Most of Trump’s U.S. farm aid goes to wealthiest farmers

[bucket]

I don't think taxpayers should be bailing out big farms in Canada or the USA.

Target the limited support to medium or small farms.

Improve the safety nets and keep politics and ad hoc payments out of the mix as much as possible.

Don't complain about falling commodity prices and trade issues and then go on to support Trump. He is a big part of the reason this is happening.

Scheer will not be able to influence China or the USA.

The fact we can't move product to China have anything to do with it....or India...or Italy...or Saudi Arabia....or anyone else that team of high and mighty libtards have pissed off???

Blame Trump????? How about Trudeau ..

[bucket]

I don't care if big farms get big payments...Once the dominoes start to fall with big farms and the reset starts ...if you think you are coming out unscathed by a reset ....you are needing to review history a little....not about the financial part of it but community, other business affected...

I have seen it happen....you want your community to survive or fail? To fail just keep repeating that farmers don't need ad hoc payments....but don't complain when the dealer says the part will be here tomorrow or the next day because that is part of the equation people can't connect the dots on...

When you take the blinders off you will understand why Quebec is doing so well ...community and tightly held values and monster payments from the rest of Canada..

People have to start taking a wider angle view than saying """" we don't need adhoc payments because it makes us look bad or I don't need them so why should anyone else....""""

[Guest]

Maybe cluck cluck likes trudopes hair?
What else could it be
Maybe he really dislikes trumps hair

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Remember, to the socialists, it is all about the equal distribution of poverty, that is far preferable to the unequal distribution of wealth. Drag everyone down to the same level, no one should aspire to anything better.

Each and every day, 10 men go to a restaurant for dinner together. The bill for all 10 comes to $100 each day. If the bill were paid the way we pay our taxes, the first four would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The 10th man – the richest – would pay $59. Although the 10 men didn't share the bill equally, they all seemed content enough with the arrangement – until the restaurant owner threw them a curve.

"You're all very good customers," the owner said, "so I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20. I'm going to charge you just $80 in total." The 10 men looked at each other and seemed genuinely surprised, but quite happy about the news.

The first four men, of course, are unaffected because they weren't paying anything for their meals anyway. They'll still eat for free. The big question is how to divvy up the $20 in savings among the remaining six in a way that's fair for each of them. They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33, but if they subtract that amount from each person's share, then the fifth and sixth men would end up being paid to eat their meals. The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each person's bill by roughly the same percentage, and he proceeded to work out the amounts that each should pay.

The results? The fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $14, leaving the 10th man with a bill of $50 instead of $59. Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got one dollar out of the $20," said the sixth man, pointing to the 10th man, "and he got $9!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too! It's not fair that he got nine times more than me!" "That's true," shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get back $9 when I only got $2? The rich get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine outraged men surrounded the 10th and brutally assaulted him. The next day, he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they faced a problem that they hadn't faced before. They were $50 short.

[seldomseen]

Chucky why not try some different reading material?

When my kids were in school they would sell magazine subscriptions as a fundraiser, so i always tried to buy something different every year from them. One year I got ''The Manitoba Cooperator'' because I thought it would have some Ag content. Well holy crap after the first issue, all it was was extreme left wing propaganda. Never opened another issue, only used them to light the stove.

[chuckChuck]

As this Reuters article republished in the Cooperator explained, most of the subsidies and support go to farms who probably don't need it.

This can drive up the price of land squeezing smaller farms who already can't compete with the bigger ones.

Its interesting that some posters are concerned about the transfer of wealth, but then go on to support just that, in the form of taxpayers payments to make up for bad political decisions in the US and a trade war they didn't want.

If you support politicians who are in favour of protectionism and trade wars that end up hurting you, don't be expecting to be bailed out by the large majority of taxpayers who are non-farmers.

Trudeau's role in the trade war is minimal. The USA asked for the Huawei woman to be arrested. India put tariffs on primarily for domestic political reasons. Trudeau could do a better job on these trade issues. But Scheer has not said how he will fix the problems that are mostly beyond Canada's influence.

Trudeau may be an idiot, but many of you are supporting the much bigger idiot to the south who is driving us into a recession and screwing up ag markets big time.

[MBgrower]

Robin hood syndrome. just like fellow merrymen(persons), trudope and jugmeet.

[bucket]

As this Reuters article republished in the Cooperator explained, most of the subsidies and support go to farms who probably don't need it.

This can drive up the price of land squeezing smaller farms who already can't compete with the bigger ones.

Its interesting that some posters are concerned about the transfer of wealth, but then go on to support just that, in the form of taxpayers payments to make up for bad political decisions in the US and a trade war they didn't want.

If you support politicians who are in favour of protectionism and trade wars that end up hurting you, don't be expecting to be bailed out by the large majority of taxpayers who are non-farmers.

Trudeau's role in the trade war is minimal. The USA asked for the Huawei woman to be arrested. India put tariffs on primarily for domestic political reasons. Trudeau could do a better job on these trade issues. But Scheer has not said how he will fix the problems that are mostly beyond Canada's influence.

Trudeau may be an idiot, but many of you are supporting the much bigger idiot to the south who is driving us into a recession and screwing up ag markets big time.

But Trudeau has the resources to match Trump's MFP the same way Harper had to match the US governments bailout of the auto sector....that by the way never made the taxpayer whole....

All Trudeau has to do is quit sending billions all over the world for no good reason...pay farmers and give the countries that need help our grain...

Every US government would rather give away their grain than the money...because its better for the US economy ....to keep the spending at home...

The issues in canadian agriculture today are Trudeau's fault...While Yerry really fu*cked western farmers ,,,,Trudeau has had 4 years to fix it...and its a simple fix....

[chuckChuck]

There is no reason for Trudeau to send money to farmers to bail them out when they vote Conservative anyway.

In the US, Trump is sending money to farmers to keep their vote after he created their big trade problems.

Its pretty simple politics Trump is buying votes and Trudeau doesn't need your vote.

Isn't politics just great.

Neither party has a long term plan to keep small and medium farmers in business. They are both happy to let grain farmers prosper in a "free" market.

The poor economics of agriculture that has been putting many farmers out of business, has been a long term problem through many Conservative and Liberal governments.

[bucket]

There is no reason for Trudeau to send money to farmers to bail them out when they vote Conservative anyway.

In the US, Trump is sending money to farmers to keep their vote after he created their big trade problems.

Its pretty simple politics Trump is buying votes and Trudeau doesn't need your vote.

Isn't politics just great.

Neither party has a long term plan to keep small and medium farmers in business. They are both happy to let grain farmers prosper in a "free" market.

The poor economics of agriculture that has been putting many farmers out of business, has been a long term problem through many Conservative and Liberal governments.

Chuck chuck

I think we could have a conversation about your statement " Neither party has a long term plan to keep small and medium farmers in business "

Its very true and that started under Ritz....look at his advisors ....all "giddyup lets go" types with no regard for what was happening in ag....its going to come home to roost in the next couple years when a 50bpa crop is break even for these guys....and grandpa's money has run out or depreciated in machinery decals....

Some on here will call me depressing....nope...just realistic....and I am pretty handy with a calculator....


Bottom line....Ritz and his advisers had zero vision for agriculture....ZERO....and whats worse is they can't even admit it....they are no better than Trudeau and ethics....

[AlbertaFarmer5]

As this Reuters article republished in the Cooperator explained, most of the subsidies and support go to farms who probably don't need it.

This can drive up the price of land squeezing smaller farms who already can't compete with the bigger ones.

Its interesting that some posters are concerned about the transfer of wealth, but then go on to support just that, in the form of taxpayers payments to make up for bad political decisions in the US and a trade war they didn't want.

If you support politicians who are in favour of protectionism and trade wars that end up hurting you, don't be expecting to be bailed out by the large majority of taxpayers who are non-farmers.

Trudeau's role in the trade war is minimal. The USA asked for the Huawei woman to be arrested. India put tariffs on primarily for domestic political reasons. Trudeau could do a better job on these trade issues. But Scheer has not said how he will fix the problems that are mostly beyond Canada's influence.

Trudeau may be an idiot, but many of you are supporting the much bigger idiot to the south who is driving us into a recession and screwing up ag markets big time.

This can drive up the price of land Something we can actually agree on. Market distorting payments are never good, removing all the proper price signals which would otherwise serve to balance the supply and demand. But more importantly, they eventually get bid into the price of land or rent, to the point where they have no net effect on incomes anyways. But it is not a big farm vs. small farm issue, all are getting the same price for the same acre in the same area. One of the few areas where government is not biased against those who are more ambitious and successful.