Crop Insurance vs. Food Stamps (Farm Bill)

[carlfense]

America’s crop-insurance program is obscene. Farmers receive government subsidies averaging 70 percent of their premiums to purchase insurance that protects them against declining crop value. There’s no income limit for this subsidy: The vast majority of this taxpayer money goes to farmers who make in excess of $250,000 a year. The insurance policies are sold by private companies, and the government also pays those firms about 20 percent of the premium cost to cover their expenses. The companies get to keep the profits from the policies, so taxpayer money makes crop insurance a largely risk-free investment for insurance companies. Thus, the government uses taxpayer money to pay rich farmers to buy insurance from wealthy insurance companies, whom the government also pays to sell the policies to the farmers. Talk about a “free” market.

 

. . .

 

Thus, the crop-insurance program is designed to give wealthy farmers more taxpayer money when they are already doing exceptionally well.

​

Crop insurance is even worse than food stamps at promoting dependency. Most food-stamp recipients receive only a couple of hundred dollars a month, a part of their income. Companies that sell crop insurance are 100 percent dependent on government payments for that business, and farmers are 70 percent dependent for their insurance — a rich subsidy that should strip away the idea of the farmer as a bold entrepreneur, while the welfare recipient is a burden on the public purse: The taxpayer spends more on the former than the latter. That’s why the crop-insurance lobbyists are frantically working Capitol Hill to keep feeding at the taxpayers’ trough. Crop insurance is perhaps the best example of a loosely structured government program tempting people who don’t need help to live at someone else’s expense. But instead, Heritage and its allies in this fight have chosen to focus on food stamps.

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/358914/print

[Stumpy1]

Farmers are some of the most crooked people out there. They get government backing on things that are just ridiculous like the insurance and subsidies for ethanol. Starting this next week, ALL gas will have at min. 10% ethanol in it. The only gas that will not will be a mid-grade and premium, both will be about 30-40 cents higher then what it is now. Some of the reasoning for this is because farmers are being greedy and asking top dollar for their corn and ethanol plants are suffering for it because they can't match the prices.

[Mavric]

Farmers are some of the most crooked people out there. They get government backing on things that are just ridiculous like the insurance and subsidies for ethanol. Starting this next week, ALL gas will have at min. 10% ethanol in it. The only gas that will not will be a mid-grade and premium, both will be about 30-40 cents higher then what it is now. Some of the reasoning for this is because farmers are being greedy and asking top dollar for their corn and ethanol plants are suffering for it because they can't match the prices.

Do you also try to get paid as much as you can for the job you do?

[carlfense]

Do you also try to get paid as much as you can for the job you do?

I don't blame farmers for accepting the subsidies . . . but I think that if they do they probably shouldn't criticize welfare/SNAP/etc. recipients.

 

I've spent lots of time in small town Nebraska coffee shops and the lack of self awareness on this issue is stunning.

[sd'sker]

it is only welfare when other people are receiving it.

[Mavric]

I think the government is into giving out way more subsidies than it should be, on a variety of different issues.

 

And it's stupid that the only way to do anything is to throw a bunch of unrelated items into a bill so that everyone can approve it so their pet projects get paid.

 

Separate everything out and vote on it. That would at least be a step in the right direction.

[Mavric]

Do you also try to get paid as much as you can for the job you do?

I don't blame farmers for accepting the subsidies . . . but I think that if they do they probably shouldn't criticize welfare/SNAP/etc. recipients.

 

I've spent lots of time in small town Nebraska coffee shops and the lack of self awareness on this issue is stunning.

Yes and no. The farmers are still (in theory) paying into the system then getting some back out - although it wouldn't hurt to actually accomplish something on the tax code in general and exemptions in particular. I wouldn't expect food stamp recipients to be paying much or any into the system.

[carlfense]

it is only welfare when other people are receiving it.

True statement.

[carlfense]

I wouldn't expect food stamp recipients to be paying much or any into the system.

How so?

[Mavric]

I wouldn't expect food stamp recipients to be paying much or any into the system.

How so?

Because the program has resource and income requirements such that the taxes they are paying are little to none.

[carlfense]

Because the program has resource and income requirements such that the taxes they are paying are little to none.

Which taxes?

[Mavric]

Because the program has resource and income requirements such that the taxes they are paying are little to none.

Which taxes?

Payroll and income.

[carlfense]

Because the program has resource and income requirements such that the taxes they are paying are little to none.

Which taxes?

Payroll and income.

Are you choosing to ignore the taxes that they do pay?

[Mavric]

Are you choosing to ignore the taxes that they do pay?

Because the program has resource and income requirements such that the taxes they are paying are little to none.

[carlfense]

Are you choosing to ignore the taxes that they do pay?

Because the program has resource and income requirements such that the taxes they are paying are little to none.