff is auctioning off your farm on the courthouse steps. don`t get me started on income taxes, try opting out of that socialism and let us know how that works.
as long as we are forced to send our money to washington dc and des moines and the local courthouse. i see nothing wrong with signing up for all monies that the governments say we are eligible for. until this social experiment changes (hopefully improves) it`s the best system out of all the others. | |
|
show me a farmer that doesn`t want addititional farm aid...
