Courtney, DeLauro Discuss Issues With...

Courtney, DeLauro Discuss Issues With Connecticut Farmers

There are 15 comments on the Hartford Courant story from May 29, 2008, titled Courtney, DeLauro Discuss Issues With Connecticut Farmers. In it, Hartford Courant reports that:

Tim Slate of Kahn Tractor & Equipment in North Franklin is watching raises he gives his workers offset by increasing health care costs.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Hartford Courant.

ease the load

Monroe, CT

#1 May 29, 2008
and considering publications as diverse as the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal recently have written editorials heavily criticizing the farm Bill as one of the biggest "pork" bills one does wonder why our "representatives" support such a bill. This bill will subsidize farmers who earn up to 1.5 million dollars a year (top 1% of income earners) for growing crops, the subsidy is given even though farmers profits have increased 56% in the last year. The bill actually decreased funding for farm land preservation. The bill had broad based support in Congress, why, so our "representatives could show their constituents how they bring the "bacon" home in an election year exactly as this article describes, Courtney and Delauro telling us how they are bringing it home. Yes farmers costs have risen, as have everyone else's, look at the prices in the market and you will see what we pay has risen faster than what the farmers pay to produce which makes you wonder why we need to increase the subsidy. We, the taxpayer, get the priviledge of paying higher costs twice for our food, at the market and taxes, thanks Joe/Rosa another fine job!
Vote them all out

Fall River, MA

#2 May 29, 2008
Only the Courant could turn an article on Farm subsidies into an endorsement of illegal immigration based upon "need". These ultra liberal reps are killing our nation. Vote them out of office.
Connecticut Farmers

Mansfield Depot, CT

#3 May 29, 2008
Im not going to say the Farm Bill isnt full of subsidies for big time corporation farmers.

But the dairy farmers in CT are all small fry. There feed ( thanks ethanol ) costs and fuel/electricity costs are way up there.

If youve ever been to a rural area and see a nice cornfield or pasture, maybe a nice hayfield,,,,its because its a field being used by a dairyman most likely. If we cant help these small farmers in Connecticut somehow, this state will be suburbia, trust me!
hartfordisadisas ter

Hartford, CT

#4 May 29, 2008
Rosa just wants a place to send all the illegals that have infested New Haven...and do it on the taxpayers' dime.
Do-Right

Andover, CT

#5 May 29, 2008
you just gotta, stop the "welfare", for wealthy, farmers, here, and across America
real information

Saint Michael, MN

#6 May 29, 2008
There is no 'farm' bill, the legislation referred to here is the 'food, conservation, and energy' bill.
Subsidies to farmers will DECREASE. The cap of $750,000 is to keep the layer/doctor/CEO type landowner from benefiting from the program.
73%($215,000,000)of this funding is for WIC, School Lunch, and Food Stamps. Very little goes to 'farmers' and most of that will be in the form of loans in the event of disaster situations ... loans that will be repaid with interest. When a farm loan is repayed, the funds go into the general fund (are not credited back to the USDA.)

“illegals got to go”

Since: May 08

west haven

#7 May 29, 2008
illegal immigration might be a reason for the cost of everything going up, take a closer look if we have less then 20,000.000 illegals here and not including the children we would have lower housing, food, and energy prices, this would mean alot of savings in our pocket. soc services, free housing, medical care, this would save us millions each and every day
Party of BS

United States

#8 May 29, 2008
DeLauro and Courtney = party that continues to hand out welfare, why work when a check comes every month.
Party that also will not allow us to drill for our own oil.
Party that wants illegals here.
Party that is a joke but idiots keep voting for them.
Sympathetic to Farmers

Sandwich, MA

#9 May 29, 2008
I am sypathetic to the SMALL, "FAMILY" farmers. This sympathy to the small, family operated farmers is in contrast to the minority of rich farmers. I tend to be against huge Congressional subsidies of any nature because it always seems to be loaded with "pork" that is ripe for exploitation. Nonetheless, I wish that good legislation could be created which truly helps the small, family farmers and avoids the "pork" that is ripe for abuse and is actually "incoherent" to the true subject in need --- Virtually all of the huge approriations bills of any nature become "incoherent" to the true subject because they are so loaded with "pork" for other unrelated issues. There needs to be created some sort of oversight organization which screens through the pork and screeches alarms when it occurs. Connecticut farms are fast disappearing--- Same in some other states such as, for examples, our neighboring states --- Those surviving farms are just barely clinging to life. More must be done to help those farmers. Farmers can become rich by selling off the farmland where it will become housing developments for "yuppies" (young, urban professionals). But that is not desirable because it is better to preserve nature through farmlands. Furthermore, it is important to preserve farmlands in a diversity of environments and climates because what if a particular climate and geographical region is stricken with a natural disaster which prevents growing crops. Examples being, draughts, temperature changes and the problem with pollinating bees becoming extinct in a region and etc. Therefore, preserve farmlands in a diversity of climates and geographical regions as a protective measure. The bottom line is that we must help farmers survive. Or, we'll be importing all of our food from CHINA along with everything else. Already, China is starting to feed us. Do we want these imports from China to increase ? Not me ! Another thing, generally, farmers must "RENT" shelf space at grocery stores for selling milk. Farmers do not receive all of the price increases . The grocery stores get the profit and it is not passed along to the farmers --- This needs to be addressed because everybody mistakenly believes that all the money goes to the farmer when prices increase. The solution is this : Do whatever it takes to help the small, family farmer to survive. Create an oversight organization to scrutinize every piece of legislation. Screen it for "pork" and notify the news media for reporting,and, to use an analogy and cliche, report it to the public in a tone of "bloody murder". Insist that the news media report abuses.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#10 May 29, 2008
Why stop with the farmers? Lets subsidize everyone in the USA how about planet Earth?

Respectfully,

Boaz ItsHaky
Republican candidate for CTs 3rd Congressional District
Go with Bo
More BS

United States

#11 May 30, 2008
I know plenty of small farmers who have been ripping off the system for years and the goverment continues to give them $$$. I know one farmer who claims a lost almost every year and gets $$$. Goverment is constantly in the farmers face telling them where to post signs, how to do this or that. How about the farmer just taking care of themselves. Look at the issue with apple cider, talk about overboard.
ease the load

Monroe, CT

#12 May 30, 2008
real information wrote:
There is no 'farm' bill, the legislation referred to here is the 'food, conservation, and energy' bill.
Subsidies to farmers will DECREASE. The cap of $750,000 is to keep the layer/doctor/CEO type landowner from benefiting from the program.
73%($215,000,000)of this funding is for WIC, School Lunch, and Food Stamps. Very little goes to 'farmers' and most of that will be in the form of loans in the event of disaster situations ... loans that will be repaid with interest. When a farm loan is repayed, the funds go into the general fund (are not credited back to the USDA.)
Funny that's not how the recent expose on PBS covering the abuses of the bill portrayed it, whether you call it by it's Congress applied technical name or how it is commonly referred to "The Farm bill" it is still a large pork bill!

The President requested a cap on income of 250,000 which Congress ignored and extended to 750,000, hence his upcoming veto. For once the President is doing the right thing. You failed to mention the direct payment subsidies that are included in the bill, yes there are loan provistions and food stamps payments but the majority of the pork is in direct payments to farmers who do not need it.

If your income is 750K as an individual or 1.5 million filing jointly or even 250K do you really think you deserve a subsidy at taxpayer expense? The vast majority of Americans do not come close to earning 250K. I know this must be a shock to you but if you earn 750K you would be in the top 1% of all wage earners in this country.

From the consumer view point what we see is rapidly accelerating food prices at the market place, always explained due to the rapidly rising costs to produce the food which are closely related to skyrocketing oil costs. Then to be told we have to increase subsidies to farmers to offset the very same costs again, certainly appears the taxpayer/consumer is forced to pay twice!

I have yet to see any major publication, from PBS, WSJ to NYT voicing support for this pork laden bill, in fact both sides of the political spectrum have condemmed it for what it is.

While in Minnesota you may benefit from this bill it will be at the expense of the rest of us and you did not need it.
real information

Saint Michael, MN

#13 May 30, 2008
the vast majority of farmers do not make even $25,000 let alone $250K ... the cap targets non-farm income. The subsidy is earned by and payed to the land, why should it matter who runs it?
I did not mention the direct payment, but it is in the 'very little' I refer to along with the loan funds. Could you put a dollar value on the direct payment?
It is a pork laden bill ... I'm not arguing that.
What I'm trying to quell is the thought that farmers are getting $300 billion.
real information

Saint Michael, MN

#14 May 30, 2008
ease the load wrote:
<quoted text>
While in Minnesota you may benefit from this bill it will be at the expense of the rest of us and you did not need it.
Actually the lion's share ($215 billion) will go to urban poor, many on the east coast ... but the general public will think this money is going to farmers.
Sluggo

United States

#15 May 30, 2008
WOW! I had no idea that all of this was going on. I must be seriously misinformed, as I thought the two Representatives wanted to listen to the plight of the State's farmers. Call me an idealist, but that is what they SHOULD be doing.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

North Franklin Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Police logs - Dec. 23 (Jan '10) Jul 3 Christine 21
anyone Jun 22 nipples please 1
gay Skype Jun 21 davemargate 1
can I Jun 19 nipples please 1
In Norwich two funny fit lads looking for them ... Jun 13 Matt ant 1
Skype sex with woman May '15 Anonymous 2
Election Who do you support for U.S. House in Connecticu... (Oct '10) Sep '13 Buck Idleburg 15
More from around the web

North Franklin People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

North Franklin Mortgages