 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
USAFE5
PO2
Joined: 23 Aug 2004
Posts: 362
Location: Reno Nevada
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 27, 2004 8:14 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Thank you for the info Scotty. I read much about paying not to grow and it seems to me the industrial farms (congolmerates) get most of the money. I saw a list that showed who was paid how much and several well know persons were on this list (I recall some but as I can't link to the listing right now I won't mention them). These are persons who you would not thing of as farmers in ANY fashion.
There are many things wrong in our world. It is great to have a place we can discuss and learn and maybe solve some of them.
_________________
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I’m here to help." Ronald Reagan |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
scotty61
LCDR
Joined: 07 May 2004
Posts: 419
Location: Glyndon MN
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2004 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One of the stories was about Sam Donaldson who has the family sheepranch in Arizona. He was criticized for taking the wool subsidy when he was drawing top dollar with ABC.
Most of those subsidies went away in the mid-ninties when the Freedom to Farm bill was passed. This was a good bill but the democrats doomed it to failure. It depended on the administration working to improve the export market and for political purposes Clinton did nothing. He had millions of dollars in the Export Enhancement Fund, a fund set up to help market our product against heavily subsidized foreign products, which he refused to use so that the program would fail and he could blame the republicans who had passed it, which is exactly what happened. The current farm program replaced Freedom to Farm, but most of the subsidies were not restored.
Don't be fooled by the "large corporate farm" phrase. Their are some, no doubt, like Dole pineapples in the produce sector of agriculture, but many family farms are incorporating for good business reasons. Some uninformed would mistake these as "large" because the amount of capital to operate a grain farm is staggering. Because the profit margins are so small you have to deal in large volumes to make a go of it. At a minimun you would need 5,000 acres of land at $1,000 to $1,500 an acre, two 4-wheel drive tractors at $250,000 each, three 2-wheel drive tractors at $150,000 each, two combines at $250,000 each, another $500,000 for trucks, planters and other equipment neccesary, 300,000 bushels of storage, equipment storgage, a large shop for repairs and some other stuff. These are your fixed assets, to grow a crop you need thousands of gallons of diesel fuel, a couple thousand bushels of seed, tons of fertilizer, over $100,000 worth of herbicides and pesticides plus repairs and maintenance and a bunch of other stuff. This is family farming in the 21st century.
_________________
John Kerry. A Neville Chamberlain for our times. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PhantomSgt
Vice Admiral
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 972
Location: GUAM, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2004 9:44 am Post subject: What would the price really be? |
|
|
| scotty61 wrote: | One of the stories was about Sam Donaldson who has the family sheepranch in Arizona. He was criticized for taking the wool subsidy when he was drawing top dollar with ABC.
Most of those subsidies went away in the mid-ninties when the Freedom to Farm bill was passed. This was a good bill but the democrats doomed it to failure. It depended on the administration working to improve the export market and for political purposes Clinton did nothing. He had millions of dollars in the Export Enhancement Fund, a fund set up to help market our product against heavily subsidized foreign products, which he refused to use so that the program would fail and he could blame the republicans who had passed it, which is exactly what happened. The current farm program replaced Freedom to Farm, but most of the subsidies were not restored.
Don't be fooled by the "large corporate farm" phrase. Their are some, no doubt, like Dole pineapples in the produce sector of agriculture, but many family farms are incorporating for good business reasons. Some uninformed would mistake these as "large" because the amount of capital to operate a grain farm is staggering. Because the profit margins are so small you have to deal in large volumes to make a go of it. At a minimun you would need 5,000 acres of land at $1,000 to $1,500 an acre, two 4-wheel drive tractors at $250,000 each, three 2-wheel drive tractors at $150,000 each, two combines at $250,000 each, another $500,000 for trucks, planters and other equipment neccesary, 300,000 bushels of storage, equipment storgage, a large shop for repairs and some other stuff. These are your fixed assets, to grow a crop you need thousands of gallons of diesel fuel, a couple thousand bushels of seed, tons of fertilizer, over $100,000 worth of herbicides and pesticides plus repairs and maintenance and a bunch of other stuff. This is family farming in the 21st century. |
Scotty what would the price really be for food, dairy or stock if the market was allowed to form without farm support bills and subsidies? Would it pay to be a farmer if there were no limits to what they planted, no worry about endangered toads and no interference from environmental groups or does this Congressional support help?
_________________
Retired AF E-8
Independent that leans right of center. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scotty61
LCDR
Joined: 07 May 2004
Posts: 419
Location: Glyndon MN
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2004 4:15 pm Post subject: Re: What would the price really be? |
|
|
| PhantomSgt wrote: | | scotty61 wrote: | One of the stories was about Sam Donaldson who has the family sheepranch in Arizona. He was criticized for taking the wool subsidy when he was drawing top dollar with ABC.
Most of those subsidies went away in the mid-ninties when the Freedom to Farm bill was passed. This was a good bill but the democrats doomed it to failure. It depended on the administration working to improve the export market and for political purposes Clinton did nothing. He had millions of dollars in the Export Enhancement Fund, a fund set up to help market our product against heavily subsidized foreign products, which he refused to use so that the program would fail and he could blame the republicans who had passed it, which is exactly what happened. The current farm program replaced Freedom to Farm, but most of the subsidies were not restored.
Don't be fooled by the "large corporate farm" phrase. Their are some, no doubt, like Dole pineapples in the produce sector of agriculture, but many family farms are incorporating for good business reasons. Some uninformed would mistake these as "large" because the amount of capital to operate a grain farm is staggering. Because the profit margins are so small you have to deal in large volumes to make a go of it. At a minimun you would need 5,000 acres of land at $1,000 to $1,500 an acre, two 4-wheel drive tractors at $250,000 each, three 2-wheel drive tractors at $150,000 each, two combines at $250,000 each, another $500,000 for trucks, planters and other equipment neccesary, 300,000 bushels of storage, equipment storgage, a large shop for repairs and some other stuff. These are your fixed assets, to grow a crop you need thousands of gallons of diesel fuel, a couple thousand bushels of seed, tons of fertilizer, over $100,000 worth of herbicides and pesticides plus repairs and maintenance and a bunch of other stuff. This is family farming in the 21st century. |
Scotty what would the price really be for food, dairy or stock if the market was allowed to form without farm support bills and subsidies? Would it pay to be a farmer if there were no limits to what they planted, no worry about endangered toads and no interference from environmental groups or does this Congressional support help? |
That's a toughie, PhantomSgt. That's because to give you a good answer you have to factor all the things that happen to the product once it leaves the farm. For example, the hog market generally flucuates between 35 cents, which is considered parity or equal to the cost of production, and 50 cents per pound at live weight. Once the hog is slaughtered the hanging wieght is about 2/3 of the live weight. Adjusting our price, 35 cents live weight becomes about 55 cents hanging weight. For the example we will ignore value added products such as ham and bacon and focus on pork chops and roasts, as these are simply carved off of the carcass with minimum effort. A couple of years ago hogs were at the 35lw/55hw price and pork roasts sold at $1.50/lb and pork chops at $2.00/lb. Later that year the market went to 50lw/75hw or a 20 cent increase on the hanging weight. Roasts went to $2.25/lb and chops to $3.25/lb. So while the farmer got 20 cents more for the hanging weight you paid 75 cents and $1.25 more respectively. Unfortunately later that year the price fell to 10 cents live weight but roasts only dropped to $1.75 and chops to $2.50.
In the seventies wheat really went up in price, about double, due to Nixon's wheat deal with the Russians. Bread took about a 50% increase. Now a bushel of wheat generates enough flour for about 50 loaves of bread. So if wheat went from $3 to $6 a bushell, bread would go from $1 a loaf to $1.50. The farmer would see an increase of $3, while the millers and bakers would get $25.
The point of all this is that the farmer is a small portion of the food cost but his increases are used as an excuse to rachet up prices, somewhat unfairly, I feel.
As for the regulations, our biggest problem is with the EPA. Virtually every country gets herbicides 2 or 3 years before they are approved here, giving them a decided advantage. Herbicides often get unfairly bad press. Weed killers in lawns are used at rates several times higher than used by farmers. A quart to an entire acre is the highest rate I'm aware of. Herbicides are often made from natural toxins but produced synthetically. Look under a pine tree and you'll see the grass is all dead, that's because the needles have a toxin for grass. When was the last time you heard someone say that pine forests are bad for the ground water?
I feel like that you asked for the time and I built you a watch, but you asked a question that had a somewhat complex answer and I hope that I shed some light on the issue.
_________________
John Kerry. A Neville Chamberlain for our times. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PhantomSgt
Vice Admiral
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 972
Location: GUAM, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2004 8:13 am Post subject: To Get Us back on Topic |
|
|
From World Net Daily Page One
THE NEW WORLD DISORDER
U.N. proposes Security Council shake-up
'Wise men' challenge U.S. right to take 'preventive' military action
--London Telegraph
Ahhhhhh trouble in the paradise of world leadership:
The authors say that the Security Council needs to become more representative of the modern world to ensure its "effectiveness and credibility". Every attempt to reform it over the decades has ended in failure, and the authors themselves were split on how it should be expanded.
They set out two different models to enlarge the council from its current 15 members to a maximum of 24.
The problem is that reforming the council would require a two-thirds majority in the General Assembly to amend the charter, which would be difficult to secure because of opposition from countries that feel left out.
Already, Italy is resisting Germany's bid for a permanent seat on the council, Pakistan objects to India becoming a permanent member, Mexico and Argentina object of Brazil's ambitions, while China is suspicious of Japan's possible entry.
Can't we just learn to get along?
Coleman: Kofi Annan should resign
Senator probing oil-for-food scandal urges U.N. chief to quit
--Associated Press
Congress eyes U.N. fund cut
Unless major reforms begun in wake of Iraq oil-for-food scandal
--New York Post
THE NEW YORK SUN ONLINE
Cuts To U.N. Funding Are Weighed by Senate In Sanctions Scandal
BY ELI LAKE
WASHINGTON - A group of Republican senators assigned by the leadership to investigate the oil-for-food scandal is planning a multi-pronged assault on the...
U.N. Would Be Fine Site For Housing
BY JULIE SATOW
The property of the United Nations is among the most valuable real estate in Manhattan and could prove to be a gold mine of residential development on the East...
It looks like the media is catching on finally to what we have been discussing in this forum.
 
_________________
Retired AF E-8
Independent that leans right of center. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ulfie56
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 13
Location: S. Central Pa.
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2004 9:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
In addition to "helping" the UN to relocate I think we should also call in loans made to most of the "friends" of the US and cease the majority of forign aid that goes on. Absolutly no money in the future, maybe medical supplies, food ect. but no more funding. I also think that the US should rethink how many, if any, students are permitted into the US on student visas and from where. I know that the student thing might strike some as being extream but think about how many of these idiots are educated here. Then when all else is done employ cluster bombs where and when nessasary. 
_________________
Thank you Vets |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PhantomSgt
Vice Admiral
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 972
Location: GUAM, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2004 10:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ulfie56 wrote: | | In addition to "helping" the UN to relocate I think we should also call in loans made to most of the "friends" of the US and cease the majority of forign aid that goes on. Absolutly no money in the future, maybe medical supplies, food ect. but no more funding. I also think that the US should rethink how many, if any, students are permitted into the US on student visas and from where. I know that the student thing might strike some as being extream but think about how many of these idiots are educated here. Then when all else is done employ cluster bombs where and when nessasary. |
Some good points, yet there are some drawbacks to this proposal. Much of the world depends on us for a leg up when they need it. We finance most of the UN programs and costs, the World Bank which grants loans to countries to keep their economies stable, and our Foreign Military Sales (Gift) program that gives developing countries a way to defend themselves. These all provide stability in an otherwise unstable world.
Student visas are another issue you might want to reconsider. A foreign student pays roughly double for tuition as a resident student. This keeps the costs down for our children to attend college and allows us to send graduates back to their country with a better understanding of America..
_________________
Retired AF E-8
Independent that leans right of center. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
msindependent
Vice Admiral
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 891
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2004 11:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | also think that the US should rethink how many, if any, students are permitted into the US on student visas and from where. I know that the student thing might strike some as being extream but think about how many of these idiots are educated here |
Oh, like Dr. Death? I think it's a great idea. (On a lighter side, it would free up the computer's at university libraries. Sorry, but the middle eastern students do seem to hog them). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
highwayman
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 27 Sep 2004
Posts: 43
Location: oregon
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
from what i have seen is that the un's only function is to allow a voice to countries that would not be heard otherwise...
as far as what to do with it i say start charging rent, for the simple reason that the un building is taking up valuable real estate and has no valuable function other then draining resourses... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PhantomSgt
Vice Admiral
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 972
Location: GUAM, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2004 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| highwayman wrote: | from what i have seen is that the un's only function is to allow a voice to countries that would not be heard otherwise...
as far as what to do with it i say start charging rent, for the simple reason that the un building is taking up valuable real estate and has no valuable function other then draining resourses... |
John D. Rockefeller, Jr., donated 8.5 million dollars to the UN for the "PURCHASE" of the land the UN stands on in NYC. You can't charge rent to a land owner highwayman. 
_________________
Retired AF E-8
Independent that leans right of center. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scotty61
LCDR
Joined: 07 May 2004
Posts: 419
Location: Glyndon MN
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2004 7:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| PhantomSgt wrote: |
John D. Rockefeller, Jr., donated 8.5 million dollars to the UN for the "PURCHASE" of the land the UN stands on in NYC. You can't charge rent to a land owner highwayman. |
Look into the current use of imminent domain law PhantomSgt. Local governments have been taking private land and giving it to others if they will pay higher taxes on it. I believe the SCOTUS is looking at a NJ case involving this.
Also it would be interesting to look at the property tax situation of the UN. We all know they don't pay traffic citations. Wouldn't be neat if we could buy it back for unpaid taxes. That would make old Kofi pass a stone. 
_________________
John Kerry. A Neville Chamberlain for our times. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PhantomSgt
Vice Admiral
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 972
Location: GUAM, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| scotty61 wrote: | | PhantomSgt wrote: |
John D. Rockefeller, Jr., donated 8.5 million dollars to the UN for the "PURCHASE" of the land the UN stands on in NYC. You can't charge rent to a land owner highwayman. |
Look into the current use of imminent domain law PhantomSgt. Local governments have been taking private land and giving it to others if they will pay higher taxes on it. I believe the SCOTUS is looking at a NJ case involving this.
Also it would be interesting to look at the property tax situation of the UN. We all know they don't pay traffic citations. Wouldn't be neat if we could buy it back for unpaid taxes. That would make old Kofi pass a stone. |
The UN is considered diplomatic property and the members have diplomatic status and immunity (thus the unpaid NYC parking fines and NO taxes are collected or due). When the Congress ratified the UN Charter shortly after the UN was established, they signed us up for a lifetime of abuse from piss ant member countries.
Seizing private property by local governments is usually used as a last resort after substantial sums of money are offered for the property. The government must prove beyond a doubt that this is a necessary action for the public good as a whole. The Supreme Court over the years has set high benchmarks for using the right of Immanent Domain by Federal, State and Local Governments and has sided many times with the Constitutional rights of property owners over these agencies. If this is happening as you describe the situation Scotty, they are abusing the law and should be called on to comply by the courts. Did this have anything to do with building a Super Walmart?
_________________
Retired AF E-8
Independent that leans right of center. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dcornutt
PO3
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 267
Location: Brooklyn, NY
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It is not just unpaid traffic citations. Even crimes committed by their familiy members, or themselves, they have immunity from. There are quite a few cases in NYC where some diplomat or their sons, hit somebody with their car, or flee the scene of an accident, sometimes invovling fatalities...etc. Nobody can go after them. And in a state with no-fault insurance...it means the families themselves end up bearing the brunt of it.
It's one thing to have a local developer who has paid of local officials try to buy you out. It's another when the US gov decides they are building a new highway, etc. You pretty much don't have a choice. And they set the price you get. Or sometimes, offer to relocate you. That's a lot harder to fight, if you are the last few standing in the way.
I would think, that the location for the UN could technically be anywhere on US soverign land. Perhaps, a relocation...to the site of our embassy in Iraq? That's considered just as soverign under law as the US homeland itself. Put the UN there, and tell them...this is your new home.
Then we'll see if they can get anything done. Good morning sir, here's your body armor and kevlar...today we are discussing security in Iraq. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tony54
PO2
Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Posts: 369
Location: cleveland, ohio
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2004 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think the UN should be relocated in Bengla-Desh,
The US can buy a few acres of land and buid them a building.
And after that the US drop out and cut off all US funding.
There they can do humanitarian services like feed the hungry, and supply them medicine. Thats all they were ever good for, and even then they skimmed off the top.
Plus they would fit right in with their own kind of people and Kofi would feel right at home. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scotty61
LCDR
Joined: 07 May 2004
Posts: 419
Location: Glyndon MN
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2004 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
PhantomSgt, my post was written in jest but I urge you to look into the imminent domain situation going on in this country. The case in NJ I refered to is a local government deciding the "greater public good" is served by removing home owners from their homes in order to turn the land over to a developer who will create a project that will eventually yield higher property taxes than before. The property in question is near a waterfront and has become desirable and increased in value. The city is using imminent domain to deprive the home owners of the increase in value and to fatten it's coffers.
Imminent domain used to only be used to free land for infrastructure purposes, ie roads, sewers, utlities, ect. It was then used to facilitate urban renewal and now has morphed into whatever the local govt. wants is now deemed "greater public good". For example, I have a 12 acre yard that borders a river. It is worth about $140,000. If a developer comes and want to buy my yard so he can subdivide it into six 2 acre lots, under imminent domain as it is now practiced I have two choices, subdivide it myself or be forced to sell it to the developer so the county can recieve the increased tax revenue. If I do not have the money to subdivide, the developer can offer me a price below it's worth knowing the govt. will force me to sell. The fact is, my right to have 12 acres of riverfront, for my purposes, is trumped by the county wanting more tax money. Imminent domain was never intended to be used in this way.
_________________
John Kerry. A Neville Chamberlain for our times. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
