Trump Domestic Policy - Budgets, etc
- Thread starter TGHusker
- Start date
RedDenver
Active member
From what I can gather, the big farm subsidy hits in the Trump budget is a reduction in crop insurance coverage from 62% to 48% of lost value.
Mierin
New member
K, I haven’t read any of it yet. I got to the question of whether the details were available and was thinking of the checks that are sent.
BigRedBuster
Well-known member
Ok, first of all, corn is not mainly used for sugar and fuel. Both of those are a biproduct of othefbindustries that use the corn.
Second, I am all for looking at our subsidies and cutting back where needed. But, here we have an industry that is heavily affected by what happens in Washington politically. Some idiot President makes a stupid decision and the markets crash and can put a huge number of farmers out of business.
We then turn around and bad mouth corporate farms.
Well, you take all subsidies away, the farming industry goes fast towards large corps doing the farming.
Farmers shouldn’t be getting subsidies if corn is $7. I don’t have a problem with it if corn is $3.
this also is is a national security issue. We have the most secure food source in the world. That’s a good thing and we need to protect that.
Second, I am all for looking at our subsidies and cutting back where needed. But, here we have an industry that is heavily affected by what happens in Washington politically. Some idiot President makes a stupid decision and the markets crash and can put a huge number of farmers out of business.
We then turn around and bad mouth corporate farms.
Well, you take all subsidies away, the farming industry goes fast towards large corps doing the farming.
Farmers shouldn’t be getting subsidies if corn is $7. I don’t have a problem with it if corn is $3.
this also is is a national security issue. We have the most secure food source in the world. That’s a good thing and we need to protect that.
Mierin
New member
Did someone say corn was mostly used for sugar and fuel? Because I sure didn’t.
I said it was mostly used for sugar, fuel, cow feed, and unhealthy food products. Cows aren’t worth subsidizing either. There are far healthier and less wasteful and less pollution causing foods than beef. The government should not be paying anything for corn. There are other crops that could be subsidized instead. Give the $ to the same farmers.
Also, 3rd chart on google:
Last edited by a moderator:
BigRedBuster
Well-known member
BigRedBuster
Well-known member
The chart is stupidly wrong because the corn used for fuel is also used for livestock feed.Did someone say corn was mostly used for sugar and fuel? Because I sure didn’t.
I said it was mostly used for sugar, fuel, cow feed, and unhealthy food products. Cows aren’t worth subsidizing either. There are far healthier and less wasteful and less pollution causing foods than beef. The government should not be paying anything for corn. There are other crops that could be subsidized instead. Give the $ to the same farmers.
Also, 3rd chart on google:
The part art used for fuel would normally go out the back end of the cow.....if it were fed as whole corn.
Mierin
New member
Ummmm.... what?
Moiraine: People mostly go to McDonald's for burgers and fries
BigRedBuster: Ok, first of all, people don't mostly go to McDonald's for burgers
:dunno
Your statement makes it seem like you think the first statement is wrong because burgers was one of the things mentioned among others, as if fries were never mentioned.
I didn't say corn was mostly used for sugar and fuel. I said it was mostly used for sugar, fuel, and 2 other things. All of the things are combined.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mierin
New member
I don't know much about corn products/byproducts, but I assume you're saying they use corn for fuel and then some/all of the waste is then given to the cow, correct? (Or is it the other way around?). I'm guessing the chart doesn't account for that, but they could account for it if they wanted to. They could look at how much corn was sold and how much corn the companies using it for fuel was direct purchases and how much was a byproduct after it was used for other things, or the feed was a byproduct from when it was turned into fuel, and not count it twice. You can't know from the chart they're not already doing that. I imagine it's pretty difficult to keep track of, though.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/the-u-s-now-uses-more-corn-for-fuel-than-for-feed/
Lastly, I think corn as feed AND fuel are wastes, so even if the poundage was reduced by half, it would still be by far the largest part of the pie. Then you look at the other uses, and they're mostly crap too.
Last edited by a moderator:
BigRedBuster
Well-known member
I don’t know where that blog is getting its information, but it’s just wrong.
I used to to work in the industry and still am in agriculture. I don’t know of any ethanol plant that doesn’t sell it’s distiller grains for feed. There is absolutely nothing lost by first processing it to get the ethanol for fuel.
So, you’re starting the discussion from the start with bad info.
look, we both agree ag subsidies need to be looked at.
We we can get fuel from two places. The oil industry or American farmers. Your opinion is that we should keep fighting wars around the world for oil instead of spending some money on american farmers.
I tend to disagree.
Mierin
New member
“That blog” is on Scientific American. Like I said, it doesn’t matter if the chart is 100% accurate. Neither cattle feed nor corn ethanol are deserving of any tax money.
And bulls#!t that’s my opinion. It’s ludicrous and I never stated it. Please focus on the words I’m saying and not what you’re imagining my opinion is.
Corn ethanol is not the only way to avoid wars over oil and it’s silly to think so. (And that’s what we’re talking about; corn. We weren’t talking about all sources of fuel created by farmers).
Corn is not a good alternative fuel source. There are a lot of other options than the words you put in my mouth which is to fight wars over oil. Like investing money into alternative energy that is a lot more sustainable and less wasteful than ethanol. We should not be subsidizing ethanol at all.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/04/20/its-final-corn-ethanol-is-of-no-use/#4f2d805a67d3
Also, it’s barely a drop in the bucket as far as reducing imports. Increasing it would require a s#!tton of land usage which would increase how much of a waste it is. If it’s good as an alternative fuel to supplement oil, let it stand on its own. (Oil itself should stand on its own, too). Farmers shouldn’t be subsidized just because they’re farmers, especially if the product they’re growing isn’t very good as food or fuel source. If there isn’t some greater good the country is getting out of something, it shouldn’t be subsidized. Let the consumers decide.
Last edited by a moderator:
Danny Bateman
Active member
I just wanna thank you two for confirming that yes, this is, in fact, at its core, a board about Nebraska football. Where else are you going to get this type of riveting back and forth on corn? :lol:
BigRedBuster
Well-known member
[No message]
Danny Bateman
Active member
This articulates one of the chief afflictions with our current politics better than I possibly could. From a Never Trump Republican, nonetheless.
BigRedBuster
Well-known member
Meanwhile.....back at the ranch.
Last edited by a moderator: