Total USDA Subsidies in Elk County, Kansas, 1995-2009
Recipients of Total USDA Subsidies from farms in Elk County, Kansas totaled $16,157,000 in from 1995-2009.
Very educational. For full names & details: http://farm.ewg.org/top_recips.php?fips=20049&progcode=total®ionname=ElkCounty,Kansas (http://farm.ewg.org/top_recips.php?fips=20049&progcode=total®ionname=ElkCounty,Kansas)
Sarcastic mode on:
Damn how can i get some of this......10 -20k would go a long way in building my bees up!
Sarcastic mode off:
At least I will have the knowledge and the ability to say i took nothing from anyone in building my apiary. That it is done by my own sacrifice and my own blood sweat and tears. IF i fail i fail honestly, if i succeed i owe no man anything!
Quote from: srkruzich on March 10, 2011, 11:27:13 AM
At least I will have the knowledge and the ability to say i took nothing from anyone in building my apiary. That it is done by my own sacrifice and my own blood sweat and tears. IF i fail i fail honestly, if i succeed i owe no man anything!
AMEN!
Ever notice whose picture is on the wall at the local FSA office?
Kinda fits the whole scenario.......
Quote from: redcliffsw on March 10, 2011, 12:00:17 PM
Ever notice whose picture is on the wall at the local FSA office?
Kinda fits the whole scenario.......
Do tell. Haven't been there.
Good post, very interesting and important information. The only problem is this is just another example of people paying taxes and then legally getting them back in some form. Kansas gets more money from the Feds than they pay in income tax, yet they are among the biggest voices in smaller government. Elk County was overwhelhmingly against the stimulus and their Congressmen voted against it as they should. Elk County then recieved stimulus funds that they should have sent back. My point is that no one is willing to give up the money they get from the government. Some of the people that get their income from the government in the form of social security; even argue against farm subsidies. Not much difference in my book.
Sounds like sour grapes to me....More power to the family farmers!
If they can figure how to get some money back from the government MORE POWER TO EM. Farmers are the backbone and always HAVE been.
Thats all I got to say bout that.
Let's all help them some more by doing it the right way - abolish the Federal income tax.
That would help a lot of folks plus we'd be more in line with the Constitution and the founding fathers.
Or do we can continue on the socilaistic path?
Quote from: thatsMRSc2u on March 12, 2011, 11:38:33 AM
Sounds like sour grapes to me....More power to the family farmers!
If they can figure how to get some money back from the government MORE POWER TO EM. Farmers are the backbone and always HAVE been.
Thats all I got to say bout that.
I think your name is Pam? I believe you have a "famous" poem written for you " Called "She Wolf". Sorry if I have the wrong person, but your posts sound familiar. I am going to take the chance that you are who I think you are.
If "family farmers" are the backbone of the US we have a serious case of osteoporosis. I urge everyone to buy as buy of your food from local family farms. I do, here in California and it doesn't cost me much more than the big Supermarket, and it is well worth it.
Just add this to the harm done to the US by the fact that we depend on too much food from outside sources, add foriegn oil dependence, and then when we are done with that we can add water to the mix. Remember to support your local businesses.
David
Quote from: sodbuster on March 14, 2011, 05:12:16 PM
I think your name is Pam? I believe you have a "famous" poem written for you " Called "She Wolf". Sorry if I have the wrong person, but your posts sound familiar. I am going to take the chance that you are who I think you are.
If "family farmers" are the backbone of the US we have a serious case of osteoporosis. I urge everyone to buy as buy of your food from local family farms. I do, here in California and it doesn't cost me much more than the big Supermarket, and it is well worth it.
Just add this to the harm done to the US by the fact that we depend on too much food from outside sources, add foriegn oil dependence, and then when we are done with that we can add water to the mix. Remember to support your local businesses.
David
I don't think thats Pam. I have 12 relatives on that list, pretty interesting. I think that if the government properly put tariffs on goods imported from other countries, we wouldn't have to give subsidies to the farmers just so they can keep their heads above water.
I agree Anmar, thanks for posting! And yes, it's our Pam (I think)!
O well, if it is Pam, HELLO PAM!!!!!
Check out the postings from "That's MrsC To You". This is the latest reincarnation. As far as this thread is concerned, I know/knew many, many people on this list of subsidized business people from around here. They are doing what is legal and is okay with me as long as it is legal. This isn't welfare and neither is Social Security, It is a way to keep foreign producers from toppling our farmers. I too would like to see a stop put to all the garbage that is entering this country under the name of product. Tariffs? I'm for 'em except for energy; until we can produce what we need, no tariffs.
Free trade is really part of the big underlying problem plaguing our economy. Its not a republican or democrat problem. Both parties have contributed to the free trade debacle. Obama, when he was running, said he would pull the US out of NAFTA. It would be a start, but he hasn't really tackled that problem yet. Frankly I think if he tried, the tea party types would fight him on it just for the sake of fighting.
On the other hand, and I'm really just thinking aloud (is that possible when i'm typing?), pulling out of NAFTA would lead to certain death for a re-election campaign. The big corporations would pour money into tea party and republican movements (like they aren't doing that enough already) just to defeat Obama. Maybe he's waiting for his second term, when he's got nothing to lose.
Either way, it seems the best hope of getting out of the free trade movement appears to be the dems. If the republicans ever gave up their corporate financial base and really started to stand up for working people, there would be no stopping 'em.
Yep this is me Pam Cheever hence the MrsC. :) and David its good to see you back on and you too Anmar....I DO support my local farmers AND businesses as much as humanly possible :) although down in this neck of the woods most of the local farmers work for Tyson or Georges LOL. If family farms and small producers disappear that will be the true death knell for this country, they are where things truly start for all the small businesses up the line......if only huge corporations control the farmland they control the food supply.....think about THAT one when you are hollerin about a few thousand worth of subsidies..............
"The United States currently pays around $20 billion per year to farmers in direct subsidies as "farm income stabilization"[9][10][11] via U.S. farm bills. These bills date back to the economic turmoil of the Great Depression with 1922 Grain Futures Act, the 1929 Agricultural Marketing Act and the 1933 Agricultural Adjustment Act creating a tradition of government support. A Canadian report claimed that for every dollar U.S. farmers earn, 62 cents comes from some form of government, with total aid in 2009 from all levels of government adding up to $180.8 billion.[12]"
I would venture that the bulk of this is not going to the family farm, but instead to large corporate farms.
In many cases this subsidy is paying the landowners not to raise crops and/or pasture the land. In a time of rising prices for food this seems to cause even more inflation.
thats probably true Frank....Corporations DO get a big share.....but to help the ones who need it sometimes you have to help the ones who dont.
I know part of it goes to pay for NOT growing on certain # of acres to bring the price up......it's that capitalism yall like so much at work. Why SHOULDNT they? Everybody else operates on supply and demand instead of need. If it's ok for oil companies to charge whatever they can get it oughta be ok for farmers too.
You cant have it both ways.....you cant have it for whatever industry pays YOUR( as in any persons) bills and NOT have it for whatever you ( as in any person) have to PAY for.
and thats all I got to say about THAT.....
Quote from: Anmar on March 14, 2011, 09:02:57 PMI think that if the government properly put tariffs on goods imported from other countries, we wouldn't have to give subsidies to the farmers just so they can keep their heads above water.
Actually, if government would get out of farming completely and get rid of the horrible regulations tariffs wouldn't be necessary.
I just recently overheard the lady that does the beef jerky locally saying they are unable to make it themselves due to horrible regulation so therefore it must be sent to (if i remember right) el dorado and great bend for processing and packaging which raises the costs up tremendously.
The only reason for U.S. farmers to be having issues is either due to natural disaster/issues or more commonly our own government. You know something is wrong when stuff coming from OVER SEAS (i.e. growing, processing, packaging, storing, shipping them in a boat over the water, storing, shipping them in a truck across the country, storing, them delivering them to some local grocer) is cheaper than local and even national. Yeah, they may have cheaper labor but our own costs should not be exceeding all of the costs associated with getting that stuff over here. Its absolutely ridiculous and you know something MUST be wrong locally for that to occur... and that is government.
I'm glad someone moved this out of the Coffee Shop and into Politics - it keeps me from having to jump in and refute several statements made here that are fictions perpertrated by various politically motivated organizations.
Quote from: thatsMRSc2u on March 15, 2011, 08:52:54 AM
Yep this is me Pam Cheever hence the MrsC. :) and David its good to see you back on and you too Anmar....I DO support my local farmers AND businesses as much as humanly possible :) although down in this neck of the woods most of the local farmers work for Tyson or Georges LOL. If family farms and small producers disappear that will be the true death knell for this country, they are where things truly start for all the small businesses up the line......if only huge corporations control the farmland they control the food supply.....think about THAT one when you are hollerin about a few thousand worth of subsidies..............
Pam I knew it was you, your voice is unique. I too am glad to see Anmar back and I hope we can get Warph in better shape where he wants to start posting more. (Hint, Hint, Warph) I miss all of our debates even the times we did not agree with each other. I come here to the forum when I am looking for folks that are participating in our government. Thank you all.
David
Quote from: thatsMRSc2u on March 15, 2011, 10:23:55 AM
thats probably true Frank....Corporations DO get a big share.....but to help the ones who need it sometimes you have to help the ones who dont.
I know part of it goes to pay for NOT growing on certain # of acres to bring the price up......it's that capitalism yall like so much at work. Why SHOULDNT they? Everybody else operates on supply and demand instead of need. If it's ok for oil companies to charge whatever they can get it oughta be ok for farmers too.
You cant have it both ways.....you cant have it for whatever industry pays YOUR( as in any persons) bills and NOT have it for whatever you ( as in any person) have to PAY for.
and thats all I got to say about THAT.....
You obviously are misinformed or don't know what capitalism is if you think it is the payment of government subsidies to the people.
The definition of capitalism is "Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit. Income in a Capitalist system is split between the business owners and the workers, with profit sent to the owners, in other words the Capitalists, who have invested money in businesses, and wages are paid to workers. If you have ever had a job that was not a government provided job, you have had the benefit of capitalism. Every private sector job is a result of someone investing their money and hiring people to work.
My remark about capitalism was the fact that farmers DONT grow to make the price higher. ELK@KC.
Somewhere along the line stock holders were missed as part "owners." I have investments in many companies and expect to share in the profit as a dividend or a value increase when I sell my shares. Right now with our economic woes, healthy companies that pay good dividends are quite valuable. Most companies that start small but intend to grow do not do it just from their own piggy bank.They borrow from a bank or from family and friends to get started. I'm a great believer in venture capital. It takes research and good judgement but sometimes it's a good way to go for all involved.
Quote from: thatsMRSc2u on March 16, 2011, 06:52:57 AM
My remark about capitalism was the fact that farmers DONT grow to make the price higher. ELK@KC.
What? I fully intend on producing what i produce to maximize what profit the market will bear. Why wouldn't i? SHoot if everyone could produce honey then the market wouldn't bear $5.00 -$9.00 a pound for honey.
I'm not in this for my health or good looks thats for sure!
for Christs sake does ANYbody read a whole post?
I hope this makes it crystal clear.....heres what I said....
QuoteI know part of it goes to pay for NOT growing on certain # of acres to bring the price up......it's that capitalism yall like so much at work.
"IT" being farm subsidies.......CAPITOLISM as in keepin DOWN supply in relation to DEMAND to BRING THE PRICE UP.
I DO have a pretty good grasp on the concept........give me a break.
Knock yourself out there Steve I wish you nothin but the greatest success with your endeavors!
Would somebody just come down here and slap the shit out of me for even STARTIN to talk in here again? SERIOUSLY take me out back and just kick the crap out of me :P
Nope, sorry, I would miss you too much.
Wouldn't do it if I could. You make a lot of sense.
Quote from: thatsMRSc2u on March 16, 2011, 08:33:36 AM
for Christs sake does ANYbody read a whole post?
I hope this makes it crystal clear.....heres what I said....
"IT" being farm subsidies.......CAPITOLISM as in keepin DOWN supply in relation to DEMAND to BRING THE PRICE UP.
I DO have a pretty good grasp on the concept........give me a break.
Knock yourself out there Steve I wish you nothin but the greatest success with your endeavors!
Would somebody just come down here and slap the shit out of me for even STARTIN to talk in here again? SERIOUSLY take me out back and just kick the crap out of me :P
But being paid to not farm x number of acres is not capitalism. There is no investment on the part of the owner to recieve the money. They do not risk anything to not grow something on that land.
Quote from: srkruzich on March 16, 2011, 09:37:23 AM
But being paid to not farm x number of acres is not capitalism. There is no investment on the part of the owner to recieve the money. They do not risk anything to not grow something on that land.
Not to mention that the money paid was confiscated by the government under penalty of law from investors (read taxpayers) who did not make the 'investment' decision voluntarily with the expectation of a return on their money. When someone receives something for nothing, an entitlement mentality may soon follow. Even momma birds kick the kids out sooner or later.
QuoteThere is no investment on the part of the owner to recieve the money. They do not risk anything to not grow something on that land.
Actually yes they do.....they risk the fact that what they get from the subsidy will be more than what they would've gotten from planting those acres. If other factors come into play they MAY end up LOSING money. I realize I'm pissin in the wind even havin this conversation tho....just my cussedness comin into play I guess, so I'm out.
Quote from: thatsMRSc2u on March 16, 2011, 10:55:38 AM
Actually yes they do.....they risk the fact that what they get from the subsidy will be more than what they would've gotten from planting those acres. If other factors come into play they MAY end up LOSING money. I realize I'm pissin in the wind even havin this conversation tho....just my cussedness comin into play I guess, so I'm out.
Wheres the risk. They invest NOTHING, and produce nothing. In order for it to be capitalist it must risk an investment and produce something.
Again unless they invest in seed, or something to produce something, there is no risk.
Quote from: thatsMRSc2u on March 16, 2011, 10:55:38 AM
If other factors come into play they MAY end up LOSING money.
I MAY get in a wreck in a car that I don't own this year. Should I get a just in case subsidy to cover my potential losses taken by government from your earnings? I think not.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v513/staceysmith27/Animated%20gifs/mooley%20smilies/chatbox.gif)(http://i554.photobucket.com/albums/jj417/Shar_dreamer/Wild%20Smilies/pepe.gif)(http://i798.photobucket.com/albums/yy263/bowlofpetunias/smilies/Animated_ButterflySmiley.gif)
I couldn't decide if I should say anything, but I looked at that chart and some of the money is for when the area is claimed a disaster isn't it? If so, have any of you never ever went to FEMA when the area was claimed disaster? I am not going to lie, we did. When in like 04-05 there was that bad ice storm and we had no power for almost 2 weeks. I went and stayed a few days with my sister, cause we didn't even had water when there is no electricity. We went and got a generator and FEMA cut us a check for most of it. It was nice being able to take a shower after going without for so long. I am just wondering if that is totally wrong, too. I see what your saying about the large amounts of money some of those people got, but do you know how many dollars worth of land, hogs, crops those people have? And they work just as hard as you and me. I know that we don't have any crops, but if the area is claimed disaster because of rain or something and our hay fields get ruined you bet I am going to push the hubby to go in and try to get some money. I mean we are going to have to turn around and spend it for hay that we lost to feed the cows in the winter.
I guess, I just don't get it. You get no help at all from the government, that is the way that I take it from all of your post. That's great so happy for you. I get the food program for the daycare, this is so much per meal per child per day. It is to help cover the cost of food. I don't see anything wrong with this at all. It doesn't cover the whole cost, but it sure does help. All I am required to do is feed the children certain things for each meal, which I do. Please explain to me, with out making me out to be the bad person here. Seems like every time someone has an opinion on some of these post someone else jumps up and calls them dumb and that they don't know what they are talking about. Watch after I post this no one with post anything. They never do, I think they don't like me, but who cares such is life!!!
MRSc2u, love it!!
Quote from: Lookatmeknow!! on March 16, 2011, 12:06:00 PM
I couldn't decide if I should say anything, but I looked at that chart and some of the money is for when the area is claimed a disaster isn't it? If so, have any of you never ever went to FEMA when the area was claimed disaster? I am not going to lie, we did. When in like 04-05 there was that bad ice storm and we had no power for almost 2 weeks. I went and stayed a few days with my sister, cause we didn't even had water when there is no electricity. We went and got a generator and FEMA cut us a check for most of it. It was nice being able to take a shower after going without for so long. I am just wondering if that is totally wrong, too. I see what your saying about the large amounts of money some of those people got, but do you know how many dollars worth of land, hogs, crops those people have? And they work just as hard as you and me. I know that we don't have any crops, but if the area is claimed disaster because of rain or something and our hay fields get ruined you bet I am going to push the hubby to go in and try to get some money. I mean we are going to have to turn around and spend it for hay that we lost to feed the cows in the winter.
I guess, I just don't get it. You get no help at all from the government, that is the way that I take it from all of your post. That's great so happy for you. I get the food program for the daycare, this is so much per meal per child per day. It is to help cover the cost of food. I don't see anything wrong with this at all. It doesn't cover the whole cost, but it sure does help. All I am required to do is feed the children certain things for each meal, which I do. Please explain to me, with out making me out to be the bad person here. Seems like every time someone has an opinion on some of these post someone else jumps up and calls them dumb and that they don't know what they are talking about. Watch after I post this no one with post anything. They never do, I think they don't like me, but who cares such is life!!!
MRSc2u, love it!!
The first thing I thought of: http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/culture/family/5266-president-clevelands-words-ring-true-in-texas
Things to note: The government doesn't have the constitutional power to even do that and, as Cleveland thought would happen, public charity helped them out... providing 10 times more than what they were even asking for from the government.
Quote from: Lookatmeknow!! on March 16, 2011, 12:06:00 PM
We went and got a generator and FEMA cut us a check for most of it. It was nice being able to take a shower after going without for so long. I am just wondering if that is totally wrong, too. I see what your saying about the large amounts of money some of those people got, but do you know how many dollars worth of land, hogs, crops those people have? And they work just as hard as you and me. I know that we don't have any crops, but if the area is claimed disaster because of rain or something and our hay fields get ruined you bet I am going to push the hubby to go in and try to get some money. I mean we are going to have to turn around and spend it for hay that we lost to feed the cows in the winter.
In 2000 i think it was, a big ice storm came and took out trees, lots of them where i lived, power was cut to the entire area for over 2 weeks at my house. Temps ranged from 10 -15 deg. No generator. Just moved everyone into one room and used a can of propane and a heater head on it.
went to town when we could cut our way out, 3 or 4 days later, took showers up at the church. Never expected anyone to provide generators. No i wouldn't have taken the money either if it were offered. In fact, we had a tornado set down in town one year. tore it up pretty bad. Fema, Red cross, and a host of others showed up, and folks there told them to go away that we didn't need their help. That we took care of our own, and we did. Folks in town spent the days helping to clean up and in a months time we had everything cleaned up, and new houses started for those who lost their homes.
That is the RIGHT way of doing it, not just taking a check from the government. Generally the wise man will have 6 month survival supply stockpiled somewhere in containers that can be easily transported. A foolish man waits on someone to rescue them. We saw how foolish people were in New Orleans during Katrina, but there were a few that were wise people and they survived without help.
As far as taking money for pastures, thats just wrong in so many ways. IF you do not put up enough money out of profits to cover you in bad times, then your not planning ahead properly. I've seen many businesses operate that way and they are the ones that go under. Your supposed to have enough in operation savings to cover your operational costs for at least a year, two is better. And that IS realistic if your running a business right.
Thats why most business owners don't get a check. Their money goes back into the operation until they get to a point to where they can operate for 2years on its own.
What did I tell you, it's my opinion. What goes to say we don't have the money?? What part of I see what your getting at, to a point don't you get??? Your opinion isn't the only one out there, and mine is not either. I respect your opinion and everyone elses. I just don't actually get that it is so wrong if it is needed. Do you have enough money to back up your business for 2 years?? In this economy, not many people do. So your lucky if you do and I am glad if you do.
We don't run a big farm, I don't run a big daycare. So, it's my right if its offered to take any government money. By taking it, I understand that they can nose in my business to an extent. But if the government is handing it out, that doesn't mean that if you take it you are breaking any laws either, or a bad person for doing so. I am wondering if I look at that subsidies list far enough if you might see my name their??????? I wonder?????
Quote from: Lookatmeknow!! on March 16, 2011, 12:59:05 PM
We don't run a big farm, I don't run a big daycare. So, it's my right if its offered to take any government money. By taking it, I understand that they can nose in my business to an extent. But if the government is handing it out, that doesn't mean that if you take it you are breaking any laws either, or a bad person for doing so. I am wondering if I look at that subsidies list far enough if you might see my name their??????? I wonder?????
Just remember to give to you the government took from someone else by force.
QuoteJust remember to give to you the government took from someone else by force.
Yeah Steve.....INCLUDING Angie and her family who I'm pretty sure pay their share of taxes just like everybody else. Must be hard for you to live in such an imperfect world when you got things SO under control and perfect. How DO you cope?
ice storm 2004 or 5...down here....no power for two weeks......heated the house just like always....with our woodstove.....cooked on same stove and the smoker....heated WATER for bucket baths on SAME woodstove......set the freezer out on the porch along with the milk etc...... used oil lamps........national guard showed up to "rescue" us......we were settin, drinkin coffee made on same woodstove and visitin with the neighbors......imagine that.
Quote from: Lookatmeknow!! on March 16, 2011, 12:59:05 PM
What did I tell you, it's my opinion. What goes to say we don't have the money?? What part of I see what your getting at, to a point don't you get??? Your opinion isn't the only one out there, and mine is not either. I respect your opinion and everyone elses. I just don't actually get that it is so wrong if it is needed. Do you have enough money to back up your business for 2 years?? In this economy, not many people do. So your lucky if you do and I am glad if you do.
We don't run a big farm, I don't run a big daycare. So, it's my right if its offered to take any government money. By taking it, I understand that they can nose in my business to an extent. But if the government is handing it out, that doesn't mean that if you take it you are breaking any laws either, or a bad person for doing so. I am wondering if I look at that subsidies list far enough if you might see my name their??????? I wonder?????
If a thief came to you to give you money that they took from someone else, and you know they stole it, would you still take it?
The government can not constitutionally do what they are doing, it is not in their enumerated power to do so. They are taking money and giving it away, just like Steve said.
What is so bad about that, you may ask. The government will never be able to do anything as well as the public can. There are some things the government is constitutionally allowed and supposed to do, which is fine, but for most everything else the government will make it expensive, inefficient, and in the long run will do more harm than good. Why do you think the economy is so bad and people are struggling? The government has been growing for far too long doing exactly what the constitution says it can not do.
I yes, I'm sooooo perfect!! No, I do see what your saying. Do you happen to see now what I'm taking about. Just cause I said something, you are now bashing me. Telling me that basically, what is it that you said live in an imperfect world and how do I cope??? I am so far from perfect, but talking to you two is like barking up a tree, you don't like it if people don't totally agree with you on all the things that you say. Just cause I stated my opinion, you are now basically name calling again. Why is it that people can't debate things without using name calling or trying to make the other person look like a pile of crap if they don't agree with you.
Oh, Have a wonderful day!! And yes, I happen to pay a big amount of taxes!!!! And I vote, too. Is that alright with you????
I honestly haven't seen any name calling or any attempt to make anyone look like a pile of crap. If so please let me know as I had no intention of doing so, if you're talking about me.
I've personally just been stating my opinions and facts about the subject without trying to call anyone stupid, degrade them, or anything. If you felt that way about any of my replies then I'm very sorry, that wasn't my intention.
Uh......my post was aimed at Steve? Not you Angie! I was stickin up for you for cripes sake!
I promised myself to stay out of this, but I just can't. If organizations as far apart ideologically as the Environmental Working Group and the Heritage Foundation can both find ways to bash farm subsidies . . . well then I guess they must be bad!
But let me lay something out here that very few people think about and even fewer grasp.
How many businesses sell a product that they actually "grow"? Most businesses sell a product that someone else made, or that they extracted directly from the Earth.
Farmers "extract" plants from the Earth. Now, most of the time they could probably grow enough to keep their family fed without any inputs other than what Mother Nature provides.
But what about the other 200+ people that rely on that one American Farmer for their food!
To produce enough food to feed the nation, a farmer needs inputs that are not provided by Mother Nature: fertilizer, hybrid seed, pesticides, mechanized labor. And to get the crop to the consumer there is needed transportation and processing requiring more energy and labor inputs.
It has often been said that farmers are the only business that buys retail and sells wholesale. For the most part that is true. Farmers pay retail for fuel, fertilizer, equipment, seed, chemicals, etc. And by and large they receive first level wholesale prices for their "commodity" output.
And to do all this, the farmer is 100% at the mercy of the weather and a myriad of factors beyond their control that affect both the price they pay for their inputs, and the price they receive for their outputs.
How many of you would like to commit all of you and your family's personal assets to start, or stay in a business as risky as farming? How many would if the government gave you a small safety-net to help even out the highs and lows in profitability, knowing that even with the government payments in 2-3 years out of every decade you will not have enough to cover all of your costs?
Many studies were done in the late 90's-early 00's showing that without governmental assistance, farming would have only been profitable 2 out of 7 years during the mid 90's. If you care to dig into the numbers the Environmental Working Group so conveniently agglomerated for you (so they seem to be bigger than they actually are) you'll see that the payouts in direct payments vary from year to year, matching the ups and downs in profitability.
I could go on, but I know that for most of you this will just go in one ear and out the other. For those I have a final thought from a bumper sticker that was on many grain trucks and pickups in Elk County twenty years ago –
"If You Complain About Farmers, Don't Do It With Your Mouth Full"
(http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii269/theogrit/sign%20or%20English%20smilies/2sgn082goodpost.gif)
thatsMRSc, I know you were. I wasn't talking about you!! I agree with what you posted.
mtcookson, I guess it is more the way that things are put. So, I might or might not get a subsidy. So, I did get a generator and FEMA helped pay for it. It's not like I don't work and pay taxes, so who am I taking the money from???? Myself, is the way that I see it. If I was a single mother working to just put food on the table and got food stamps and medical cards for my children, why is that bad??? Many people don't have the luxury that others do. I am saying its their right if they want to get help from the government. If I have a farm and my crops are distroyed, what if I don't have insurance on them??? (Which I would if we did), but some small farmers can't afford it. So, they risk it. And then the government offers a subsidy to farmers that had crops distroyed and I get some. What's wrong with that??? The last really big flood we had, washed out miles and miles of fence on us. Do you know what it cost to replace that fence?? Thousands of dollars, and thousands of hours. Why if the government is offering it shouldn't I get to take it? Please answer me this!! So, it's not in the constitution, there are alot of things that are not in the constitution, but some of the things have been amended and added. The constitution was writting so that it could progress with times. I have just got done studying this in my class. That's why there is a way spelled out in it to amend the different things.
Just as an aside; there is a difference between susidies and disaster relief.
Quote from: Lookatmeknow!! on March 16, 2011, 01:45:15 PM
I yes, I'm sooooo perfect!! No, I do see what your saying. Do you happen to see now what I'm taking about. Just cause I said something, you are now bashing me. Telling me that basically, what is it that you said live in an imperfect world and how do I cope??? I am so far from perfect, but talking to you two is like barking up a tree, you don't like it if people don't totally agree with you on all the things that you say. Just cause I stated my opinion, you are now basically name calling again. Why is it that people can't debate things without using name calling or trying to make the other person look like a pile of crap if they don't agree with you.
Oh, Have a wonderful day!! And yes, I happen to pay a big amount of taxes!!!! And I vote, too. Is that alright with you????
Name calling? I never called anyone any names. I just spoke the truth. The Government only takes by Force to give to others. Thats absolute truth!
Quote from: Lookatmeknow!! on March 16, 2011, 03:13:43 PMSo, I might or might not get a subsidy. So, I did get a generator and FEMA helped pay for it. It's not like I don't work and pay taxes, so who am I taking the money from???? Myself, is the way that I see it.
Everyone else who also pay taxes.
QuoteIf I was a single mother working to just put food on the table and got food stamps and medical cards for my children, why is that bad???
Government assistance is neither constitutional nor very efficient. Public charities would be able to help you much better than the government if the government would just get out of the way.
QuoteI am saying its their right if they want to get help from the government.
Last I checked, getting money from the government is not a right. It is an abuse by the government to redistribute other peoples' money. Completely unconstitutional.
QuoteIf I have a farm and my crops are distroyed, what if I don't have insurance on them??? (Which I would if we did), but some small farmers can't afford it. So, they risk it. And then the government offers a subsidy to farmers that had crops distroyed and I get some. What's wrong with that???
If they want to risk it that is their choice and they need to suffer the consequences. There are multiple options though to avoid such an issue. Some of which include being prepared by simply saving money for just such instances or you could ask for public charity, not unconstitutional government assistance. Like in that link I posted above, public charity will most likely end up helping you more than the government can and will be better in the long run.
QuoteThe last really big flood we had, washed out miles and miles of fence on us. Do you know what it cost to replace that fence?? Thousands of dollars, and thousands of hours. Why if the government is offering it shouldn't I get to take it? Please answer me this!! So, it's not in the constitution, there are alot of things that are not in the constitution, but some of the things have been amended and added. The constitution was writting so that it could progress with times. I have just got done studying this in my class. That's why there is a way spelled out in it to amend the different things.
Heck, just fencing my yard is going to cost more than I'd like to spend so I can definitely imagine how much that could be.
The simple fact is, the government should not be nor is allowed to be offering it. We should be more honest and just no, we'll deal with ourselves or look for charity from the people, not the government.
The Constitution is NOT a living document. What is written is how it is meant to work. Yes you can amend it but you can also heavily abuse it, which has already been done. Some of the amendments have slowly put our country into jeopardy. Some of the amendments were good and needed but others have only done harm, which just goes to show how right they had it in the first place.
If a lot of the leaders today were able to amend it the way they wanted to, the U.S. would turn into an absolute nightmare. If we would get back to a constitutional government we would not be having near the problems we are having today. The more power the politicians were given, the worse the country got and still continues. Just look through our history and its easy to see. More government was not, is not, and will never be the answer... LESS government will always work better as proven by history. (just to clarify, less government does not include no government ;) )
Quote from: Lookatmeknow!! on March 16, 2011, 03:13:43 PM
So, I did get a generator and FEMA helped pay for it. It's not like I don't work and pay taxes, so who am I taking the money from???? Myself, is the way that I see it. If I was a single mother working to just put food on the table and got food stamps and medical cards for my children, why is that bad??? Many people don't have the luxury that others do. I am saying its their right if they want to get help from the government.
Uhm it cannot be a right as it only serves a certain segment of the population. A Right cannot be taken away but foodstamps can be taken away so can everything else you mentioned. First amendment is a right, Foodstamps are entitlements. There is a vast difference. The constitution did not recognize life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and foodstamps.
QuoteIf I have a farm and my crops are distroyed, what if I don't have insurance on them???
Shame on you if you didn't. better luck next year!
Quotebut some small farmers can't afford it. So, they risk it.
Ok, so they can't afford it and they risk it. WHY IS THAT our problem? If i invest in xyz stock and it tanks no one is going to rescue me.
QuoteAnd then the government offers a subsidy to farmers that had crops distroyed and I get some. What's wrong with that???
Because its money that was taken by Government. Just because they offer it to ya doesn't make it right for your lack of preparation.
QuoteThe last really big flood we had, washed out miles and miles of fence on us. Do you know what it cost to replace that fence?? Thousands of dollars, and thousands of hours.
One word.....Insurance.
QuoteSo, it's not in the constitution, there are alot of things that are not in the constitution, but some of the things have been amended and added. The constitution was writting so that it could progress with times. I have just got done studying this in my class. That's why there is a way spelled out in it to amend the different things.
Your getting the liberal version of constitutional classes. IT IS NOT A LIVING DOCUMENT! IT is written in stone! THE ONLY THING in the constitution that can be Amended is the bill of rights and the first 10 things in the bill of rights, along with everything before the bill of rights cannot be amended ever. The ONLY WAY you can amend that is to dissolve this nation through a constitutional convention and that won't happen.
Next thing is to amend the constitution takes 3/4 of the country to amend it. Its very difficult to do.
Last thing is why would anyone amend it to add a right to get subsidies? Its not even a function of the government.
Quote from: sixdogsmom on March 16, 2011, 03:42:55 PM
Just as an aside; there is a difference between susidies and disaster relief.
You are right, and i would go as far to say ok to relief, just wish it was done more efficiently. I think we have shot ourselves in the foot by allowing government to administer disaster relief.
Um, constitutional amendments are amendments to the constitution, not just the bill of rights. Check out the history behind the 3/5ths clause.
Disaster relief is like any other Federal gov't program. It's not the purpose of gov't. It won't be done efficiently.
Look into the Greesnburg fiasco.
The 3/5th clause was a yankee scheme.
It's refreshing to see the post by mtcookson about Grover Cleveland.
Cleveland was the last real Democrat we had a President. Modern day
Democrats are very much a Republican mix with a lot of Lincoln worship
too. It's no wonder that the two parties are so much alike even though
they like to debate quite often.
Quote from: Anmar on March 16, 2011, 11:57:42 PM
Um, constitutional amendments are amendments to the constitution, not just the bill of rights. Check out the history behind the 3/5ths clause.
Article V reads, "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
Quote from: Anmar on March 16, 2011, 11:57:42 PMCheck out the history behind the 3/5ths clause.
What do you think the history of it is? Do you think its bad?
It was actually a good thing. It was a compromise between the pro and anti slavery people. The anti-slavery people wanted to only count free people while the pro slavery group wanted all of them counted. Why is this? Because if they were all counted the pro slavery states would have had a larger representation than if the slaves were not counted giving them more power to potentially make slavery legal.
Again, the 3/5 clause was simply a compromise to count only 3 out of 5 slaves (technically "all other persons" for representation purposes. This was NOT, again I say it was NOT to consider a slave only 3/5 of a human. Here is the exact clause: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed,
three fifths of all other Persons."
It does not, anywhere, anyhow, possibly come close to saying a slave was only 3/5 a human. It DOES say that it will only count 3 out of 5 of all other persons. So... if you owned 5 slaves only 3 of them would be counted for representation. This was a GOOD thing as it reduced the potential representative power of the pro-slavery states (i.e. having a greater majority).
Now that you know the truth of the 3/5 clause, what say you?
Ok, I did do research and the stuff I came up with about the Constitution was that it was a Living Document. The framers wanted to make it so that it would progress with time. I do see your points! I guess where I am coming from is that do you know what it takes to run a farm? The amount of money and not to mention TIME!! You will never get ahead farming, there is always something that comes up, breaks down, cattle die, and so on. We lost a few calves with that below zero weather, cause our older cows seemed to calve during it. My husband worked from sun up to sun down going around to pastures checking every thing out. He also brought a calf in that was freezing and saved it.
Not that I don't see your point mt, and szur, just feel different about it and will leave it at that!!!
Quote from: Lookatmeknow!! on March 17, 2011, 12:15:18 PM
Ok, I did do research and the stuff I came up with about the Constitution was that it was a Living Document. The framers wanted to make it so that it would progress with time. I do see your points! I guess where I am coming from is that do you know what it takes to run a farm? The amount of money and not to mention TIME!! You will never get ahead farming, there is always something that comes up, breaks down, cattle die, and so on. We lost a few calves with that below zero weather, cause our older cows seemed to calve during it. My husband worked from sun up to sun down going around to pastures checking every thing out. He also brought a calf in that was freezing and saved it.
Not that I don't see your point mt, and szur, just feel different about it and will leave it at that!!!
Looki understand what it takes to run any business. I've run a couple myself. I am now currently investing all that i have and even some of what i don't have into hives. Want to talk about risk.... I lost my first hives. 800 investment died 2 winters ago. That was a learning lesson for me. These i have now, another 1000.00 investment are doing good and survived the winter. I am fixing to split them and triple what i have. The value of my hives will run in the neighborhood of 10k by the time i get them split the hives built and set in place plus i have to feed them for a year if they do not produce enough honey from now til fall.
So yeah i do know what it costs and how hard it is. Another thing. I am not eligible for any subsidy anyway on honey. Secondly I cannot insure my hives. Insurance company won't insure them anymore after ccd came around.
So everything I DO is at risk. BUT....
I am playing it smart. I am not going to take all of my honey and sell it this year. I will keep the bulk of it to feed my new hives during the coming winter. Then when spring comes, I'll sell what honey i have left over and buy more equipment and split all of my hives again. That will replace those that i lose, and increase my apiary.
I have a 1000 hive goal set. I will set aside honey for feeding purposes, honey for selling, and take the money i make and put enough into new equipment, repairs on old, and the balance goes into a account to pay for the operations. I'll do that for two years and then pay myself a paycheck. That way i can operate through hard times as well as good times.
A typical hive is worth over 2500 in july with the honey being the most of that value. face some of the same risks as does ranchers, but i also face other risks like wind. I've had hives killed because the wind knocked them over.
another problem is theft. Its easier to pick up a hive than to pick up a steer.
IF i make it, it will be because i make intellegent and critical decisions. IF i don't it will be because i didn't
Quote from: Lookatmeknow!! on March 17, 2011, 12:15:18 PM
...there is always something that comes up, breaks down, cattle die, and so on. We lost a few calves with that below zero weather, cause our older cows seemed to calve during it. My husband worked from sun up to sun down going around to pastures checking every thing out.
And you don't think any other business owner isn't subject to setbacks, delays, losses and discouragements (some beyond their control)? You don't think other business owners risk most all they have to make a go of it? They do, and in that regard farmers are no different than any other business owner. I know, I currently run both a commercial service business and an ag operation. Farmers zip up their pants the same way a grocery store owner does and no amount of self pity is gonna change that.
Quote from: Lookatmeknow!! on March 17, 2011, 12:15:18 PMOk, I did do research and the stuff I came up with about the Constitution was that it was a Living Document.
Absolutely not. It is not a living document, that is fact. The whole living document thing didn't even start coming around till the 20's, if I remember correctly, and by progressives naturally. They try claiming its a living document so that they can interpret or attempt to amend it to match their progressive views.
What the constitution says is what it means, there is no other way. If you don't agree with it, have it amended or just get a constitutional convention and re-write the constitution so that the U.S. can be destroyed as fast as possible.
Quote from: mtcookson on March 17, 2011, 05:48:03 PM
Absolutely not. It is not a living document, that is fact. The whole living document thing didn't even start coming around till the 20's if I remember right and by progressives naturally. They try claiming its a living document so that they can interpret or attempt to amend it to match their progressive views.
What the constitution says is what it means, there is no other way. If you don't agree with it, have it amended or just get a constitutional convention and re-write the constitution so that the U.S. can be destroyed as fast as possible.
Amen!
My point ins bringing up the 3/5ths clause was that the constitution can be amended. Thats why they are called constitutional amendments.....
Its part of the brilliance of the founders, they recognized that times change, and at some point, people will need to change some things along the way.
with all the money our government throws around and wastes, I'm happy that some of it went to help one of our own.
I don't understand the folks that accept farm subsidies. They chose to go into farming, if they fail or succeed it should be based on their own merits and their ability to manage their crops, livestock, etc. Accepting money from gov't sources because of crop failure or loss of livestock is nothing more than welfare. Its getting something for nothing. I mean, by their way of thinking, if I hit a deer on my way to work then the gov't should replace my car at no cost to me, afterall, I pay my share of taxes. So whats the difference?
mtcookson, I see your point on the living document. Thought alot about this subject this weekend. The constitution is a document that the government is supposed to follow. I think they call it a living document because it can be amended. I think some of the people in the government need to just leave it alone. I hate alot of the things that the government has done with taking freedoms away, like freedom of religion in schools, and such. I think they need to go and reread what the framers of the constitution wrote. I don't agree with everyone's out look on subsidies though. There are all kinds of subsidies available out there not only for farming. But after thinking this through some, I do see some of the points out there. It's just like my business. I choose to be legal and get licensed in my daycare business, while there are others here in town that are not. If they were to get turned in then they would face a large fine because of it. These people can also do it cheaper than me, because I don't do it out of my home. I have a seperate place of business for it, which makes my cost more. It sucks, to that these people can have unlimited amount of kids and not get in trouble. I can't and have higher prices because I choose to do it legally, plus have to pay a license fee that isn't cheap either. Oh, well, I have also learned that sometimes life isn't fair and you have to do what you have to do to make it. That's what how I look at subsidies.
Quote from: Lookatmeknow!! on March 21, 2011, 06:04:18 AMI think they call it a living document because it can be amended.
The main problem is, the people who consider it as a living document consider it as such so that they can "interpret" or change it based on "current views". Translation of "Living Document": We don't like parts of the constitution and what to interpret or change it in a way that fits our agenda, even if its clearly unconstitutional.
QuoteIt's just like my business. I choose to be legal and get licensed in my daycare business, while there are others here in town that are not. If they were to get turned in then they would face a large fine because of it. These people can also do it cheaper than me, because I don't do it out of my home. I have a seperate place of business for it, which makes my cost more. It sucks, to that these people can have unlimited amount of kids and not get in trouble. I can't and have higher prices because I choose to do it legally, plus have to pay a license fee that isn't cheap either. Oh, well, I have also learned that sometimes life isn't fair and you have to do what you have to do to make it. That's what how I look at subsidies.
In the long run subsidies will only make things worse for country. They may help you out temporarily but when the government keeps spending money it doesn't have it will only hurt everyone. When it takes an entire day's pay just to eat, no subsidy is going to help you nor even be available.
The reason you're struggling so much is because of over regulation by too large a government. Because you had to get an expensive license and are limited to how many kids you can have the government is causing you to struggle. If they would back off you would clearly do so much better.
Its just the same old stuff. The government tries preventing something from happening by increasing costs for everyone by requiring "licensing" instead of staying out of it and just severely punishing those who clearly do something very wrong. Say in your business's case, if you have a great record of taking care of children you shouldn't have to be punished with overly expensive licenses and being limited to how many children you can watch. If you start getting overwhelmed with children you'll know it and will be able to change your business as necessary like hiring some more help or just limiting yourself, not the government limiting you.
If a daycare is having abuse issues they need to be severely punished so that all daycare owners know if they do something wrong, that will happen to them. Its simple but the government is simply unable to ever to anything efficient, low cost, and simple like that because it is far too big and thinks it knows better.
Such an interesting discussion to come across. I don't normally chime in on politics, but this has sparked my brain.
Our family's farm is listed on the Greenwood County Farm Subsidies. We were listed among the top in 2009. We were not in the top 10 and our subsidies weren't thousands of dollars.
Everyone has a choice. If you want the help, the help is offered from the government. If you don't want help, that's your choice. Do not sit here and rant and complain about those who are receiving the government's "stolen" money. Farming and ranching is as big of risk as gambling. It, in fact is sometimes a gamble. This is why insurance is offered for land, crops, livestock, and other assets. People don't become farmers to get rich. How many farm or ranch owners do you know that ever come out ahead? Our debts and losses are always greater than our profit.
I have never heard of a farmer wanting or expecting a hand-out/bail-out from anyone. The subsidies are a form of farm income stabilization. You depend on your everyday job just as we do with our ranch. It's our life and certainly a way of living. I don't think anyone should complain about the subsidies if you have no idea what farming takes. I would invite you out to work one day, meet me at 5 AM, regardless of weather conditions, expect not to be home until well after dark. Unexpected events arrise, this isn't any 9-5 job. If you last a day or a whole week doing what we do everyday, maybe - just maybe you'll rethink your arguement.
And I know nothing about bees or beekeeping, but I honestly do not think they should even be relevant in this discussion. One of your colonies costs the same as what I can spend on on a few good bulls. And last time I checked, honey wasn't that great of a demand.
And I know nothing about bees or beekeeping, but I honestly do not think they should even be relevant in this discussion. One of your colonies costs the same as what I can spend on on a few good bulls. And last time I checked, honey wasn't that great of a demand.
[/quote]
Why isn't it relevant? Just because you can buy your bulls cheaper than i can raise a colony?? I Do the same exact thing you do with your cattle. i go out in wintertime, sometimes have to move them indoors to keep them alive. I am at risk 100% NO GOVERNMENT WELFARE/SUBSIDY.
As far as Honey isn't being in demand?? Are you kidding??? The US consuumes 382 Million pounds of honey each year. While only 144 million pounds is produced by American keepers. THe rest is imported because there aren't enough keepers in the US.
So yeah its in high demand.
Quote from: RDSchoutenFarms on March 31, 2011, 06:37:59 PM
Such an interesting discussion to come across. I don't normally chime in on politics, but this has sparked my brain.
Our family's farm is listed on the Greenwood County Farm Subsidies. We were listed among the top in 2009. We were not in the top 10 and our subsidies weren't thousands of dollars.
Everyone has a choice. If you want the help, the help is offered from the government. If you don't want help, that's your choice. Do not sit here and rant and complain about those who are receiving the government's "stolen" money. Farming and ranching is as big of risk as gambling. It, in fact is sometimes a gamble. This is why insurance is offered for land, crops, livestock, and other assets. People don't become farmers to get rich. [font=Verdana]How many farm or ranch owners do you know that ever come out ahead? Our debts and losses are always greater than our profit. [/font]
I have never heard of a farmer wanting or expecting a hand-out/bail-out from anyone. The subsidies are a form of farm income stabilization. You depend on your everyday job just as we do with our ranch. It's our life and certainly a way of living. I don't think anyone should complain about the subsidies if you have no idea what farming takes. I would invite you out to work one day, meet me at 5 AM, regardless of weather conditions, expect not to be home until well after dark. Unexpected events arrise, this isn't any 9-5 job. If you last a day or a whole week doing what we do everyday, maybe - just maybe you'll rethink your arguement.
And I know nothing about bees or beekeeping, but I honestly do not think they should even be relevant in this discussion. One of your colonies costs the same as what I can spend on on a few good bulls. And last time I checked, honey wasn't that great of a demand.
My sister and her husband and his family farm A LOT of ground in western Kansas plus run a feed lot. They are definitely not hurting for cash. If farmers were constantly coming out with a loss, they wouldn't be doing it and they sure wouldn't be driving around in new tractors, combines, trucks and SUV's. There is money there, but the farms have to be managed well. Management is the key to profit or loss when it comes to farming, although once in awhile, the best management practices can be wrecked with a streak of bad luck. The only think I noticed on the list was that it was the same people on the list over and over and in some cases reaching into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Granted, I don't know these people's situations or their over heads, but I could do A LOT to improve my management practices with that much money. shrug.
Sarah, I'm with you on this one.
Quote from: RDSchoutenFarms on March 31, 2011, 06:37:59 PM
Our family's farm is listed on the Greenwood County Farm Subsidies. We were listed among the top in 2009. We were not in the top 10 and our subsidies weren't thousands of dollars.
I don't care if you only recieved a dollar, fact of the matter is that it is money you didn't earn.
QuoteEveryone has a choice. If you want the help, the help is offered from the government. If you don't want help, that's your choice. Do not sit here and rant and complain about those who are receiving the government's "stolen" money. Farming and ranching is as big of risk as gambling. It, in fact is sometimes a gamble. This is why insurance is offered for land, crops, livestock, and other assets. People don't become farmers to get rich. How many farm or ranch owners do you know that ever come out ahead? Our debts and losses are always greater than our profit.
You're right, everyone does have a choice, including those that CHOOSE to farm or ranch for a living. If they fail or succeed it should be based on how well they manage their farms and finances. And seeing as how my tax dollars go to fund the subsidies I have every RIGHT to complain about it. Because the simple fact is that that money is "stolen". It is taken from myself and others and given to folks that didn't earn it. I worked for it, not you. If you want insurance for land, crops, livestock and other assets, then PURCHASE IT YOURSELF and get your hand out of my pocket. If your losses are always greater than your profit you have absolutely no business running a farm or ranch or any other business.
QuoteI have never heard of a farmer wanting or expecting a hand-out/bail-out from anyone. The subsidies are a form of farm income stabilization. You depend on your everyday job just as we do with our ranch. It's our life and certainly a way of living. I don't think anyone should complain about the subsidies if you have no idea what farming takes. I would invite you out to work one day, meet me at 5 AM, regardless of weather conditions, expect not to be home until well after dark. Unexpected events arrise, this isn't any 9-5 job. If you last a day or a whole week doing what we do everyday, maybe - just maybe you'll rethink your arguement.
If farmers and ranchers didn't want a handout then there would be no subsidies. They aren't a form of income stabilization, its welfare, period. Recieving money you didn't earn.
By the way, apparently according to you, YOU don't know what farming takes. Afterall, you said yourself that you don't know how to make a profit. So before you start bashing people for not being able to do what you do, you might want to take a look in the mirror. Afterall, it isn't smart to piss off the people who are financing your buisness.
You're right; everyone does have a choice, including those that CHOOSE to farm or ranch for a living. If they fail or succeed it should be based on how well they manage their farms and finances. And seeing as how my tax dollars go to fund the subsidies I have every RIGHT to complain about it. Because the simple fact is that that money is "stolen". It is taken from myself and others and given to folks that didn't earn it. I worked for it, not you. If you want insurance for land, crops, livestock and other assets, then PURCHASE IT YOURSELF and get your hand out of my pocket. If your losses are always greater than your profit you have absolutely no business running a farm or ranch or any other business.
I do have to start by saying, I was raised in Severy. Lived there all my life up until I graduated from high school and went to college. I didn't live on a farm, actually right by the Coop for my whole life. So, I really don't know a whole lot about the subsidies in general. But my husband and I dated since 1993, and since then have learned a lot. I was a 4-H member and anyone that knows my Granddad Knight knows I have been around livestock, cattle, horses and such forever. I started working when I was 12 years old at what was then, Mary's Drive In. I am now 36 years old. My husband was born and raised in Howard. His family has strong ties to Elk County. He has worked on the farm since I don't know; he was probably old enough to help to chores and such. I want to know, how the taxes that WE pay too, become money that we didn't earn????? In your statement you say- ". It is taken from myself and others and given to folks that didn't earn it. I worked for it, not you. You are saying that WE don't work and didn't earn that money!! That is so wrong on so many levels. I didn't look fair enough back into the list, but I am sure my husband's name is on there but not 100% sure on that. Do you know that WE do pay taxes!!! The same that you do, we just choose to pay it at the end of the year not out of a monthly paycheck. WE also choose to live off of about 1 paycheck a year, could you do that????? And our paycheck isn't nowhere near what you receive weekly, monthly, or however you receive it. WE pay taxes when we buy fuel, unless we buy in bulk, which WE don't, WE pay taxes on many different things WE purchase, the same as EVERY AMERICAN does!! How did that hamburger, salad, veggies, or whatever you ate taste last night for supper????? Who do you think raised that???? FARMERS!!!! I am not saying that I think it is right for the government to do this!! I am unsure about the whole subsidy thing; do not know that much about it. But what I do know is that FARMERS are important, just like your job is important!! My whole point in this rant is that, it's not wealth fare or stolen money, its money that FARMERS pay into also!!! Let's say that subsidies are not a legal thing. Ok, get that. You have never once taken money for doing an odd job for someone else??? Did you turn that money into the government for earned money so you could be taxed on it???? You all make it sound like they are robbing a bank and should be thrown in Jail. Whether it's right or wrong, black or white, it's my right as a TAX paying FARMING CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, to take the money from the government if I feel like it!! Just the same as it's your right to complain about it!! You have that right to be MAD!!! Just the same as I have the right to take it!!!
Oh, I only WISH we had a big old fancy feed truck!!! What we have is like a 1985 or so chevy, and you know what, it is paid for free and clear!! And I to WISH I could drive a fancy SUV but nope, a have a 2000 mini van!! Nothing fancy about our family at all!! I even buy my girls clothes and our clothes at Goodwill, garage sales, and other second hand stores. I have tried to convince my husband that maybe he needs to get another job. But you know what, he LOVES what he does!! He takes pride in raising cattle!! I personally don't care to be rich, just to be able to feed my kids and put a roof over my head. I can honestly say, I wouldn't have it any other way!! I know one good thing comes out of it, and that is my girls love it and so does my husband!! Plus, we have the luxury of spending time together at both our jobs!! Another benefit, WE raise some GREAT Kansas BEEF!!!!! :laugh:
Quote from: Lookatmeknow!! on April 01, 2011, 06:12:02 AM
band's name is on there but not 100% sure on that. Do you know that WE do pay taxes!!! The same that you do, we just choose to pay it at the end of the year not out of a monthly paycheck. WE also choose to live off of about 1 paycheck a year, could you do that????? And our paycheck isn't nowhere near what you receive weekly, monthly, or however you receive it. WE pay taxes when we buy fuel, unless we buy in bulk, which WE don't, WE pay taxes on many different things WE purchase, the same as EVERY AMERICAN does!! How did that hamburger, salad, veggies, or whatever you ate taste last night for supper?????
As do all of us. Not questioning that.
QuoteWho do you think raised that???? FARMERS!!!! I am not saying that I think it is right for the government to do this!! I am unsure about the whole subsidy thing; do not know that much about it. But what I do know is that FARMERS are important, just like your job is important!!
No one is saying that they aren't.
QuoteMy whole point in this rant is that, it's not wealth fare or stolen money, its money that FARMERS pay into also!!!
The problem is a couple things. First of all, its tax money stolen from the taxpayer, Farmer included being used to fund certain people. IT is NOT funding farmers. It is funding Certain farmers. It is just like taking and giving welfare to blacks instead of whites or latino or anyone else.
I Produce honey, someone else produces cattle. Cattle folks get subsidizided, while honey producers do not. Secondly Take all of america, and who pays taxes. They all pay taxes (those that produce), they don't get a subsidy. They pay their tax with no return of the money taken from them even if they are suffering a loss that year.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.
You're right, everyone does have a choice, including those that CHOOSE to farm or ranch for a living. If they fail or succeed it should be based on how well they manage their farms and finances. And seeing as how my tax dollars go to fund the subsidies I have every RIGHT to complain about it. Because the simple fact is that that money is "stolen". It is taken from myself and others and given to folks that didn't earn it. I worked for it, not you. If you want insurance for land, crops, livestock and other assets, then PURCHASE IT YOURSELF and get your hand out of my pocket. If your losses are always greater than your profit you have absolutely no business running a farm or ranch or any other business.
This is what Varmit posted!! Tell me what he means then!!
Certainly, the Fed's ought not provide anyone with money whether it be the money of the taxpayers, or borrowed or printed.
This country was not established for the Fed's to cover farmers' losses or the like.
Quote from: Lookatmeknow!! on April 01, 2011, 07:54:33 AM
You're right, everyone does have a choice, including those that CHOOSE to farm or ranch for a living. If they fail or succeed it should be based on how well they manage their farms and finances. And seeing as how my tax dollars go to fund the subsidies I have every RIGHT to complain about it. Because the simple fact is that that money is "stolen". It is taken from myself and others and given to folks that didn't earn it. I worked for it, not you. If you want insurance for land, crops, livestock and other assets, then PURCHASE IT YOURSELF and get your hand out of my pocket. If your losses are always greater than your profit you have absolutely no business running a farm or ranch or any other business.
This is what Varmit posted!! Tell me what he means then!!
Welll IF your taking subsidy, your not paying taxes on your income. Its pretty simple. Your dipping into other peoples money.
I am really not trying to be a smart *ss but how is it other people's money?? I pay taxes the same as you. Do my taxes not go to the same place that yours goes to? And WE don't get subsidies. The point I am making is you all have a grip about everything. Can't we each have our own opinions???? I thoought that was ok????
Have any of you EVER recieved more than 400.00 for odd jobs??? Have you sold things that added up to more than 400.00??? Do you turn that money in???? Just asking, cause if not YOUR not doing what the government says either are you???
If your income is as low as you say it is, you are not paying taxes. The business probably is, but if your personal income is low you either end up not paying any in or you even get money back.
Interesting.There was a time when honey growers were subsidized. Then it has been sporadic with sometimes loans and sometimes not and other forms of money were available under other headings and names. My one girlfriend had hives for years but gave it up several years ago when she was bedeviled with throat mites and hive collapse. Is there no Gov't money available anymore under any name? Steve, do you rent any hives out for pollination ? It's a big business here.
Quote from: Lookatmeknow!! on April 01, 2011, 07:54:33 AM
This is what Varmit posted!! Tell me what he means then!!
What I mean is that my taxes would be lower if they didn't go towards paying a failing farmer or rancher, that cannot make a living farming or ranching. If said farmer/rancher fails then so be it. Money that is taken out of my paycheck shouldn't go towards bailing them out. As for selling or making $400. for an odd job or such, that isn't the same. I earned that money, it isn't a handout taken from someone else.
I don't know and I don't have any way of looking it up now, but aren't the subsidies that are paid to farmers and ranchers considered income that is as taxable as the income that they earn in their business? I have never done a tax return for a farmer that received subsidies, but would one of you who knows, please answer this question.
Varmit, did you report that on your income tax return as income?
Wilma this is from Financialweb @ finweb.com..........
"Farm subsidies are provided by the federal government in order to help farmers level out their incomes and avoid the impact of wild price swings in the market. However, even though the federal government is giving these farmers' money, it is not free money. The money that is taken by the farmers is considered taxable income. This means that they will have to count it as part of the profits from their farms as if they were selling crops at full price. This increases their taxable incomes and the total amounts of taxes that they pay for the year."
they have to file form 1099-G.
Kinda like my opinion of my tax dollars goin to pay for cancer treatment....if it helps a small farmer stay in business GIVE EM MY TAX DOLLARS. The people who are pissin and moanin about farm-subsidies here ALSO piss and moan about the price of groc. etc.. well let CORPORATE FARMING COMPANIES get a monopoly on farm ground and see what havin somethin to piss and moan about REALLY feels like.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on April 01, 2011, 12:46:29 PM
Interesting.There was a time when honey growers were subsidized. Then it has been sporadic with sometimes loans and sometimes not and other forms of money were available under other headings and names. My one girlfriend had hives for years but gave it up several years ago when she was bedeviled with throat mites and hive collapse. Is there no Gov't money available anymore under any name? Steve, do you rent any hives out for pollination ? It's a big business here.
No there is no subsidies for honey. THey used to take a percentage of the honey crop for welfare distribution ( commodities i think they called it) but that no longer is the case.
Pollination i'll do if its local. I am not setup for pollination. Requires a different setup.
I think a lot of people are failing to realize several key things.
First: farm subsidies are important towards ensuring that there's always a viable food supply. Without small family farms, we'd be forced to rely on corporations and imports for food. If some disaster happened that affected one of these sources, there would be nothing to fall back on without the small farms.
Second: the farm subsidies are really food subsidies. If you understand economics, you'll know that without the subsidies, farmers will either have to raise their prices, or go out of business. Farm subsidies help keep food affordable.
Third: Our government gives hundreds of billions of dollars away in tax incentives and subsidies to huge corporations. GE's total tax write off is more than all the farm subsidies for all the midwest states combined. Why do you all want to hate on the family farmers but you don't say a word about GE, big oil, and the financial institutions that the government bailed out.
I said it before and I'll say it again. If you want to fix the system, stop sending big corporate politicians to Washington. You're congressional district sent the one guy in the race that was bought and paid for by big business to Washington, and here you are complaining that there isn't enough money to go around. Tea party people are screaming for lower taxes on billionaires and large corporations while they get screwed by those same people every day. Wake up.
Quote from: Anmar on April 02, 2011, 12:45:56 PM
Tea party people are screaming for lower taxes on billionaires and large corporations while they get screwed by those same people every day. Wake up.
No they're not. They want govt out of our freaking lives. NO taxes for aything other than a constitutional government. Period. That means 50% if not more of government gone!
The playing field is not leveled by the Federal gov't.
Large or small, the Fed's should not be paying moneys to anyone. That's socialism.
Farm susbsidies do not ensure food supply and neither does the Federal gov't.
Farm subsidies are not food subsidies. Food stamps ought to be ceased too.
The gov't gives money to about all of 'em - large and small. Review who is getting the payments
and you'll discover some pretty big operators on the receiving end of the Fed's farm money.
Cheaper farm produce? For Whom??? The huge corporations. Why should corporations (or anyone)
be benefitted by Federal gov't farm subsiidy payments?
Anmar, it seems to me that you once stated that you're related to Jefferson Davis but you
appear very much in line with Abrahma Lincoln and the Republicans and all of their social agenda.
You're certainly do not seem to be a Jeff Davis man.
Quote from: Anmar on April 02, 2011, 12:45:56 PM
Third: Our government gives hundreds of billions of dollars away in tax incentives and subsidies to huge corporations. GE's total tax write off is more than all the farm subsidies for all the midwest states combined. Why do you all want to hate on the family farmers but you don't say a word about GE, big oil, and the financial institutions that the government bailed out.
Didn't say a word about it because thats not what this thread is about. Actually, kinda suprised that we've managed to stay on topic for so long.
;D Varmit you are 100 % correct, they never stay on one topic.
Where's this big fancy feed truck and SUV you're speaking of? They sure as hell aren't parked in my garage! My wife and I both drive used pickups. Have 2 Ford F-250 Powerstrokes, one is an 03 and one is an 01. Our feedtruck isn't anything special either, it's an 07 F-350. Before we bought it we had an 86 Chevy. We use what gets the job done. Don't need anything fancy or snappy. Functionality beats out fanciness.
The equipment we run is USED and NOT brand new. Have always run Allis Chalmers original tractors. We manage our finances perfectly.
Come check out our operation and you'll see it's well organized and not a dollars wasted.
As for knowing nothing about ranching, I was born and raised on this ranch. It's been in my family 4 generations now. My wife and father take care of the bookkeeping and finances. IF you want to argue or nit pick on that end, go to them with your arguement.
I think I'll take next year's "WELFARE" check and buy me some big fancy new equipment. Since your money will be funding my purchase, maybe you'd like to accompany me to the dealership, I'll even let ya pick out the color.
Quote from: RDSchoutenFarms on April 11, 2011, 12:04:08 AM
I think I'll take next year's "WELFARE" check and buy me some big fancy new equipment. Since your money will be funding my purchase, maybe you'd like to accompany me to the dealership, I'll even let ya pick out the color.
;D love it
Welfare is any money taken from taxpayers and paid to another for aid. Farm subsidies are taken from tax payers and paid to farmers to "level the playing field" so to speak. Even though taxes are paid on it, it's still money that isn't earned. Farm subsidies were started back in the Great Depression to help struggling farmers get back on their feet after the depression. But I do not see how it's needed today. The average income for American farmers is $76,000 in 2009, and that's actually down a little from 2008 and 2007. That's not to say ALL farmers make that much, but that's the average and it's WELL above the poverty line.
I see a lot of arguments that tax is paid on subsidies, but I would hazard to guess that most farmers are very good at itemizing everything they have to offset the amount of tax paid in. In other words, inflating and deflating their incomes as they need it. For small struggling farms, I don't see any problem with farm subsidies to help, but a huge chunk of farm subsidy monies are being paid to corporate farms which shouldn't need it anyway. A lot of corporate farms are reporting incomes over $200,000 with net worth over $2 million dollars! And yet they receive govt. subsidies based on what they produce.
Food stabilization? It really doesn't stabilize anything except the price the farmer gets for that food. The cost of food is mostly determined by food commodities sold and traded. But here is what it does for the farmer:
QuoteThe subsidy programs give farmers extra money for their crops and guarantee a price floor. For instance in the 2002 Farm Bill, for every bushel of wheat sold, farmers were paid an extra 52 cents and guaranteed a price of 3.86 from 2002–03 and 3.92 from 2004–2007.[16] That is, if the price of wheat in 2002 was 3.80 farmers would get an extra 58 cents per bushel (52 cents plus the $0.06 price difference).
Corn is the top crop for subsidy payments. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 mandates that billions of gallons of ethanol be blended into vehicle fuel each year, guaranteeing demand, but US corn ethanol subsidies are between $5.5 billion and $7.3 billion per year. Producers also benefit from a federal subsidy of 51 cents per gallon, additional state subsidies, and federal crop subsidies that can bring the total to 85 cents per gallon or more.[17] (US corn-ethanol producers are also shielded from competition from cheaper Brazilian sugarcane-ethanol by a 54-cent-per-gallon tariff[18][19])
I saw a post talking about they don't drive new trucks, but they list 3 trucks all 10 years old or less. And all fairly expensive trucks. The 07 is still a $30,000 dollar truck, give or take a couple thousand. The 03 F-250 is about $15,000 dollars. I can only imagine what the property tax and tags and insurance are on those.
I can tell you that are newest feed pickup is a 1986 Chevy. I have to say, that by the time we have put this on it, replaced that on it, and now we have some damage that was done to the bed, that we have a small chunk of change in that pickup. I think that also everyone should know that I am pretty sure that you have to turn any subsidies in as income. I know that I get money reimbursement for food at the daycare, and I have to turn that in as income. My food bill well surpasses that amount, but still have to turn it in. As for the itemizing, yes we itemize. But don't alot of people itemize?? I am just glad that we are free and clear in the items that we buy. We don't buy anything we can't pay for on the spot. It just wouldn't work for us any other way.
But we can argue all day about this being right or wrong, it's all based on our own perceptions of how you feel on this issue, wrong or right. There are things that were said on here that are so off base that is why I had to chime in. I feel like this topic is a hot issue, but really what would we do without farmers???? Especially US farmers?? I guess then you would all be buying your things from over seas???
Exactly Angie :)
for the Naysayers....Lot of corporate farms/ranches in that neck of the woods is there?? Sure wasn't in the 35 years I spent there....lot of FAMILY farms...some bigger than others....but still FAMILY farms.
MOST of us are pretty good at using our deductions to our best advantage...anybody who says they dont is lyin or too stupid to do it.
Corporate farms get subsidies meant for small farms by MANIPULATING the system, so again it falls back to throwin the baby out with the bathwater to stop THAT practice.
I have a question: We all pay taxes, that's a fact of life.....They are going to get spent on things OTHER than us.....Which would you RATHER your money went for......to help a small-town farmer get a ten year old feed truck....or to finance some OTHER countries latest wanna be dictator with weapons to blow shit up so THEN we can send them YOUR/AND MY tax dollars to build a newer better one on the OFF chance they might "like" us and be "appreciative"??
To pay some small town guys DISABILITY check or some foreign dictators extortion money to TRY to convince him to do things the way that benefits the few US interests that HAVE interests there?
ME?? I choose the farmer and the disabled guy.
Face it...government is NOT gonna get any smaller....unless something better left not said happens...WE the PEOPLE allowed this monster to come into existence and we are stuck with it for the foreseeable future. The next election will change NOTHING other than which "party" gets the bigger piece of the pie....so the rest of us just gotta suck it up and make it work for US any way we can.
Theres a LOT of shit that should go before farm subsidies are even considered.
Angie, I have no problem with the farmers that actually NEED it. ~smiles warmly~ The problem I have are those that don't need it are getting a lot of it. Shoot, if you need the money, take it! Heaven knows I'm using govt. funds to go to school. I couldn't do it any other way. But I also know I've driven by a lot of farms with millions of dollars worth of house, vehicles, equipments, animals, etc. If I had the money I'd be doing it too! And honestly, if there was a subsidy or grant for what I want to do, I'd be doing it too because other wise it'll probably never happen.
But to live on subsidies year after year, and I saw some ranchers up near a million dollars, I have to wonder. What I couldn't do with a million dollars. Even if I had to pay tax on it....and I'm sure I could off set it.....I could do wonders with that much money. But like all things, farming is mostly going the way of the big corporations and a big chunk of the subsidies are going the way of the corporations also. And as far as keeping our food prices low, I think I'd rather keep my tax dollars.
QuoteFace it...government is NOT gonna get any smaller....unless something better left not said happens...WE the PEOPLE allowed this monster to come into existence and we are stuck with it for the foreseeable future. The next election will change NOTHING other than which "party" gets the bigger piece of the pie....so the rest of us just gotta suck it up and make it work for US any way we can.
Now this I agree with. But to say, let's keep it, lest they spend the money on something else is silly. The govt will spend money on other things anyway, or did you not notice the trillion dollar deficit? I'm all for helping SMALL farmers and I'm not just talking Elk county farmers, but US as a whole. But I saw quite a few in Elk county getting thousands of dollars in subsidies that wasn't earned. I don't care if you do pay taxes on it, it's still income that isn't earned. Shoot, give me $300,000! I don't care if I do have to pay taxes on it! I'd gladly start a little microdairy with it. shrug
QuoteShoot, give me $300,000! I don't care if I do have to pay taxes on it! I'd gladly start a little microdairy with it. shrug
Then apply for it...they don't just come out to the house and offer it to you.
Quoteto say, let's keep it, lest they spend the money on something else is silly.
Whats silly about it? It's the truth. They ARE going to spend it on SOMETHING so it might as well be HERE on people who PAID some of it to start with.
and again this is just MY point of view......I'm most likely not gonna change it :) I got a lawn-mower out there callin my name so yall have a great day and dont spent too much time thinkin bout the government....they sure aint thinkin bout us LOL
Quote from: Lookatmeknow!! on April 11, 2011, 08:22:36 AMBut we can argue all day about this being right or wrong, it's all based on our own perceptions of how you feel on this issue, wrong or right.
No, that is not correct. The government is absolutely NOT supposed to do this. This is a simple fact. The constitution does not allow for the government to redistribute money like that and for good reason too.
Yes, you can get the constitution amended to change it so that it is allowed but I guarantee that if the government would completely get out of it, the farmers (and everyone else) would be much better off. Let the free market be free and everyone wins. Continue to allow the government to get into it and it will only makes things much worse. Its a simple fact proven over and over again by history.
QuoteI can tell you that are newest feed pickup is a 1986 Chevy. I have to say, that by the time we have put this on it, replaced that on it, and now we have some damage that was done to the bed, that we have a small chunk of change in that pickup.
I prefer used vehicles like that myself. Even if you have to repair them, unless you have some low production, rare, or exotic vehicle, they will almost always be cheaper than a newer vehicle.
I just recently purchased a 1997 Subaru Impreza. Has 304k miles but runs great, is in decent shape, and I only had to put in maybe a couple hundred dollars for preventative maintenance. Even if the engine were to blow today, I can hop on Ebay and buy a short block with under 100k miles for $150. That's nearly the same price I pay just on insurance for my 08 Mazda CX-7.
I have a 1986 Chevy Blazer 4WD that I bought for $500 with a bit over 200k miles. The body isn't in great shape and the powertrain could certainly be better but it still runs great. I've probably not even put $150 into it and I've been using it off and on for a few years now. The purchase price and a full year of insurance on it is less than a single month's payment and month of insurance on the Mazda.
I know farm trucks get used much more and in many cases probably way more abused than a daily driven street car but say you were to get a loan on a newer truck for say $15,000. Lets say its a 5 year loan with 7.3% sales tax and 9% interest. Your payments are $334.10 per month or $4009.2 per year. Just did a search on Auto Trader within 100 miles for a pickup at exactly $15,000 and got 4 results. Found a 2004 Ford F250 Crew Cab 4WD with the Powerstroke Diesel, looks good and would be an awesome heavy duty truck. Doing a quick quote online for full coverage insurance for a farming vehicle for me would be $77.52 per month. The insurance I'm sure could be lower with other types of discounts but lets just keep it at for now. Now we're at $4939.44 per year.
If I search for trucks up to $2000 I found a decent looking 1987 Ford F150 4WD listed at $1,995. Doing another insurance quote for liability insurance I get a rate of $13.34 per month. So for the year I would have paid, including the truck and 7.3% sales tax, $2,300.72. Not to mention tags and property tax would be substantially cheaper on the older vehicle. I imagine the newer Ford would be in the $200 to $300 range while the older truck should be in the $40 to $60 dollar range. Lets take the low of the first and the high of the second.
Totals:
2004 Ford - $5139.44 per year
1987 Ford - $2360.72 per year
Yes, you get more creature comforts and more power from the '04 but as long as the '87 can get the job done its a way better deal when it comes to saving money. Even if you have to put $1000 of repairs into the '87 and it ONLY lasted 1 year you would still be spending less on it than the '04. You could buy a $2000 truck every year and end up spending less than the '04.
That's why I like used cars so much. Yeah, you may have to repair them but they are almost always going to be cheaper in the end than a newer vehicle. That Mazda I purchase was one of the biggest vehicle mistakes I've ever made. While my wife and I were dating she wanted to get a new car and for whatever reason I didn't bring out my logic of the used car and now we're stuck with this thing. To make matters worse, I hate the car too (actually we both do). It was awesome when we first got it but now it has some major annoyances that just drive me nuts. If we hadn't purchased it we could actually nearly have our house paid off already. I just dislike having large payments on vehicles. If I can keep it around $5k to $6k or less I'm pretty happy. Even less, like on the Subaru I just got, and I'm extremely pleased. Granted I know how to work on cars which can definitely save some money but even if you know how to do the basic maintenance of a vehicle you can greatly reduce your costs of a vehicle.
I love a lot of the newer vehicles out there but for what you spend all you're really getting is a vehicle that looks better (and one that is bloated, overweight, and computers that don't let you do anything with the car without tripping a check engine light or have overbearing "driver's aid"). I prefer performance vehicles and for the prices of the newer vehicles I could easily get an older car, modify it, and have a better performing vehicle than the new one for a fraction of the cost that would likely even get better fuel economy as well.