I am just wondering, what is fair for unseeded acre payments. I am not a beleiver in bailouts generally, but this year is sure different and widespread.
50 bucks will not cut it, but 100 would. 50 bucks was ok the first time, semi-ok the second time, but when your hit with this problem the third time in five years it looks pretty poor.
BUT 100 is to me excessive, though It would do it for many guys. Either way, the money has to come from some program. If it comes from crop ins. it will be swift, and painful. If half comes from CI and half from agristability it is slow and painful.
Some guys seem to think that 50 bucks is plenty, and that if you couldn't seed you have no costs for the year, but those of us in wet areas know the costs are a big problem when its too wet.
I want fairness, swiftness, not excessiveness, and slowness.
What do we need guys? What really is fair?
More importantly, what can we expect the gov't to say? It's looking like a billion or two bucks maybe between the two programs. Think they'll pro-rate?
50 bucks will not cut it, but 100 would. 50 bucks was ok the first time, semi-ok the second time, but when your hit with this problem the third time in five years it looks pretty poor.
BUT 100 is to me excessive, though It would do it for many guys. Either way, the money has to come from some program. If it comes from crop ins. it will be swift, and painful. If half comes from CI and half from agristability it is slow and painful.
Some guys seem to think that 50 bucks is plenty, and that if you couldn't seed you have no costs for the year, but those of us in wet areas know the costs are a big problem when its too wet.
I want fairness, swiftness, not excessiveness, and slowness.
What do we need guys? What really is fair?
More importantly, what can we expect the gov't to say? It's looking like a billion or two bucks maybe between the two programs. Think they'll pro-rate?
Comment