breakingcontact
TGT Addict
Monsanto.
Corporate agriculture, the wave if the future.
True that. The family farm is nearly dead unless you run a niche or truck farm. Even then its hard to not be controlled by Monsanto Cargill ADM.
Monsanto.
Corporate agriculture, the wave if the future.
True that. The family farm is nearly dead unless you run a niche or truck farm. Even then its hard to not be controlled by Monsanto Cargill ADM.
I looked up the list of Monsanto owned companies. I was disappointed in how often I support them. Looking in to some changes.
Nope, just used google and pulled up the list.
There's nothing wrong with corporate agriculture. You can't hardly eat without them these days.True that. The family farm is nearly dead unless you run a niche or truck farm. Even then its hard to not be controlled by Monsanto Cargill ADM.
There's nothing wrong with corporate agriculture. You can't hardly eat without them these days.
Family farms and ranches still exist and are doing fine especially now with all the oil and gas drilling and hunting leases. No ranchers I know are struggling and more that I know have become richer than they've ever been. We don't have gas wells on my parents land but we don't rely on the cattle for much more than a supplemental income for real jobs and our farm land is used for hay- except for this year where it's used for grazing. Hay prices have been ridiculous so we made a bunch and kept it for ourselves and the neighbors. Klein and tifton 85 it's not that hard.
True. The dude in nv called himself a rancher. Real ranchers have sense and only end up on the news for cool shit like meteorites and big deer.Im talking about farms. Not ranches and not hobby farms/ranches.
So they should be able to use the land forever without any restrictions? Just people with families that have been using that area or anyone with cattle? Regardless of overgrazing or any other issues? We aren't in the 1800's anymore and the laws and regulations must reflect that. There are more people, more concerns, and more issues than if hobby ranchers get free use of public land.Not without Government. Land was actually public land, and ranchers free grazed everywhere until the Government came in.
Yeah, the ones that were big enough to get Government subsidies, while pushing the small guys out. Because, you know, people owning cows and cattle didnt exist before the Government.
The Government should stay the $#@! out of private business, statist.
Im talking about farms. Not ranches and not hobby farms/ranches.
So they should be able to use the land forever without any restrictions? Just people with families that have been using that area or anyone with cattle? Regardless of overgrazing or any other issues?
We aren't in the 1800's anymore and the laws and regulations must reflect that. There are more people, more concerns, and more issues than if hobby ranchers get free use of public land......He is more than large enough to get govt subsidies. Heck you could call grazing on the public land a subsidy because it sure as heck doesn't represent the real value of him using that land. private grazing is about $18 a head a month. The BLM charged $1.35.
So they should kick Bundy off, sell the land and let him make a deal for about 15 times what they want to charge him?
Thinking a fee for using public land isn't unreasonable doesn't make someone a statist. Throwing insults because you can't make a decent point does make you look like an idiot though.
True. The dude in nv called himself a rancher. Real ranchers have sense and only end up on the news for cool shit like meteorites and big deer.
Pay your lease or you're a shithead. If you lease from the Feds that's your ass.
Here is the deal. Successful family farms have become big businesses. They had to to support the cost of production, equipment, etc. They incorporated, got bigger, and are now multi million dollar operations. Small farms don't produce enough to continue to support the same numbers of people and , with modern practices, don't take the time that you used to have to put in. Operations that stayed the same size had owners that ended up doing other things at the same time because they had the time available. That or poorly run operations went out of business, Things change.
You are wrong on the facts. The feds owned the land before Bundy moved there. They actually managed the land and were the ones who granted the land to the Bundy family thu the federal land office, which later was transformed into the BLM. If the feds never owned the land then the Bundy's don't have title to any land never mind rights to use land other than what they occupy.Yes, they should.
Yes, this makes you a statist.
The Federal Government never owned the land, they assumed control of the land under the guise of "helping" ranchers in the area manage their land under an unconstitutional federal agency.
This argument goes back to the intent of the founders for the Federal versus State Government.
They have no right to kick him off from anywhere, Constitutionally. They never owned the land they claim they do.
See above. Hardly makes me look bad at all.
(Edit: Most people in the USA are Statists. I just happened to point it out to you. It was all your 'feels' that made you take offense to it. )
The only "family" farms that seemingly would meet your criteria are going to be niche suppliers. Just like any furniture maker that isn't a factory would have to make custom furniture. There are family owned businesses that make products or grow crops but to compete they had to either find a niche or get big. That isn't evil it's life. While you may have a point about govt involvement in agriculture I don't think it's directly applicable here in any important way.Family farms are being wiped out. If you'd say its "due to market efficiencies" we could talk but the gov has such a big hand in promoting farm and food policies that we cant even have a regular economics argument.
I know the classical view of what a farm looks like has changed and is mostly gone forever. I get that. If you want to call an operation of tens of thousands of acres leveraged by banks, subsidized by the federal government and controlled by big agriculture the "modern family farm", go ahead. I guess Walmart is just a little business ran out of Arkansas then.
The only "family" farms that seemingly would meet your criteria are going to be niche suppliers. Just like any furniture maker that isn't a factory would have to make custom furniture. There are family owned businesses that make products or grow crops but to compete they had to either find a niche or get big. That isn't evil it's life. While you may have a point about govt involvement in agriculture I don't think it's directly applicable here in any important way.
Right. I said that. Truck farms and niche product farms are about the only real family farms left that are producing actual food. There are some big family grain farms who get huge subsidies for the garbage they grow.
So your pissed that people grow and sell what people want to buy? Yep that makes sense.OK...I also know "family farmers" who have done very well. They have done very well producing raw ingredients that have to be processed and results in unhealthy food, taking hundreds if not millions of dollars in subsidies and being beholden to the big agriculture companies.