We are paying the exact same amount for our food with or without subsidy. If a farmer needs to get $3/gallon for milk, whether he sells it for $3 or sells it for $1.50 and gets $1.50 covered by subsidy. The milk still cost $3. Only difference is when we buy it the subsidy doesn't show at the checkout counter. Now when government comes out and tells you how much we are spending on Welfare/foodstamps, they can give you a smaller number because they don't count any of that subsidy. So now we have one government entity and the cost of it to give out the subsidies, and we have another government entity and the cost of it, to give out the welfare. Result even higher total cost than if they just gave more welfare and **** canned the subsidies. As for Greed, greed is good, it drives most of us. Greed makes it so we have more money to buy bows, or camo or new stands. Subsidy also limits competition and innovation.
Most of that is pretty much backwards from what I believe and how I try to live my life, I will choose to simply ignore most of that post. As far as food costing the same with or without subsidies, you are correct under our current state. But, without subsidies there are enough large corporations in Ag now that they would drive out smaller farmers and gain giant market shares. Once they have the market share, they will be able to dictate price. Who knows what the price of milk will go to then.
Small farmers are and have been getting driven out for as long as I can remember with or without subsidy. Only thing that has kept small farms from becoming corporate is consolidation with other small farms. Subsidy is making it worse because the corporate farms are the ones who have the power to get the laws made to benefit them. Without them farmers would have a more level playing field.
I know a lot of dairymen who are currently in disagreement with this. If it wasn't fit the subsidy, the farm would be a development. Without cost share, they couldn't keep up. Don't Hate While I Conservate – Ambitions of a Flunky. Just a hunter and angler attempting to answer the call of our Conservation Heritage in the 21st Century
I agree, I don't think you are correct remmett, and I don't see how getting rid of subsidies will help small farms.
In the case of health care, has anyone compared the increase in insurance cost from before the ACA to after? I haven't, but I don't ever remember a time when the premium wasn't increasing and the coverage decreasing. Unrestrained free enterprise is just as harmful as full-blown socialism. If Allen Greenspan, who advocated for unrestrained freedom in the markets and banking industry can testify before congress that he was surprised at how greed could trump good judgement, why should we who don't believe that there can be freedom without responsibility, think it could be better with no regulation?
I haven't, but I also don't advocate for unregulated healthcare either. I just like when companies compete for business. Prices come down and service goes up.
Government at its finest again. WE have made farming dependent on them. The point was, Subsidies were not created as a benefit to farmers, it was created as a way to make food appear affordable for the poor without having to make "welfare" higher. WE have made subsidies so common that removal would cause problems Same with Oil subsidies,
I can't give any national numbers. Only what mine have done. My wife works for a clinic with close ties to an insurance provider so our insurance has always been extremely good. My family deductible has gone from 3000 to 6200, our share of the premium has gone from $20/payperiod to $100. Total with the employer payment, the insurance company is getting around $18000 a year and doesn't pay a dime until we reach the deductible. There was no way for insurance to go but up when you add people who can't pay their "fair share" and people with conditions that exceed what they could afford to pay. Last I read the average lifetime medical espense is around $400,000/person something like 75% of that cost comes after age 50. And we are running all of that expense through insurance which increases the cost 15-20% by default just for insurance operating cost. Heard on the radio, premiums on the government exchange increasing by 25%, followed by a statement, but those getting that coverage won't see that increase because it will be covered by the subsidy. So not only is the rest of our coverage increasing we are going to have to cover 25% increase for those who can't pay. Quickest way to decrease cost is to not have everything go through insurance, we could drop 15% of the cost of every dollar we are able to pay without using insurance.
I didn't mean to derail this thread like this. My point is that privatization driven by profit will price the majority of us out of the woods. I am unable at this point in my life to pay for a lease on which to hunt. Even a thousand a year would be a stretch. Between tags, gas and new equipment I am probably up to $400 this year, and that is stretching me financially. What happens to the economy when people do not have a place to hunt, and stop spending millions each year on recreational gear and travel? Land transfer, followed by sales to the highest bidder, will benefit only the wealthy. Localize the management, share the revenue, and stop ballot box biology, and meddling by politicians in how best to manage the land. Just realize that if the Feds can't break even, we shouldn't expect the states to either.
Well, guess that settle the Wisconsin example.... states will ultimately sell it off.... Don't Hate While I Conservate – Ambitions of a Flunky. Just a hunter and angler attempting to answer the call of our Conservation Heritage in the 21st Century
Yes too many "sportman" on the wrong side of this come from the not in my back yard camp. They figure that they aren't planning on hunting "out west" so it doesn't matter it as it isn't in their backyards. It's Easy to miss the big picture when we think about what public ownership really means. It's an idea, an idea that transcends the individual and lays the ground work for conservation via citizen ownership throughout generations. Sorry to see this in Wisconsin. Join BHA and help this fight on any level you can. Locally and nationally.
Join any organization. Been a couple of us fighting it for awhile Don't Hate While I Conservate – Ambitions of a Flunky. Just a hunter and angler attempting to answer the call of our Conservation Heritage in the 21st Century
I haven't been reading this whole thread but I caught Randy Newberg talking about this youtube series he's but out on the topic. PUBLIC LAND TRANSFER - Destroying the Myths (Episode 3 of 15) - YouTube Apologies if it's already been put on this thread.
