welfare-packed Farm Bill

[inactive]

The whole getting paid not to farm is a myth.

That is what I was going to say. You get subsidies per acre for declaring, then at harvest, no? I feel like the farmers really get a rough deal, coerced by both the government and the seed/chemical companies.



Personally I think the problem is we're subsidizing crops that do not necessarily feed people (unless you count it as livestock feed). If we're going to subsidize production (which I don't necessarily agree with), then at least expand it beyond just grain and soybeans.

 

[1shott]

Bunch of damn bull ****.

 

[inactive]

$392 Million for 2012 Oklahoma Food Stamps Through May

Yep, hard to believe isn't it? One word for this sort of expenditure at the state level (for a state such as OK)...

UNSUSTAINABLE...

1.) Here's what OK has spent on food stamps for 2012 through May (numbers rounded): $392 million

January 2012 = $79 millon
February 2012 = $79 millin
March 2012 = $78 million
April 2012 = $78 million
May 2012 = $78 million
...

I'm not trying to justify the spending here, but isn't saying this is OK's money a bit dishonest? I mean, we budgeted to spend this but don't we receive the majority of this funding from the federal piggy bank, then allocate it out from our budget from there?

I believe OK receives more per capita on these expenditures than we as taxpayers give to the federal government.

 

[twoguns?]

The problem is theres too many people and not enough jobs.
Leave out the big companies shipping jobs over seas,and the "undocumented immigrants".
I see complaints but no real solutions to the problems.
Bring the jobs back,document the "undocumented".
Unemployment at say 8% average, for the people "Wanting to work", where are you gonna find jobs for the 6 million? on the welfare roles.
Hell theyre even harassing the "entrapenuers" that make 60k working 12 hour shifts in the extreme weather, on the street corners.

 

[tntrex]

The whole getting paid not to farm is a myth. I can only think of one farmer with idle farmland around here. The closest thing to getting paid for not farming are DCP payments which you can get even if you produce something.

I guess there is the CRP program but that is mostly utilized on poor farm ground that is not very productive anyways.

yes and I think the DCP is expired as of this year.

Also, In order to even be considered for CRP you have to have been actual cropland 4 yrs of last 6 or 8 I dont remember exact. They do not allow crap scrubland like mountains into the program.

 

[farmerbyron]

Farmerbyron what is the payment for no till. One farmer that I don't know very well said he is getting a big check for no till. He said "they pay for enrolling in no till and I don't have to work ground all summer, Hell ya, sign me up."

He might be talking about the conservation stewardship program through the nrcs. The csp program requires a bit more than no till or minimum till though. It has a large part of wildlife habitat conservation you have to do as well.

 

[farmerbyron]

yes and I think the DCP is expired as of this year.

Also, In order to even be considered for CRP you have to have been actual cropland 4 yrs of last 6 or 8 I dont remember exact. They do not allow crap scrubland like mountains into the program.

Rumor is that the new farm bill will be heavier on insurance subsidies. Guess that is an easier sell than direct payments.

 

[cinco]

I'm not trying to justify the spending here, but isn't saying this is OK's money a bit dishonest? I mean, we budgeted to spend this but don't we receive the majority of this funding from the federal piggy bank, then allocate it out from our budget from there?

I believe OK receives more per capita on these expenditures than we as taxpayers give to the federal government.

Good point, I hadn't thought of that. No intentional act of being dishonest - if I get it wrong, I'll admit it.

So, prompted by your question, I dived deeper...

And this crisis could cost taxpayers a billion dollars this year. In 2008, Oklahoma received $485 million in federal food stamp funding. That paid the average recipient $97 a month. Now the average monthly payment is $130 per person, meaning Oklahoma is on track to receive $945 million in federal food stamp funding this year. (Story from 2010).
http://www.newson6.com/story/13346371/oklahoma-food-stamps-numbers-skyrocket

Point still being, whether money taken from OK State Taxes or Federal Taxes, it is still unsustainable. So technically, yes, it is still (albiet partially) OK money from the stand point I'm an Okie paying Federal Tax. As you inferred, it also means it is everybodies' money who paid into the Federal system.

I believe the figure was somewhere along the line of only 53% of Americans paid any Federal income tax the previous year? Thus 53% helping pay the way for Federal programs for the remaining 47%. Oops sounds worse in an article from Fox News I found...


This year’s Index of Dependence on Government presented startling findings about the sharp increase of Americans who rely on the federal government for housing, food, income, student aid or other assistance. (See last week’s chart.)

Another eye-popping number was the percentage of Americans who don’t pay income taxes, which now accounts for nearly half of the U.S. population. Meanwhile, most of that population receives generous federal benefits.“One of the most worrying trends in the Index is the coinciding growth in the non-taxpaying public,” wrote Heritage authors Bill Beach and Patrick Tyrrell. “The percentage of people who do not pay federal income taxes, and who are not claimed as dependents by someone who does pay them, jumped from 14.8 percent in 1984 to 49.5 percent in 2009.”That means 151.7 million Americans paid nothing in 2009. By comparison, 34.8 million tax filers paid no taxes in 1984.
Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/taxes/201...-who-pay-no-income-tax-hits-495#ixzz21wVqxW9x

 

[purplehaze]

That is a misleading article. The 1984 numbers, 34.8 million, are the number of people that filed taxes that didn't pay taxes. While the 2009 number ,151.7 million, is the actual near 50% of the population. Meaning dependents, people that were refunded what they paid in, and businesses that showed a loss or broke even. Apples to oranges.

14.8 percent in 1984 to 49.5 percent in 2009."That means 151.7 million Americans paid nothing in 2009. By comparison, 34.8 million tax filers paid no taxes in 1984.
Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/taxes/2012/02/22/percentage-americans-who-pay-no-income-tax-hits-495#ixzz21wVqxW9x

 

[cinco]

That is a misleading article. The 1984 numbers, 34.8 million, are the number of people that filed taxes that didn't pay taxes. While the 2009 number ,151.7 million, is the actual near 50% of the population. Meaning dependents, people that were refunded what they paid in, and businesses that showed a loss or broke even. Apples to oranges.

Not trying to argue. But can you explain this further or site your source? I'm honestly interested in getting this right and understand people can make numbers say whatever you want - which both sides do.

Seems its apples-to-apples?

“The percentage of people who do not pay federal income taxes, and who are not claimed as dependents by someone who does pay them, jumped from 14.8 percent in 1984 to 49.5 percent in 2009.”

Isn't everyone required to file a federal return? You either withhold money and its forwarded to the IRS or you choose to withhold nothing. If you withheld nothing and owe at filing time, you then need to pony up the amount. If you did withhold throughout the year, you either get back your overage or pay the deficit.

Some who file will be below the threshold $# (i.e the poor) for having to pay Federal Tax and thus pay nothing. Isn't the article referring to this group? I am missing something?

Edit - the quote refers to "people", so your comment about "businesses" would be limited to sole proprietorships or partnerships, not corporations.