The SNAP spending could be quickly reduced by closing the border. 100,000 people per month that come across and receive an EBT card with $2200/family. That is roughly the equivalent of 1 Peoria, IL, every month. And that's if you accept the Biden accounting. Private estimates are 2-3x the Biden figures. This is all wildly inflationary.
I recently listened to some reporting from the border where the reporter quoted border patrol agents that said there are no 2 parent families coming across. They are rational people who quickly realized that if mom comes across with a daughter, and dad comes across separately with a son, then they are now 2 families with 2 EBT cards - voila, double the money. What the US government is doing today by allowing the country to be invaded is highly irrational
And of course, there is a tremendous wage drag caused by increasing the supply of low-skilled labor, which pulls more and more US citizen's financial well-being down to the food assistance level.
President Trump had it right. Close the border, bring back manufacturing and jobs, and let people make their money so they can buy their own food.
We have allowed more than 10MM immigrants into the country since the advent of Joe Biden:
1. Legal immigrants 3.1MM
2. Illegals apprehended and set for some future court date 6.5MM -- on a current run rate to make this more than 3MM/year with records months and days.
3. "Got aways" of 2-3MM
How can we possibly sustain this mass illegal movement? More than 11K illegals in a single day?
The impact on schools, crime, administration, terrorism, and drugs is beyond belief.
This is an impeachable offense -- failing to faithfully discharge the laws of the United States.
Much respect to farmers, but the government has backed them into a corner where you have to play the game by the government's rules.
I live in sugar beet country. Let's just say candy bars could be cheaper and I don't believe any farmers who own beet shares would starve.
Same goes for ethanol and corn farmers. Nobody can prove that ethanol is a net positive for the environment yet it certainly increases food cost and distorts markets.
ethanol is not and never was intended to be biofuel. it was a gasoline oxygenate that was a replacement for the highly carcinogenic oxygenate MTBE. MTBE was banned by California and then the federal EPA.
but following this line of thinking, nobody can prove that electric cars, or wind/solar electricity are a net positive for the environment.
Yes, and don't forget dairy! Definitely extend futures markets to more commodities. But don't forget the dish*t legislators can't figure that out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onion_Futures_Act
Remember when "RINO" Richard Lugar began the process of reducing grain subsidies in the 1996 farm bill? And then that was mostly undone in 2002. Wealthy farmers are some of the largest welfare queens around. Something like 50 of the Forbes 400 richest Americans currently receive farm subsidies.
1) There were earlier programs, similar to subsidies, like the Homestead Act, which provided cheap lands for farmers. Existing farmers had to compete with new entrants paying much less than market price for property. (can also say the same thing about the various land grants for veterans etc)
2) CRP is a pretty decent program. Takes marginal, easily eroded land out of cultivation. Of course, not perfect, but people will plant ditch to ditch if they can. If you are a renter, of course, you want the maximum productivity from every square inch you are paying for. The carrot approach is much better than the stick approach....classifying vast tracts of very productive farmland as wetlands then penalizing people for farming it, is ridiculous.
Point 1 is "whatsboutism". Just because something unfair was done in the past, it's ok now, is bad logic. And are we just supposed to ignore the cost is subsidies to consumers?
Point 2 seems to infer that government programs should drive land use. What if there weren't CRP or wetland restrictions, and the landowner could decide based on their own best interest? It's doesn't have to be either/or.
1 was just a historical note. Not an opinion one way or another. Just a fact that FDR intervening in Ag was a long standing practice before 1933. Easy to get hooked on this sort of thing.
On 2 the farmer's best interest is to farm ditch to ditch and move on when the land is worn out, and stick the next guy with the problems. CRP sort of works to temper that practice, so don't end up like the Native Americans farmers did, wandering from place to place to find productive land, and having land disputes wherever they went.
They suffer from short-termism, like anyone else. Plenty of stories of renters neglecting to fertilize in their last years on a renter contract (Anhydrous lasts for a year or so after you apply it) and leaving ground in terrible condition for the next guy.
Small ownership prevents that, but of course, brings other problems with it, with ditch to ditch farming. The time spent managing this sort of thing becomes prohibitive for individual owners
Regulation could possibly be a good thing here. Not sure it always is, but it is possible.
On #2, you sort of ignore the reality of fertilizers. Today you could farm the cracks in your sidewalk and grow watermelons with current fertilizers.
Private owners of ag dirt, including the biggest corporate farmers, are very good stewards of the land as it is their factory. Not to say they won't poison the adjoining creeks and rivers.
Their knowledge of and attention to dirt chemistry and moisture is technically advanced and only getting better including their ability to harvest, pack, and get product to market in the freshest condition.
We are a very well fed populace when it comes to the farm.
I can get strawberries (granted from Mexico) on Christmas day.
Farmers are amazing. My buddy's brother pushed 3000 acres in Western IL and it was a highly technical operation, along with changing farming practices to be more soil friendly. No till crops is one example
Renters, including corporate renters, aren't always good stewards. They tend to want to stick owners with soil problems, and make as much money as quickly as they can.
Might be a business opportunity to offer a monitoring service for landowners to check soil chemistry and confirm fertilizer application on a continuous basis. It is exhausting to try and control so many moving parts of land use, which is why I tolerate a CRP program, which in my observation, generally goes to marginal land which should not be farmed.
Possible, but my theory (and observation) is that big equipment is very expensive and also very productive. So if you are farming 5,000 acres, you can afford a $500,000 John Deere tracked tractor with self-guidance, vs. someone farming 320 acres using a 1971 IH 1066 that still does the job, but is a pain in the neck to maintain, and not capable of getting you up to 1000 Acres+ necessary to have top of the line equipment.
Trends towards bigger investment capital up front and standardized farming techniques, although, people are still making a profit using old equipment on small farms, if they live by their wits.
The SNAP spending could be quickly reduced by closing the border. 100,000 people per month that come across and receive an EBT card with $2200/family. That is roughly the equivalent of 1 Peoria, IL, every month. And that's if you accept the Biden accounting. Private estimates are 2-3x the Biden figures. This is all wildly inflationary.
I recently listened to some reporting from the border where the reporter quoted border patrol agents that said there are no 2 parent families coming across. They are rational people who quickly realized that if mom comes across with a daughter, and dad comes across separately with a son, then they are now 2 families with 2 EBT cards - voila, double the money. What the US government is doing today by allowing the country to be invaded is highly irrational
And of course, there is a tremendous wage drag caused by increasing the supply of low-skilled labor, which pulls more and more US citizen's financial well-being down to the food assistance level.
President Trump had it right. Close the border, bring back manufacturing and jobs, and let people make their money so they can buy their own food.
I agree more with you than you do with yourself.
We have allowed more than 10MM immigrants into the country since the advent of Joe Biden:
1. Legal immigrants 3.1MM
2. Illegals apprehended and set for some future court date 6.5MM -- on a current run rate to make this more than 3MM/year with records months and days.
3. "Got aways" of 2-3MM
How can we possibly sustain this mass illegal movement? More than 11K illegals in a single day?
The impact on schools, crime, administration, terrorism, and drugs is beyond belief.
This is an impeachable offense -- failing to faithfully discharge the laws of the United States.
JLM
www.themusingsofthebigredcar.com
After the court ruling yesterday in NYC, I don't know how we avoid Civil War.
Much respect to farmers, but the government has backed them into a corner where you have to play the game by the government's rules.
I live in sugar beet country. Let's just say candy bars could be cheaper and I don't believe any farmers who own beet shares would starve.
Same goes for ethanol and corn farmers. Nobody can prove that ethanol is a net positive for the environment yet it certainly increases food cost and distorts markets.
Don't even get me started on food stamps!
ethanol is not and never was intended to be biofuel. it was a gasoline oxygenate that was a replacement for the highly carcinogenic oxygenate MTBE. MTBE was banned by California and then the federal EPA.
but following this line of thinking, nobody can prove that electric cars, or wind/solar electricity are a net positive for the environment.
You need to tell the EIA! They are apparently under the mistaken impression that corn ethanol IS a biofuel.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/biofuels/biofuels-and-the-environment.php
Sweden and Denmark burn old pallets, and don't count the CO2 emissions, because old pallets are green or something. The whole thing is a racket.
Yes, and don't forget dairy! Definitely extend futures markets to more commodities. But don't forget the dish*t legislators can't figure that out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onion_Futures_Act
Remember when "RINO" Richard Lugar began the process of reducing grain subsidies in the 1996 farm bill? And then that was mostly undone in 2002. Wealthy farmers are some of the largest welfare queens around. Something like 50 of the Forbes 400 richest Americans currently receive farm subsidies.
You got that correct
Eastern NC is Smithfield country. They're sending live hog shipments to China out of Wilmington on a colossal scale.
People gotta eat.
Where do I get one of them snap cards
I identify as?
1) There were earlier programs, similar to subsidies, like the Homestead Act, which provided cheap lands for farmers. Existing farmers had to compete with new entrants paying much less than market price for property. (can also say the same thing about the various land grants for veterans etc)
2) CRP is a pretty decent program. Takes marginal, easily eroded land out of cultivation. Of course, not perfect, but people will plant ditch to ditch if they can. If you are a renter, of course, you want the maximum productivity from every square inch you are paying for. The carrot approach is much better than the stick approach....classifying vast tracts of very productive farmland as wetlands then penalizing people for farming it, is ridiculous.
Point 1 is "whatsboutism". Just because something unfair was done in the past, it's ok now, is bad logic. And are we just supposed to ignore the cost is subsidies to consumers?
Point 2 seems to infer that government programs should drive land use. What if there weren't CRP or wetland restrictions, and the landowner could decide based on their own best interest? It's doesn't have to be either/or.
1 was just a historical note. Not an opinion one way or another. Just a fact that FDR intervening in Ag was a long standing practice before 1933. Easy to get hooked on this sort of thing.
On 2 the farmer's best interest is to farm ditch to ditch and move on when the land is worn out, and stick the next guy with the problems. CRP sort of works to temper that practice, so don't end up like the Native Americans farmers did, wandering from place to place to find productive land, and having land disputes wherever they went.
I think private farmers take care of their own ground better than the government.
They suffer from short-termism, like anyone else. Plenty of stories of renters neglecting to fertilize in their last years on a renter contract (Anhydrous lasts for a year or so after you apply it) and leaving ground in terrible condition for the next guy.
Small ownership prevents that, but of course, brings other problems with it, with ditch to ditch farming. The time spent managing this sort of thing becomes prohibitive for individual owners
Regulation could possibly be a good thing here. Not sure it always is, but it is possible.
On #2, you sort of ignore the reality of fertilizers. Today you could farm the cracks in your sidewalk and grow watermelons with current fertilizers.
Private owners of ag dirt, including the biggest corporate farmers, are very good stewards of the land as it is their factory. Not to say they won't poison the adjoining creeks and rivers.
Their knowledge of and attention to dirt chemistry and moisture is technically advanced and only getting better including their ability to harvest, pack, and get product to market in the freshest condition.
We are a very well fed populace when it comes to the farm.
I can get strawberries (granted from Mexico) on Christmas day.
JLM
www.themusingsofthebigredcar.com
Farmers are amazing. My buddy's brother pushed 3000 acres in Western IL and it was a highly technical operation, along with changing farming practices to be more soil friendly. No till crops is one example
Renters, including corporate renters, aren't always good stewards. They tend to want to stick owners with soil problems, and make as much money as quickly as they can.
Might be a business opportunity to offer a monitoring service for landowners to check soil chemistry and confirm fertilizer application on a continuous basis. It is exhausting to try and control so many moving parts of land use, which is why I tolerate a CRP program, which in my observation, generally goes to marginal land which should not be farmed.
Might be less corporatization of the farm with fewer subsidies and price supports.
Possible, but my theory (and observation) is that big equipment is very expensive and also very productive. So if you are farming 5,000 acres, you can afford a $500,000 John Deere tracked tractor with self-guidance, vs. someone farming 320 acres using a 1971 IH 1066 that still does the job, but is a pain in the neck to maintain, and not capable of getting you up to 1000 Acres+ necessary to have top of the line equipment.
Trends towards bigger investment capital up front and standardized farming techniques, although, people are still making a profit using old equipment on small farms, if they live by their wits.