The Most Important thing announced by Trump yesterday was his plan to reduce environmental restrictions on farm equipment. God I hope he includes construction equipment also.
The Foolish diesel engine mandates have cost our country greatly. Bill Clinton, Owl Gore, and Hussein Obama are responsible for this foolishness.

Corn Pop said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

Any company that requires bailouts to survive should just be owned by the government.

---

I know you think this is some sort of intelligent quip, but it shows a total cognitive disconnect about the strategic and economic interests of this country. The current commodity situation is years in the making, and international in scope. Why are you against the preservation of family farms?

---

Because it's not about family farms anymore. The small family farms have already gone out of business or will be within the next two years. What you'd consider to be large family operations are the ones that pressed it in the nineties and early 2000's and put themselves in position to be raking in $$ while the government bailouts continue and they ride off in the sunset. Most of their children want nothing to do with it, and they will disappear as soon as the dads pass way (10-20 years).

Pull your head out and see the fact the government is using the same strategy they've used in countless other areas. Squeeze until they "have to step in" then it's theirs to oversee. Not too difficult to see what's happening.

---

Nowadays farms are corporations. And farms are run by CEOs.
And we all know what CEOs do to whatever they run - steal, loot and defraud to make money for themselves while running the business into the ground. A few millions in Government bailout money is most welcome.

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

Any company that requires bailouts to survive should just be owned by the government.

---

Oh yeah, government owned/run farms. Sounds like a great idea, with the best of intentions. What could possibly go wrong!

Mas89 said:

---

The Most Important thing announced by Trump yesterday was his plan to reduce environmental restrictions on farm equipment. God I hope he includes construction equipment also.
The Foolish diesel engine mandates have cost our country greatly. Bill Clinton, Owl Gore, and Hussein Obama are responsible for this foolishness.

---

Did Trump not fix this in his first term, seeing as how that was after all the names you mentioned?

infinity ag said:

---

Corn Pop said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

Any company that requires bailouts to survive should just be owned by the government.

---

I know you think this is some sort of intelligent quip, but it shows a total cognitive disconnect about the strategic and economic interests of this country. The current commodity situation is years in the making, and international in scope. Why are you against the preservation of family farms?

---

Because it's not about family farms anymore. The small family farms have already gone out of business or will be within the next two years. What you'd consider to be large family operations are the ones that pressed it in the nineties and early 2000's and put themselves in position to be raking in $$ while the government bailouts continue and they ride off in the sunset. Most of their children want nothing to do with it, and they will disappear as soon as the dads pass way (10-20 years).

Pull your head out and see the fact the government is using the same strategy they've used in countless other areas. Squeeze until they "have to step in" then it's theirs to oversee. Not too difficult to see what's happening.

---

Nowadays farms are corporations. And farms are run by CEOs.
And we all know what CEOs do to whatever they run - steal, loot and defraud to make money for themselves while running the business into the ground. A few millions in Government bailout money is most welcome.

---

I guess you are right in that every family farmer could call himself a CEO so in your warped world view, that make him evil. I assume you think the same thing of every family restaurant owner, car dealership owner, etc. In other words, every business has a CEO so by definition, that makes them evil.

Yes there are many corporate farms but there are also a large number of true family farmers and ranchers who have a goal of running their business into the ground so their kids can't take it over.

Really don't think Monsanto etc... should be getting handouts.

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

Any company that requires bailouts to survive should just be owned by the government.

---

Oh yeah, government owned/run farms. Sounds like a great idea, with the best of intentions. What could possibly go wrong!

---

If only there were a model in the Soviet Union and China to show us the results of this idea.

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

Any company that requires bailouts to survive should just be owned by the government.

---

Oh yeah, government owned/run farms. Sounds like a great idea, with the best of intentions. What could possibly go wrong!

---

A much better idea is to have the farms run by the oligarchs who also run the government.

Efficiency!

Street Fighter said:

---

Really don't think Monsanto etc... should be getting handouts.

---

Don't worry, they won't. Monsanto doesn't really even exist other than in people's heads, so your post fits in perfectly with this thread.

Quad Dog said:

---

Who could have predicted this would have happened again when it happened the first Trump term when he played around with tariffs and had to bail out farmers in 2018?

---

not trump, apparently. he still actually thinks the tariffed country pays the tax. he fundamentally doesn't understand the most basic elements of his signature economic policy.

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

Any company that requires bailouts to survive should just be owned by the government.

---

"Government acquiring the means of production."

Hmmm, sounds like I've heard that somewhere before. Maybe some guy who's last name started with an M. Can't quite come up with it at the moment.

Kansas Kid said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Corn Pop said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

Any company that requires bailouts to survive should just be owned by the government.

---

I know you think this is some sort of intelligent quip, but it shows a total cognitive disconnect about the strategic and economic interests of this country. The current commodity situation is years in the making, and international in scope. Why are you against the preservation of family farms?

---

Because it's not about family farms anymore. The small family farms have already gone out of business or will be within the next two years. What you'd consider to be large family operations are the ones that pressed it in the nineties and early 2000's and put themselves in position to be raking in $$ while the government bailouts continue and they ride off in the sunset. Most of their children want nothing to do with it, and they will disappear as soon as the dads pass way (10-20 years).

Pull your head out and see the fact the government is using the same strategy they've used in countless other areas. Squeeze until they "have to step in" then it's theirs to oversee. Not too difficult to see what's happening.

---

Nowadays farms are corporations. And farms are run by CEOs.
And we all know what CEOs do to whatever they run - steal, loot and defraud to make money for themselves while running the business into the ground. A few millions in Government bailout money is most welcome.

---

I guess you are right in that every family farmer could call himself a CEO so in your warped world view, that make him evil. I assume you think the same thing of every family restaurant owner, car dealership owner, etc. In other words, every business has a CEO so by definition, that makes them evil.

Yes there are many corporate farms but there are also a large number of true family farmers and ranchers who have a goal of running their business into the ground so their kids can't take it over.

---

Not the family farmer.
I meant when a corporation buys the farm and many farms and runs it like one. They hire a professional CEO who does not care about the product, he just cares about increasing his own salary and bonus. Those are the evil people who ruin every industry.
They don't deserve a bailout. Uncle Jim's farm does.

Clear now?

Anonymous Source said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Know how this could have been avoided? Not putting in a stupid tariff in the first place.

---

$28B to bail out the farmers during his first term. Surely there was nothing to learn from that. Nothing at all.

---

And the farmers lost much of their market permanently as the other countries sourced crops from other countries.

Which is also happening now. Permanent demand reduction thanks to Donald Trump, who will hand back some beads and trinkets.

However, do remember that the farmers voted for this.

Why do we even do any work in the US anymore? Just outsource EVERYTHING. Cheap prices, right?!
As long as no one outsources HVAC, plumber and electrician jobs, we are good.

infinity ag said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Corn Pop said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

Any company that requires bailouts to survive should just be owned by the government.

---

I know you think this is some sort of intelligent quip, but it shows a total cognitive disconnect about the strategic and economic interests of this country. The current commodity situation is years in the making, and international in scope. Why are you against the preservation of family farms?

---

Because it's not about family farms anymore. The small family farms have already gone out of business or will be within the next two years. What you'd consider to be large family operations are the ones that pressed it in the nineties and early 2000's and put themselves in position to be raking in $$ while the government bailouts continue and they ride off in the sunset. Most of their children want nothing to do with it, and they will disappear as soon as the dads pass way (10-20 years).

Pull your head out and see the fact the government is using the same strategy they've used in countless other areas. Squeeze until they "have to step in" then it's theirs to oversee. Not too difficult to see what's happening.

---

Nowadays farms are corporations. And farms are run by CEOs.
And we all know what CEOs do to whatever they run - steal, loot and defraud to make money for themselves while running the business into the ground. A few millions in Government bailout money is most welcome.

---

I guess you are right in that every family farmer could call himself a CEO so in your warped world view, that make him evil. I assume you think the same thing of every family restaurant owner, car dealership owner, etc. In other words, every business has a CEO so by definition, that makes them evil.

Yes there are many corporate farms but there are also a large number of true family farmers and ranchers who have a goal of running their business into the ground so their kids can't take it over.

---

Not the family farmer.
I meant when a corporation buys the farm and many farms and runs it like one. They hire a professional CEO who does not care about the product, he just cares about increasing his own salary and bonus. Those are the evil people who ruin every industry.
They don't deserve a bailout. Uncle Jim's farm does.

Clear now?

---

"Uncle Jim" with his 3000 acres, $4 million worth of equipment, and his farming operator "Jim Farms, Inc."? You really do not understand how this works. This isn't 1955.

HTownAg98 said:

---

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

Any company that requires bailouts to survive should just be owned by the government.

---

"Government acquiring the means of production."

Hmmm, sounds like I've heard that somewhere before. Maybe some guy who's last name started with an M. Can't quite come up with it at the moment.

---

Oh, shizzz....that's gonna leave a Marx!

Thank you for taking that hanging curve ball and doing something with it.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Thank you for taking that hanging curve ball and doing something with it.

---

B-1 83 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Corn Pop said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

Any company that requires bailouts to survive should just be owned by the government.

---

I know you think this is some sort of intelligent quip, but it shows a total cognitive disconnect about the strategic and economic interests of this country. The current commodity situation is years in the making, and international in scope. Why are you against the preservation of family farms?

---

Because it's not about family farms anymore. The small family farms have already gone out of business or will be within the next two years. What you'd consider to be large family operations are the ones that pressed it in the nineties and early 2000's and put themselves in position to be raking in $$ while the government bailouts continue and they ride off in the sunset. Most of their children want nothing to do with it, and they will disappear as soon as the dads pass way (10-20 years).

Pull your head out and see the fact the government is using the same strategy they've used in countless other areas. Squeeze until they "have to step in" then it's theirs to oversee. Not too difficult to see what's happening.

---

Nowadays farms are corporations. And farms are run by CEOs.
And we all know what CEOs do to whatever they run - steal, loot and defraud to make money for themselves while running the business into the ground. A few millions in Government bailout money is most welcome.

---

I guess you are right in that every family farmer could call himself a CEO so in your warped world view, that make him evil. I assume you think the same thing of every family restaurant owner, car dealership owner, etc. In other words, every business has a CEO so by definition, that makes them evil.

Yes there are many corporate farms but there are also a large number of true family farmers and ranchers who have a goal of running their business into the ground so their kids can't take it over.

---

Not the family farmer.
I meant when a corporation buys the farm and many farms and runs it like one. They hire a professional CEO who does not care about the product, he just cares about increasing his own salary and bonus. Those are the evil people who ruin every industry.
They don't deserve a bailout. Uncle Jim's farm does.

Clear now?

---

"Uncle Jim" with his 3000 acres, $4 million worth of equipment, and his farming operator "Jim Farms, Inc."? You really do not understand how this works. This isn't 1955.

---

Gotta agree with B-1, what you describe is rare in row crop agriculture. The overwhelming majority of farms are family owned and run operations that are incorporated for tax purposes. They can be 200-40,000 acres but they are controlled and operated by a family. King Ranch's farming operation would be one of the few that kind of fit your idea of a "corporate" row crop farm but it's still technically family owned. Out west in the vegetable/fresh produce areas corporate farms exist (Dole, T&A, Taylor, etc) but those crops don't normally receive any direct government support and are not included in this support payment.

How about rather than argue about whether a certain farm is a family farm or "corporate" farm, we just don't bailout any farms or any other businesses?

Ed Harley said:

---

How about rather than argue about whether a certain farm is a family farm or "corporate" farm, we just don't bailout any farms or any other businesses?

---

Can't win the flyover states if you put everyone out of business…..

Mas89 said:

---

Duh… our whole economy, including those small businesses would have collapsed years ago without the government bailout. Think 1930s.

This is the part that so many otherwise intelligent, educated people just can't comprehend.

---

TDS gets in the way of normally logical thinkers. It's a mental disease.

These guys have been hammering TARIFFS WILL CAUSE INFLATION for a long time. Hasn't happened yet.

$12B is roundoff for us. It's about $35/person. We gave $8.5 billion to just one company, Intel. How many billions did we give Ukraine. And, this $12B keeps US generating food.

It will be OK. These guys have already survived one year. Only 3 more to go.

Ed Harley said:

---

How about rather than argue about whether a certain farm is a family farm or "corporate" farm, we just don't bailout any farms or any other businesses?

---

You know how you get real "corporate farms" and Ted Turner owning it all? Let farmers go broke. Massive companies and ultra wealthy individuals can ride out $3 million dollar losses. Uncle Jim can't, and those other guys can afford it. As somebody else said, S Texas hasn't been pounded hard yet (were not dependent on the all mighty soybean), but another year of drought will change that quickly, even for the livestock producers.

B-1 83 said:

---

Ed Harley said:

---

How about rather than argue about whether a certain farm is a family farm or "corporate" farm, we just don't bailout any farms or any other businesses?

---

You know how you get real "corporate farms" and Ted Turner owning it all? Let farmers go broke. Massive companies and ultra wealthy individuals can ride out $3 million dollar losses. Uncle Jim can't, and those other guys can afford it. As somebody else said, S Texas hasn't been pounded hard yet (were not dependent on the all mighty soybean), but another year of drought will change that quickly, even for the livestock producers.

---

What other industries do you want to bail out to avoid corporate takeover? Is it only farming?

Ed Harley said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Ed Harley said:

---

How about rather than argue about whether a certain farm is a family farm or "corporate" farm, we just don't bailout any farms or any other businesses?

---

You know how you get real "corporate farms" and Ted Turner owning it all? Let farmers go broke. Massive companies and ultra wealthy individuals can ride out $3 million dollar losses. Uncle Jim can't, and those other guys can afford it. As somebody else said, S Texas hasn't been pounded hard yet (were not dependent on the all mighty soybean), but another year of drought will change that quickly, even for the livestock producers.

---

What other industries do you want to bail out to avoid corporate takeover? Is it only farming?

---

Farming is unique, and maintaining a diverse and thriving domestic ag industry is in the best long term economic and strategic interests of the country.

infinity ag said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Corn Pop said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

Any company that requires bailouts to survive should just be owned by the government.

---

I know you think this is some sort of intelligent quip, but it shows a total cognitive disconnect about the strategic and economic interests of this country. The current commodity situation is years in the making, and international in scope. Why are you against the preservation of family farms?

---

Because it's not about family farms anymore. The small family farms have already gone out of business or will be within the next two years. What you'd consider to be large family operations are the ones that pressed it in the nineties and early 2000's and put themselves in position to be raking in $$ while the government bailouts continue and they ride off in the sunset. Most of their children want nothing to do with it, and they will disappear as soon as the dads pass way (10-20 years).

Pull your head out and see the fact the government is using the same strategy they've used in countless other areas. Squeeze until they "have to step in" then it's theirs to oversee. Not too difficult to see what's happening.

---

Nowadays farms are corporations. And farms are run by CEOs.
And we all know what CEOs do to whatever they run - steal, loot and defraud to make money for themselves while running the business into the ground. A few millions in Government bailout money is most welcome.

---

I guess you are right in that every family farmer could call himself a CEO so in your warped world view, that make him evil. I assume you think the same thing of every family restaurant owner, car dealership owner, etc. In other words, every business has a CEO so by definition, that makes them evil.

Yes there are many corporate farms but there are also a large number of true family farmers and ranchers who have a goal of running their business into the ground so their kids can't take it over.

---

Not the family farmer.
I meant when a corporation buys the farm and many farms and runs it like one. They hire a professional CEO who does not care about the product, he just cares about increasing his own salary and bonus. Those are the evil people who ruin every industry.
They don't deserve a bailout. Uncle Jim's farm does.

Clear now?

---

His original post says farms are corporations with no qualifier. When I look at most family farms in 2025 especially in row crops, they are essentially run like a small corporation with outside help (because the kids are long gone), outsourced harvesting, fertilizer applications, maintenance etc. I have zero issue with this as it has made farming a lot more efficient and kept grain prices low for American and world consumers.

Now that he was called out on his hatred for CEOs applying to his view of farms, he changes his tune.

Unless things have changed drastically, incorporating also gives a degree of separation between land, equipment, etc…. so that they may get your equipment and leave you walking if you go under, but they won't get the land until it's the last thing you have to offer up at the bank.

I'm confused at your thoughts and approach here....

We support tariffs to promote onshoring of manufacturing capacity and protect our domestic industrial base via a level playing field. So, in a direct sense as the consumer we promote paying extra for imported goods in the form of increased consumer prices. As a citizen, that means we support government intervention to promote domestic production for the sake of national security and economic sustainability.

In the same breath we...

Don't support financial assistance to farmers that was a direct byproduct of our poor execution of our trade policy. We did not adequately manage the rollout of the tariffs and we shocked the perishables market, causing a wholesale disaster in perishables. We didn't understand the ramifications of retaliatory actions directed at our farmers. Supporting farmers in this way is the method of protecting domestic production as the global vendor, whereas tariffs are protectionist as the consumer.

You absorb the pain as a tax payer, albeit indirectly, the same way you do directly as a consumer paying higher prices for tariffed goods. Our way of life and infrastructure means it costs more to make things here; someone's got to pay for that.

wtmartinaggie said:

---

I'm confused at your thoughts and approach here....

We support tariffs to promote onshoring of manufacturing capacity and protect our domestic industrial base via a level playing field. So, in a direct sense as the consumer we promote paying extra for imported goods in the form of increased consumer prices. As a citizen, that means we support government intervention to promote domestic production for the sake of national security and economic sustainability.

In the same breath we...

Don't support financial assistance to farmers that was a direct byproduct of our poor execution of our trade policy. We did not adequately manage the rollout of the tariffs and we shocked the perishables market, causing a wholesale disaster in perishables. We didn't understand the ramifications of retaliatory actions directed at our farmers. Supporting farmers in this way is the method of protecting domestic production as the global vendor, whereas tariffs are protectionist as the consumer.

You absorb the pain as a tax payer, albeit indirectly, the same way you do directly as a consumer paying higher prices for tariffed goods. Our way of life and infrastructure means it costs more to make things here; someone's got to pay for that.

---

You're presuming I support the tariffs.

Texas 8&4 said:

---

Trump is a dufus

---

One more thing...

It's not as cut and dry as "corporate" vs. "family". A bunch of factors have given rise to the Commodity Marketer. They are like brokers, but instead of just moving product they engage growers/farmers to farm for them. They take a portion of the profits for consolidating enough volume to feed big contracts and customers. Consolidation of customers has consolidating buying decisions, which has started to push out smaller players.

So, this system pushes suppliers towards a reduced number of outlets where they are going to sacrifice 8-10% of revenue. That, combined with these marketers expanding into Central/South America and Africa has created further downward pressure on commodity prices. Add to that the passive boycott of our supply by our adversaries, and here you find our present situation.

I see a potential solution to start out like this:

1) ALL government funds, including SNAP, must be spent 100% on domestic grown or produced product, ideally with a small farmer/business set-aside provision. That rule exists for many contracts, but not all. It's also not properly enforced. This means certain things will not be available at certain times, and we just may have to live without bananas and pineapples during certain times of the year. This provides a multiple on our investment and keeps the money local.
2) ALL state funds should be the same.
3) Domestic ag product purchases (feed, produce, beef, eggs, etc.) are tax-free and up to $12,000 are tax-deductible. Imports are not.
4) Any company receiving government contracts must purchase 85% of their agricultural purchases from domestic sources. This means if you have a cafeteria contracted by Aramark and you have goverment contracts like Intel, 85% of that spend must be on American produced goods.
5) For tax incentives that grocers, wholesalers, and processors get from states and municipalities for manufacturing, these must be pegged against a percentage of domestic procurement.

Traceability protocols are solid enough today that this is something we could pull off in a couple of years whereas a decade ago it would have been impossible.

that wasn't my point and i didnt mean to put words in your mouth there. there is a large portion of this group though that does, and i apologize for grouping you with them.