Ho ho ho *cough cough* *choke* *thud*

You bitching about farm subsidies is a joke! You just don’t get why they are subsidized! It’s for me and you stupid, the government wants us to have affordable commodities, uhh groceries. If they were not subsidized your grocery cost would be much higher where many could not even afford bread and milk.

A typical farmer has an investment on the light side of 3-5 million dollars, you as a teacher have what for an investment? Education? Well so do they! Hell the school district supplies most of the supplies you use. You have little to no risk in your job! Farmers gamble everyday against drought, hail and anything else Mother Nature throws their way. What’s your biggest concern in your job? Little Johnny does not get his homework in on time?

It ain't just farm subsidies, Woody-poo. And neither Mark nor I said we have any problem with farm subsidies per se, or any of the thousands of other ways red states suck at the federal tit at the expense of the rest of us. What we object to is the Republican rhetoric that bitches about "blue state bailouts" when in actuality, Trumper Land is one immense welfare state that is kept afloat by the taxes that those no-good LIBURRULS pay.

Actually, Woody-poo, the schools in my county are funded by property taxes---and while some of those are no doubt paid by farmers, most are paid by people who reside in the cities and towns served by those schools.

I spent eight years in college to get my teaching degree and credential. I doubt very much that any farmer ever spent that much time--or money--learning how to operate a tractor. Your "investment" amount for farmers is ridiculously high---where would they have gotten that kind of money to start out?---but MY investment was almost a decade in school, four years of which were postgraduate work. And it took me eight more years to pay off my student loans. So yeah, a substantial investment.

There's nothing wrong with being a farmer! But let's all drop the myth of the noble tiller of the soil blah blah blah who feeds all those liberal elites blah blah blah. It's a business, like any other. Some are good at it. Some suck. And yes, there are variables and events that affect a farmer's business, but that's true if you own a farm, a brake shop, a burger joint, or a computer store.

Okay, here you go. A center pivot quarter of ground is 120 acres, average price $6,000. per acre. That is $720,000. You can not survive with 1 quarter of ground. A tractor with needed options is $300,000. minimum, planter to plant your corn $250,000. Disc $100,000. Combine to harvest your crop $500,000. You also need a grain cart, semi and trailer to haul your product to market. So equipment alone you are around 1.8 million and that is with no land cost! 

Most farmers here are family farms for generations as a young farmer can not go to the bank and barrow that kind of money they can earn. Owning 15-20 quarters of ground are not unusual so, if you can do the math my 3-5 million is very very low.

i understand that in Oregon farmers pay a much smaller percent in your total property taxes. But, here in Nebraska they pay around 75% of our property taxes. Which is a huge burden for them. You say why do they do it? Many reasons, some just do it because the “family” has done this for generations, others because they like the rural life which is much slower and you know all your neighbors and respect what they have.

i do not demean what you have chosen to do in life, we need you! You are teaching tomorrow’s leaders and citizens. We also need the American farmer who feeds the world.

Right. So pretty much no one just up and says, "I want to be a farmer" and buys all the land and equipment they'll need to be successful. The land is usually inherited--which perpetuates a fundamental inefficiency.

The small farmer struggles because of something called economies of scale. All that equipment you mention? it can only be used so much by one person. An "agribusiness" farming thousands of acres at once won't have to buy a hundred times as much equipment, or expend a hundred times as much labor; it'll be more like a factor of five or ten. So the larger the farm, the more efficient it will be. (Also, it doesn't take twice as much effort to feed twice as many chickens; etc. etc. etc.)

The small farmer today is in a situation similar to as if there were only a few large auto manufacturers and most cars were built individually, by hand, one at a time. That would obviously make cars more expensive. You also mention problems with weather, prices of commodities, etc.---a large "agribusiness" can withstand those fluctuations; a small farmer may not be able to. (Not to mention political shitstorms like Trump's tariffs.)

These are the reasons why small farmers need to be subsidized. Small farming is inefficient and therefore costly. We would be better off as a society if we simply mass-produced food--the way we do almost every other consumer commodity--and helped farmers retrain for something more productive and ultimately, better for them. We wouldn't have to subsidize and support them.

As to objections that consolidating farm ownership would somehow affect our food supply--well, does anyone see the demand for food shrinking anytime soon? And when demand exists, supply is created.

Damn, those farmers inherit their business and still can't make a go of it without being on the public dole to the tune of 40%.

What a cycle of dependency we've created.

Kevin, I'm going to be out and about through the before the holidays, during the holidays and after the holidays.  I fully support your right to huddle at home in the corner while shivering from fright.  I chuckle at the thought.

BTW, I'm now stopping in Houston this Saturday night, then heading from Houston to Mexico on Sunday for my week long trip.  While I'm in Houston, I'm meeting four old friends at an Irish pub for cocktails and dinner.

Kevin makes it clear that believes that freedom is dumb. 

Hey Kevin,ever have the feeling that you're trying to have a battle of wits with umarmed people?

And that is my larger point.  The small family farm is dead as a business model. If you are conservative, how can you justify continually propping up a business that isn't viable? If you let those small-scale farmers go bankrupt, the large ones will buy up the land.  Since those large corporate-owned farms have already achieved scale the economy/society as a whole benefit as a more efficient producer would take over. 

Aren't achieving economies of scale and maximum profitability the goals of a capitalist economy?  Or would you prefer perpetual socialism in the farm segment of the economy? If you prefer the current socialist model, how come it's good enough for farmers but nobody else gets it?

I don't want subsidies for farmers.  I don't want subsidies for anyone.

I enjoy yanking the collective chain of you girly men.  It's especially gratifying when Kevin loses his twisted little mind.