SmitEvo;247851 wrote:
I think Obama was referring to farms that had more than 1.5 million in revenues, they dont need subsidies.
I would probably agree that they dont "need' subsidies (in most cases but not all). But my biased opinion is that I would rather the money go to farmers, instead of changing the system to not giving the money to farmers and instead granting it to some interest group to go study fricken dolphins or some other shit.
There are several holes in this article that I dont understand. By cutting off payments at 250k, does that mean the most you can earn thru subsidies is 250k, or does that mean if your subsidy figures come up to earning 250k + 1 dollar you will receive nothing?
And like I said, im not a farmer and I dont have a whole lot of knowledge of the industry. That said, is 1.5 million in <u>revenue</u> alot for a farm? It doesnt seem like it would have to be any too huge of a farm to gross 1.5 mill in revenue. I did some quick figuring about beets and at a fairly low yeild of 22 ton an acre (I think thats fairly low?) and at $40 a ton (which I think is slightly low?), to make a revenue of 1.5 million would be 1700 acres. If my method was correct (idk) that is more than the average farmer in my area grows of beets, but if you factor in their corn, soys, edibles, wheat, flowers, it seems it wouldnt take much to get over the 1.5 million. And with beets, the revenue number probably isnt anywhere near the profit number because of the huge cost of growing and harvesting a single acre (in comparison with other crops).
If I am way off please let me know.
