|
NCND | Of all the talk on this the PP rules probably affect guys in Prairie Pothole areas of Nd and Sd more than anywhere else. Far and away I'd venture to guess. The other place those guys have had it stuck to them is in tying conservation(swampbuster) to insurance subsidies. Tack on the WOTUS rules and if anyone wants to say they are getting picked on more than the Dakotas I'd listen to the argument but I'd win it.
I say I think we need to portray ourselves as victims of climate change which has increased flooding;)
(I don't believe that but if I were to play politics with the bit with the intention of winning and gaining free money and more ease of draining stuff that would be the route to go. everyone loves a victim when running for office or trying to maintain office)
Im all for cutting all the stuff to all types of farms but the latest swath of rules have targeted the dakotas much more than anywhere else. Getting attacked from all sides with increased protections of our .1 acre wetlands and the proposed new rules on PP with our short.. check that shortest planting window in the lower 48. Cut them all but overturn WOTUS and don't make wetland mitigation so impossible to the point guys give up! I feel like squawking about a premium increase is missing the whole point of ag right now. We have far bigger issues.
I don't think increasing our share of premiums is a big deal. If you look at your bill and see that 75% is paid for by the government its tough to point a finger at someone else on welfare. Guy has 1000 acres probably gets close to 25000 added to his bottom line if his coverage levels were to stay the same. That is a lot of money to 80% of the population in USA.
Im looking at this not either pro or anti crop insurance just the fact it seems to really have struck a nerve here for increasing premium a couple bucks an acre. SO instead of a 1000 acre farm getting 25000 in subsidy it gets 22500. Now grow that farm to 3,4,5, 6 times that size and the numbers just get bigger. Its welfare no matter how i see it and if the average uneducated Joe ever saw my crop insurance bill and how much subsidy I get he would have me and everyone like me hanging from a rope the way they did with the bourgeoisie. You could argue with them until your blue in the face but in the end they will see the final dollar value.
If you think young guys wouldn't have a chance with less crop insurance I'd take the opposite stance to that and say there would be far greater opportunity for all as only the biggest brass balled would go after land the way all can essentially now with limited risk due to crop insurance.
You want more family farms and all the other talking points? Introduce more risk to ag. You will see all those things IMHO. Afterall we hear about it everyday here how there is no money in AG ect. Why would someone want to have huge risk for minimal returns? Not the kind who think like APPLE who now has 206 billion in cash made off selling us gadgets we supposedly cant go without for a 33% net margin.
I don't disagree with WHite shadows point but in the end we are the wealthy class on a national average just not wealthy enough to get the big mega pull banks and tech firms do. Sort of like being members at a country club versus being members at Augusta National. Big but not big enough.
The day will come when the government and THE PEOPLE come for the ag sector. The less involvement and the fewer government programs we have the further into the future that day will be pushed.
Ag needs to fly under the radar more. THose EWG posts of subsidies received is an impossible mountain to overcome as people see the total dollars and in the end we would have that much less total worth if we hadn't received that money. By reading on here last couple days some pretty big bucks will be collected on ARC. Cant hide that from people forever. When they find out they will be mad and they will rally against us further and thereby increasing the size of our opposition.
I don't have an answer other than take our lumps and fight the good fight for land rights and fewer restrictions. Squabbling over welfare payments is a rookie mistake in the grand scheme of land rights ect. If we take nothing from them they cant ask for some stupid "public private partnership" or "moral contract" in return for the sins we commit getting anything from uncle sam.
Give back the welfare. Take back the liberty!!!!!!
Shadow makes great points but in the end its the people versus the landowners. As the country crawls further left its the land and control they want. Its easy to make farmers out to be bad when they receive a lot of money. Look at all the revolutions in history. The people came for the landowners, the bourgeoisie, the wealthy. Ag on a national level meets all those things to the average joe and jane working or not working 9-5. It will always be us against them. We need to quit growing the opposition by flying under the radar and having fewer forms of welfare come our way.
At least thats how I see it.
sorry shadow and others if I skewed off topic or at least off post:(
edit to add:
Shadow we lost our influence because we became too good at our jobs and policies in place(crop insurance) led to greater risks which led to greater rewards(more crop). It use to be all about sodbusters and making a living as we were the big exporter in the world. The need for adequate food has been met by us and a growing global agriculture scene. Thereby we are more expendable than we were in the past. We will remain that way until food becomes scarce. Then we will have influence or will be literally defending our lands from the hungry masses after us.
Edited by vailcat 10/28/2015 20:01
| |
|
what the crop insurance vote really tells agriculture.....
