Hucks Army - Faith. Family. Freedom. [Grassroots] JOIN HUCKS ARMY | GET INVOLVED | FUNDRAISING | LINKS | LEADERSHIP | ABOUT
It is currently Tue Mar 31, 2020 3:25 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2011 6:44 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:03 am
Posts: 4844
Likes: 1174
Liked: 782
As we are contemplating whether Gov. Mike Huckabee will get into the race for President sooner or later, or perhaps not at all, I think it behooves us to think about what the people of America want from a candidate and from government.

So here are some questions:
1) From speaking to friends and family, do you think they want more or less government?

2) What worries them? (For example, are they worried that government is getting too intrusive and powerful?)

3) What is the level of discontent or concern with their taxation; with government spending?

4) Are they fearful for their financial future, their children's and grandchildren's debt burden from the government?

5) What services do they expect from government? What issues are important for them, what rights do they fear will be taken, etc.?


You are welcome to comment on your personal concerns or wants from government, too.

Huckabee writes:
Quote:
I spend a lot of time talking to voters--from all over the country and both sides of the fence--and I've found that people actually want much less from their government than politicians think. They want the trash piked up on time, smooth roads and safe streets, good schools, a fire truck to show up promptly when needed, and secure borders to keep bad people from getting in and disturbing our peace. The want veterans to be cared for, sick people, children, and old people to be treated decently, and laws to be enforced. That's about it. They don't need a "supernanny" telling them what to wear, what to eat, and how many hours of sleep to get each night. They don't want to work hard and then get penalized for their productivity so that government can reward the slackers and the failures. Americans simply don't buy the "everyone gets a trophy" socialist nonsense that has become all too pervasive in our culture of political correctness. (pg. 206-207, A Simple Government)

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2011 8:06 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:03 am
Posts: 4844
Likes: 1174
Liked: 782
I will start. We want governments to let us keep our property, and not take it or keep taxing it over and over.

Something that worries my husband and me is how greatly expanded the government's right of eminent domain has become. We are losing the idea that "a man's home is his castle." Or that private property is really privately owned. If the government (local, state, or federal) decides that an industrial park (for example) needs to come in where your home is, no matter how much money and time you have put into your place, or how long your family owned it, they can take it. They give less than market value. We are experiencing that on some land.

Also, we are in deep sympathy with the farmers near Cairo, Illinois. The judge there decided that the possible flooding of some 2,000 homes in town makes it fine to destroy the properties of the farmers below the dike, by blowing it up. Cost to the city? I do not know, but if there are 2,000 homes at $100,000 each, that would be protecting $200 million. Of course there are businesses, schools, and other buildings.

Cost to the farmers? Prime bottom land is around $6,000 per acre, and 130,000 acres will probably be destroyed. That is $780 million for the land, plus 100 farmsteads (buildings), probably worth an average of $750,000 each: $75 million. Then, if they did not get all the grain out of the bins: One bin like you see on television can hold 10-15 thousand bushels, and at $6-10/ bushel that could mean $60 thousand to over $100 thousand dollars per bin. Many farms have several. We hope they had time to get semis in and remove all their grain, livestock, and equipment. An average farm has equipment well over a $1 million, so there is another $100 million. Losses could be well over a billion.

So let's hope the Army Corps of Engineers knows what they were doing, and that the government will not forget to reimburse these farmers for the losses they incur. If it is like the flood of the Mississippi about 15 years ago, where the farmers lost their land, the mighty river dug holes 40 feet deep and the land was never again farmable. Now, it's a mess, with trees growing up and big stumps everywhere.

Of course, we're farmers so we see their great sorrow over this loss. We are praying that the losses will not be as great as they seem to be. It is always so hard for a farmer, with his deep connection with the land, to relocate or start over. Imagine having four days to know your life will change so drastically because a dike is blown up and the court rules against you. But it is better than loss of life.

America is experiencing so many trials now with the weather, but so is much of the world. Pray.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2011 10:11 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 1:48 am
Posts: 970
Likes: 8
Liked: 19
justgrace wrote:
I will start. We want governments to let us keep our property, and not take it or keep taxing it over and over.

Something that worries my husband and me is how greatly expanded the government's right of imminent domain has become. We are losing the idea that "a man's home is his castle." Or that private property is really privately owned. If the government (local, state, or federal) decides that an industrial park (for example) needs to come in where your home is, no matter how much money and time you have put into your place, or how long your family owned it, they can take it. They give less than market value. We are experiencing that on some land.

Also, we are in deep sympathy with the farmers near Cairo, Illinois. The judge there decided that the possible flooding of some 2,000 homes in town makes it fine to destroy the properties of the farmers below the dike, by blowing it up. Cost to the city? I do not know, but if there are 2,000 homes at $100,000 each, that would be protecting $200 million. Of course there are businesses, schools, and other buildings.

Cost to the farmers? Prime bottom land is around $6,000 per acre, and 130,000 acres will probably be destroyed. That is $780 million for the land, plus 100 farmsteads (buildings), probably worth an average of $750,000 each: $75 million. Then, if they did not get all the grain out of the bins: One bin like you see on television can hold 10-15 thousand bushels, and at $6-10/ bushel that could mean $60 thousand to over $100 thousand dollars per bin. Many farms have several. We hope they had time to get semis in and remove all their grain, livestock, and equipment. An average farm has equipment well over a $1 million, so there is another $100 million. Losses could be well over a billion.

So let's hope the Army Corps of Engineers knows what they were doing, and that the government will not forget to reimburse these farmers for the losses they incur. If it is like the flood of the Mississippi about 15 years ago, where the farmers lost their land, the mighty river dug holes 40 feet deep and the land was never again farmable. Now, it's a mess, with trees growing up and big stumps everywhere.

Of course, we're farmers so we see their great sorrow over this loss. We are praying that the losses will not be as great as they seem to be. It is always so hard for a farmer, with his deep connection with the land, to relocate or start over. Imagine having four days to know your life will change so drastically because a dike is blown up and the court rules against you. But it is better than loss of life.

America is experiencing so many trials now with the weather, but so is much of the world. Pray.


This is the true "sleeper" issue.
Some ads run showing some of the cases of eminent domain abuse will incense any red blooded American. I always fantasized about having a reality show called "Eminent Domain", where each show features some of the more egregious examples of this assault on our property rights. Also abuses through Federal land grabs as well municipalities being enticed into the U.N.'s Agenda 21.
I say this could be a hit show which would also serve to educate folks on an issue many are never aware of till it hits them personally.
Maybe Mike would want to do a short segment on such abuses on some of his shows. TPTB (the powers that be) won't be too happy, but Mike being identified with ending this abuse can only help his run.
I'll bet eminent domain seizures were kept to a minimum during his time as AR Governor.

_________________
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." ~ Ronald Reagan


You say "Conspiracy Theorist"?? Call me Agenda Analyst.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2011 10:47 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 1:48 am
Posts: 970
Likes: 8
Liked: 19
justgrace wrote:
I will start. We want governments to let us keep our property, and not take it or keep taxing it over and over.

Something that worries my husband and me is how greatly expanded the government's right of imminent domain has become. We are losing the idea that "a man's home is his castle." Or that private property is really privately owned. If the government (local, state, or federal) decides that an industrial park (for example) needs to come in where your home is, no matter how much money and time you have put into your place, or how long your family owned it, they can take it. They give less than market value. We are experiencing that on some land.

Also, we are in deep sympathy with the farmers near Cairo, Illinois. The judge there decided that the possible flooding of some 2,000 homes in town makes it fine to destroy the properties of the farmers below the dike, by blowing it up. Cost to the city? I do not know, but if there are 2,000 homes at $100,000 each, that would be protecting $200 million. Of course there are businesses, schools, and other buildings.

Cost to the farmers? Prime bottom land is around $6,000 per acre, and 130,000 acres will probably be destroyed. That is $780 million for the land, plus 100 farmsteads (buildings), probably worth an average of $750,000 each: $75 million. Then, if they did not get all the grain out of the bins: One bin like you see on television can hold 10-15 thousand bushels, and at $6-10/ bushel that could mean $60 thousand to over $100 thousand dollars per bin. Many farms have several. We hope they had time to get semis in and remove all their grain, livestock, and equipment. An average farm has equipment well over a $1 million, so there is another $100 million. Losses could be well over a billion.

So let's hope the Army Corps of Engineers knows what they were doing, and that the government will not forget to reimburse these farmers for the losses they incur. If it is like the flood of the Mississippi about 15 years ago, where the farmers lost their land, the mighty river dug holes 40 feet deep and the land was never again farmable. Now, it's a mess, with trees growing up and big stumps everywhere.

Of course, we're farmers so we see their great sorrow over this loss. We are praying that the losses will not be as great as they seem to be. It is always so hard for a farmer, with his deep connection with the land, to relocate or start over. Imagine having four days to know your life will change so drastically because a dike is blown up and the court rules against you. But it is better than loss of life.

America is experiencing so many trials now with the weather, but so is much of the world. Pray.

Just to let you know, My wife and I buy from as many local farmers as we can.
Mainly meats, raw milk and eggs this time of year. More things in the summer.
The family farms are a lifeline, crucial to the overall security and well-being of the country. Did you eat today? Thank a farmer. (and of course, God)

_________________
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." ~ Ronald Reagan


You say "Conspiracy Theorist"?? Call me Agenda Analyst.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2011 11:23 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 1:48 am
Posts: 970
Likes: 8
Liked: 19
When I was involved with the RP meetups, we many times got involved standing in protest, with property owners being victimized by eminent domain abuses, as well as with farmers being falsely accused and harassed in our government's never ending war against raw milk. You would think it was a drug or something. How much of our tax money is spent abusing Americans?
This was the better side of Ron's supporters as opposed to the childish ones who were so rude to supporters of other candidates in the past.

_________________
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." ~ Ronald Reagan


You say "Conspiracy Theorist"?? Call me Agenda Analyst.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2011 11:51 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:47 pm
Posts: 4564
Location: Texas
Likes: 554
Liked: 523
This is a good point, and one that lands at the feet of the GOP all too frequently as the leadership has sold its soul to corporate America.

These issues would be good for GH to further separate himself from the corporatists & stand up for small business in the form of the family farm.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2011 11:57 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 1:48 am
Posts: 970
Likes: 8
Liked: 19
QuoVadisAnima wrote:
This is a good point, and one that lands at the feet of the GOP all too frequently as the leadership has sold its soul to corporate America.

These issues would be good for GH to further separate himself from the corporatists & stand up for small business in the form of the family farm.


Not to mention it being a good common ground issue for the (small-l) libertarians and maybe even some Ron Paul Republicans who would like an electable candidate to support.

_________________
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." ~ Ronald Reagan


You say "Conspiracy Theorist"?? Call me Agenda Analyst.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2011 1:53 am 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 11:30 pm
Posts: 1586
Likes: 9
Liked: 72
Quote:
Also, we are in deep sympathy with the farmers near Cairo, Illinois. The judge there decided that the possible flooding of some 2,000 homes in town makes it fine to destroy the properties of the farmers below the dike, by blowing it up.

Does anyone know who actually "owns" the levy system? The way I understand they are under the Federal Government's Jurisdiction since it is a navigatible waterway.

If so the farmers are out of luck and can only hope for crop insurance preventive planting payments and other government assistance.

It is a complicated situation and I do not envy the judge that made the decision. It would be be a tough call.

_________________
I have my tin foil hat on, wearing it proudly, and will take it off on Inauguration Day 2017. Image

"If there was hope, it must lie in the proles..." George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2011 2:12 am 
Offline
Lieutenant General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 1:48 am
Posts: 970
Likes: 8
Liked: 19
Sadly, if these were foreign banks and not farms "Helicopter" Ben Bernake would have the FED baiing them out before you can say "crash on the levy".

_________________
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." ~ Ronald Reagan


You say "Conspiracy Theorist"?? Call me Agenda Analyst.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2011 6:18 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:03 am
Posts: 4844
Likes: 1174
Liked: 782
melopa wrote:
Just to let you know, My wife and I buy from as many local farmers as we can.
Mainly meats, raw milk and eggs this time of year. More things in the summer.
The family farms are a lifeline, crucial to the overall security and well-being of the country. Did you eat today? Thank a farmer. (and of course, God)


If I had not posted this thread, I would be able to "like" your comments, melopa. So I am saying, I really like and appreciate this comment.

Of course, the American Indians were the original owners of this land, or at least they roamed it as common land. But as America grew, farmers became the land owners of the majority of America's fertile land, outside of cities and towns, deserts, etc. Now, less than 1% of our population is engaged in farming. No doubt farmers still own the majority of this land, usually passed down from generation to generation. I have heard that with the federal and state parks, and the road systems (which cover a million additional acres a year with pavement) that government-owned land keeps taking a larger and larger percentage (I should check that out, how much).

Another thing that grieves my husband as a farmer is to see some of the richest land being taken in Illinois, especially around DeKalb County. There is no richer, deeper soil. It is renowned for DeKalb seeds. Yet, urban sprawl from Chicago is reaching further into the fertile farmlands. We know progress demands some of this, but we wish they would take the non-fertile ground. Someday we may regret that cities cover our best land, while the rocky and arid land is left to farm. Yet, when I look at America, we have been blessed more than we deserve. I just do not want to lose the "fertile plains" or the family farm. They are part of the freedom of this land, as Governor Huckabee told my husband--"You are the salt of the earth."

And yes, I would not want to be the judge to decide to ruin 100 beautiful farms. Maybe the water won't be as high as we think. My husband says that the fact that they broke the levy over a two mile stretch helped keep the water from rushing quite so badly.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2011 6:50 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:03 am
Posts: 4844
Likes: 1174
Liked: 782
What else? Maybe there are other issues that people care about?

I think the eminent domain issue (and yes, melopa, you are right on the spelling and I was wrong :wink: ) is one akin to the tax issue. Governor Huckabee says that people who earn their money should be able to keep it, and productivity is hurt when it is taxed. That is why he promotes the Fair Tax.

To learn more about eminent domain, you might go to http://www.legal-dicitionary.thefreedictionary.com/Imminent+Domain
and learn how it became part of our Constitution through the Fifth Amendment, and later the PROCESS CLAUSE was added in the Fourteenth Amendment, requiring the government to give just compensation.

Huck's Army is an educational service!!!

So, here are the differences, so we don't make the mistake again. (So I don't!)

immanent = "remaining or operating within a domain of reality or real of discourse: INHERENT."

imminent = "ready to take place, hanging threateningly over one's head."

eminent = "standing out so as to appear conspicuous;... exhibiting eminence, esp. as standing above others in some quality or position."

eminent domain = a right of government to take private property for public use by virtue of the superior dominion of the sovereign power over all lands within its jurisdiction."

Doesn't it bug you how right our teachers were? Yes, Billy or Gracie, you do need to look things up in a dictionary sometimes.

So, immanent within the government's rights, many believe is the eminent power of the government to eminent domain; that is, until the taking of one's own land is imminent.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2011 11:57 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:03 am
Posts: 4844
Likes: 1174
Liked: 782
For the weekend visitors here, I thought I would bring up the subject again, of what you are hearing from people about our government.

Gov. Huckabee in his latest book says we need A Simple Government (the name the book). How well do you think the message of a smaller, simpler government resonates? Here was the first question on the thread:

Quote:
1) From speaking to friends and family, do you think they want more or less government?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2011 4:04 pm 
Offline
Major General

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 4:01 pm
Posts: 736
Location: Lakewood, CO
Likes: 118
Liked: 147
QuoVadisAnima wrote:
This is a good point, and one that lands at the feet of the GOP all too frequently as the leadership has sold its soul to corporate America.

These issues would be good for GH to further separate himself from the corporatists & stand up for small business in the form of the family farm.

Very true! Both the right and left are addicted to subsidies that buy them votes but do little to reward business success. Farm subsidies are sacrosanct among Senators and congressmen from both sides of the aisle that represent major farm states like Iowa. Those same subsidies are actually destroying the small family farm, not protecting it. The majority of farm subsidies go to large factory farms and corporate interests adding one more unfair competitive advantage to their arsenal and further driving the small family farm into the ground. GH has spoken about gov't picking winners and losers instead of just being the referee. It's time for the gov't to step out of the way and let all of our food producers play by the same rules. A perfect example of gov't getting in the way is the organic rules. We have a number of smaller farms here in CO that actually use organic methods but aren't certified organic. The certification process is too expensive so they can't use the organic label. They then have to compete with so called organic foods that were shipped from a large, corporate run, farming operation that had the money to certify. People who don't know any better might buy the organic item grown in CA or even Mexico and bypass the fresher, probably healthier, local item that isn't grown with pesticides but isn't certified. Those kinds of scenarios are repeated multiple times throughout the country every day in every industry. A web of expensive government regulations, subsidies and policies that don't just play referee but choose the winner of the game. I have nothing against the existence of corporations. They offer a business model that makes goods more efficiently so that they are more affordable. I just want everyone to play by the same rules. Fair and square.

_________________
Judith Martinez
"It is true poverty for a child to die so that we may live as we wish."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 08, 2011 11:18 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:03 am
Posts: 4844
Likes: 1174
Liked: 782
juditupp wrote:
QuoVadisAnima wrote:
This is a good point, and one that lands at the feet of the GOP all too frequently as the leadership has sold its soul to corporate America.

These issues would be good for GH to further separate himself from the corporatists & stand up for small business in the form of the family farm.

Very true! Both the right and left are addicted to subsidies that buy them votes but do little to reward business success. Farm subsidies are sacrosanct among Senators and congressmen from both sides of the aisle that represent major farm states like Iowa. Those same subsidies are actually destroying the small family farm, not protecting it. The majority of farm subsidies go to large factory farms and corporate interests adding one more unfair competitive advantage to their arsenal and further driving the small family farm into the ground. GH has spoken about gov't picking winners and losers instead of just being the referee. It's time for the gov't to step out of the way and let all of our food producers play by the same rules. A perfect example of gov't getting in the way is the organic rules. We have a number of smaller farms here in CO that actually use organic methods but aren't certified organic. The certification process is too expensive so they can't use the organic label. They then have to compete with so called organic foods that were shipped from a large, corporate run, farming operation that had the money to certify. People who don't know any better might buy the organic item grown in CA or even Mexico and bypass the fresher, probably healthier, local item that isn't grown with pesticides but isn't certified. Those kinds of scenarios are repeated multiple times throughout the country every day in every industry. A web of expensive government regulations, subsidies and policies that don't just play referee but choose the winner of the game. I have nothing against the existence of corporations. They offer a business model that makes goods more efficiently so that they are more affordable. I just want everyone to play by the same rules. Fair and square.


As farmers, we unfortunately would not be able to farm without subsidies under the present policies. A few years ago my husband and I were involved in trying to bring about Freedom to Farm, whereby some of the regulations against farming, etc. could be removed and so we would not need subsidies. As with anything where the government is involved, once a program starts it becomes almost impossible to stop.

We realize there is a tremendous need for young farmers to have incentives to get into the business. It is so extremely expensive to own land--$1,500 per acre in Oklahoma to $8,000 in Iowa or Illinois--and picture a full-time self-supporting farm being over a thousand acres for the less expensive land, and probably 500 acres for the highest priced land. Then the equipment runs into the millions. The days of small farms with a few cows, sheep, chickens, etc. are long gone, except for the hobbyist. Unfortunately (or fortunately for the consumer), America has officially adopted a "cheap food" policy that relies upon subsidy to keep at least some farmers in business and to keep grocery prices down. (Now, it is high-priced oil that is skyrocketing grocery prices.)

Some years farmers prosper with high prices for their crops and/or subsidies; but those years are often balanced by years when they "go broke," often literally. Then more farmers are forced out, and farms around them get bigger. The average age of a farmer is now over 60 years.

I know Gov. Huckabee, being from a rural area, understands many of these problems. I think he would have a better handle on the problems than most potential candidates. Farmers are only about 1% of the population, so it is hard for our voice to be heard and understood.

My husband thinks there could be some limits on subsidy payments when the prices and production are good. When farmers prosper, the communities nearby prosper from their increased business. The farm machinery manufacturing plants, as well as local dealerships have jobs when the farmer makes a profit. That is so important also for the survival of small towns in rural America. However, weather and prices, including inputs like fuel and fertilizer, make farming a highly volatile business. The basic problem is that other countries highly subsidize their farmers. They also slap tariffs on our farm commodities to protect their farmers. Thus, the American farmer is caught in the middle of this reality.

Farmers in America will probably need some sort of safety net in order for the people of America to continue having cheaper food. That is not to say that no reform is needed. Yet, farm subsidies are a small fraction of less than 10% of the United States Department of Agriculture budget. The National Parks take as much or more. But food stamps and school lunch programs take the bulk of the USDA budget. If we want the USDA budget to come down in size we will need to cut these social programs. Churches need to take up the slack, as they traditionally have. The government is far less efficient, as well as far less compassionate, than churches and other non-government organizations. The government creates dependency with its aide to the poor, whereas the church or other assistance organizations can train and encourage the poor to improve their lives and find job-training.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 09, 2011 4:27 pm 
Offline
Major General

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 4:01 pm
Posts: 736
Location: Lakewood, CO
Likes: 118
Liked: 147
justgrace wrote:
juditupp wrote:
QuoVadisAnima wrote:
This is a good point, and one that lands at the feet of the GOP all too frequently as the leadership has sold its soul to corporate America.

These issues would be good for GH to further separate himself from the corporatists & stand up for small business in the form of the family farm.

Very true! Both the right and left are addicted to subsidies that buy them votes but do little to reward business success. Farm subsidies are sacrosanct among Senators and congressmen from both sides of the aisle that represent major farm states like Iowa. Those same subsidies are actually destroying the small family farm, not protecting it. The majority of farm subsidies go to large factory farms and corporate interests adding one more unfair competitive advantage to their arsenal and further driving the small family farm into the ground. GH has spoken about gov't picking winners and losers instead of just being the referee. It's time for the gov't to step out of the way and let all of our food producers play by the same rules. A perfect example of gov't getting in the way is the organic rules. We have a number of smaller farms here in CO that actually use organic methods but aren't certified organic. The certification process is too expensive so they can't use the organic label. They then have to compete with so called organic foods that were shipped from a large, corporate run, farming operation that had the money to certify. People who don't know any better might buy the organic item grown in CA or even Mexico and bypass the fresher, probably healthier, local item that isn't grown with pesticides but isn't certified. Those kinds of scenarios are repeated multiple times throughout the country every day in every industry. A web of expensive government regulations, subsidies and policies that don't just play referee but choose the winner of the game. I have nothing against the existence of corporations. They offer a business model that makes goods more efficiently so that they are more affordable. I just want everyone to play by the same rules. Fair and square.


As farmers, we unfortunately would not be able to farm without subsidies under the present policies. A few years ago my husband and I were involved in trying to bring about Freedom to Farm, whereby some of the regulations against farming, etc. could be removed and so we would not need subsidies. As with anything where the government is involved, once a program starts it becomes almost impossible to stop.

We realize there is a tremendous need for young farmers to have incentives to get into the business. It is so extremely expensive to own land--$1,500 per acre in Oklahoma to $8,000 in Iowa or Illinois--and picture a full-time self-supporting farm being over a thousand acres for the less expensive land, and probably 500 acres for the highest priced land. Then the equipment runs into the millions. The days of small farms with a few cows, sheep, chickens, etc. are long gone, except for the hobbyist. Unfortunately (or fortunately for the consumer), America has officially adopted a "cheap food" policy that relies upon subsidy to keep at least some farmers in business and to keep grocery prices down. (Now, it is high-priced oil that is skyrocketing grocery prices.)

Some years farmers prosper with high prices for their crops and/or subsidies; but those years are often balanced by years when they "go broke," often literally. Then more farmers are forced out, and farms around them get bigger. The average age of a farmer is now over 60 years.

I know Gov. Huckabee, being from a rural area, understands many of these problems. I think he would have a better handle on the problems than most potential candidates. Farmers are only about 1% of the population, so it is hard for our voice to be heard and understood.

My husband thinks there could be some limits on subsidy payments when the prices and production are good. When farmers prosper, the communities nearby prosper from their increased business. The farm machinery manufacturing plants, as well as local dealerships have jobs when the farmer makes a profit. That is so important also for the survival of small towns in rural America. However, weather and prices, including inputs like fuel and fertilizer, make farming a highly volatile business. The basic problem is that other countries highly subsidize their farmers. They also slap tariffs on our farm commodities to protect their farmers. Thus, the American farmer is caught in the middle of this reality.

Farmers in America will probably need some sort of safety net in order for the people of America to continue having cheaper food. That is not to say that no reform is needed. Yet, farm subsidies are a small fraction of less than 10% of the United States Department of Agriculture budget. The National Parks take as much or more. But food stamps and school lunch programs take the bulk of the USDA budget. If we want the USDA budget to come down in size we will need to cut these social programs. Churches need to take up the slack, as they traditionally have. The government is far less efficient, as well as far less compassionate, than churches and other non-government organizations. The government creates dependency with its aide to the poor, whereas the church or other assistance organizations can train and encourage the poor to improve their lives and find job-training.

I see where you're coming from and I can understand you taking the subsidies you qualify for. I'm the last person to criticize someone for that. My family receives food stamps but I would support a politician who voted to cut or even eliminate the program. I happen to think that gov't programs damage the free market and make it harder for people to survive without the subsidies. It's a vicious cycle. I really believe that over all the existence of the subsidies hurt small, family farms more then they help. Your experience notwithstanding, the majority of the subsidies go to corporate farms not the family farms. John Stossel did a really good program on the farm subsidy program and showed multiple cases where farm subsidies drove family farms out of a community. My concern over the subsidy system isn't about how much of the budget they take up but the overall effect they have on the farm economy.

_________________
Judith Martinez
"It is true poverty for a child to die so that we may live as we wish."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 09, 2011 5:50 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 1:48 am
Posts: 970
Likes: 8
Liked: 19
I never knew a small family farmer who did not have a reverence for the land.
Whether it be big vs small business; or big vs small farmers, regulations mostly end up giving big business as well as big agriculture the advantage over the little guy.
Eliminating subsidies alone, would only address part of the problem, and in the current environment, would hurt the smaller farms.

_________________
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." ~ Ronald Reagan


You say "Conspiracy Theorist"?? Call me Agenda Analyst.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 09, 2011 9:56 pm 
Offline
Major General

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 4:01 pm
Posts: 736
Location: Lakewood, CO
Likes: 118
Liked: 147
melopa wrote:
I never knew a small family farmer who did not have a reverence for the land.
Whether it be big vs small business; or big vs small farmers, regulations mostly end up giving big business as well as big agriculture the advantage over the little guy.
Eliminating subsidies alone, would only address part of the problem, and in the current environment, would hurt the smaller farms.

That's very true. The example I gave of the organic foods is a perfect example of regulation gone wrong in farming. Way too much government intervention in the economy all over the place and like you said it's the little guy that it hurts the most.

_________________
Judith Martinez
"It is true poverty for a child to die so that we may live as we wish."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 10, 2011 1:40 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:03 am
Posts: 4844
Likes: 1174
Liked: 782
juditupp wrote:
melopa wrote:
I never knew a small family farmer who did not have a reverence for the land.
Whether it be big vs small business; or big vs small farmers, regulations mostly end up giving big business as well as big agriculture the advantage over the little guy.
Eliminating subsidies alone, would only address part of the problem, and in the current environment, would hurt the smaller farms.

That's very true. The example I gave of the organic foods is a perfect example of regulation gone wrong in farming. Way too much government intervention in the economy all over the place and like you said it's the little guy that it hurts the most.



We have fought for the family farm for all our lives. There is no place better to raise children. Our children have struggled alongside us through the years, working to help in good times and bad.

Yet, I know of only a few farm families, large or small, who do not participate in the government programs. I am pretty sure we would not make it if we did not sign up. That is where it is today. To abruptly end the government programs would mean the death knell of many, many farms because of this. Only the very wealthy could survive. Unfortunately, we compete against world markets, and we have to figure out what the board of trade will do if we want to compete.

Of my husband's high school class, where half the boys went into farming, we are the only ones who made a go of it. And it has been very difficult at times, as well as rewarding. We have faced 18% interest on farm loans under Pres. Jimmy Carter, which only by the grace of God and others helping were we able to overcome. We have had drought years and years where the mud was so deep that the cattle suffocated in the lots. It either rains too much or not enough, it seems.

While the farmers along the Mississippi and east are flooding and losing property and crops, those farther west are experiencing one of the worst droughts in decades. Right now, our beautiful wheat fields are drying up in the face of 101 degree, hot dry winds. It's 5-20 degrees hotter than average for early May. We have had only three rains of 0.1 inch each in the last half a year. Folks, Texas, Oklahoma, and the western half of Kansas is drying up and fire danger is high. Twenty-one counties have been declared disasters. And yes, some government relief will be necessary or we will not survive. We have federal crop insurance that we purchased, that will pay part of the costs to cushion the losses. Yesterday, wheat went up $.35 cents per bushel, but so many farmers will have nothing to sell. Yet the inputs are there in costs, just as always.

Long gone are the days when hard work and a small farm would give most of us any kind of living. Yes, rural America would die without the government programs, and only a few very large corporations would farm the land. We do need someone like Gov. Huckabee, who understands how agriculture in these rural states needs to be healthy and competitive in world markets. And yet who would do whatever he could to cut waste and shrink the programs. Just like in other areas of the economy, our federal government is heavily regulative and involved. We will have to make gradual progress in every area, including social security and medicare, etc. to cut costs. What hath America wrought, in her ever-increasingly government controlled economy? It is a mixed bag, when we try to help others out and try to do it through government. But considerable savings could be found by cutting wasteful spending in each department. We must find the waste and fraud and get our house in order.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2011 4:38 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:03 am
Posts: 4844
Likes: 1174
Liked: 782
I would be in favor of eliminating the federal government's role in education. We do not need a Department of Education that tries to dictate what our children learn and which tends to "dumb down" schools. This is a huge, needless expenditure. States and local boards can do it better, cheaper. We need to get control back to the local level, where the people understand the needs of their children. That would be a huge saving, to get rid of the Department of Education. Bringing the control of what our children are taught back to the local level makes great sense.

What do you think about this?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 12, 2011 10:33 pm 
Offline
Major General

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 4:01 pm
Posts: 736
Location: Lakewood, CO
Likes: 118
Liked: 147
justgrace wrote:
I would be in favor of eliminating the federal government's role in education. We do not need a Department of Education that tries to dictate what our children learn and which tends to "dumb down" schools. This is a huge, needless expenditure. States and local boards can do it better, cheaper. We need to get control back to the local level, where the people understand the needs of their children. That would be a huge saving, to get rid of the Department of Education. Bringing the control of what our children are taught back to the local level makes great sense.

What do you think about this?

Wholeheartedly agree. I think this is something that will have to be gradually eliminated though. People are so ignorant that they seem to think that eliminating the Dept. of Ed. means we don't care about education. :roll: Phasing out its existence would be the best approach. I can envision a model where the final phase of the DOE is one that provides research and information to the states on best practices and that type of thing so that states would have good information at their fingertips. Then when private groups are able to provide the same information for a lower cost eliminating the DOE would be a no brainer.

_________________
Judith Martinez
"It is true poverty for a child to die so that we may live as we wish."


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


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 post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
POWERED_BY