What is the takeaway here?

KSnative

Active member
It appears that USDA intends to proceed with this program, judges be hanged. Scratching my head as to what agricultural or environmental objectives will be served. Seems like there is no shortage of beneficial efforts that this effort will divert billions away from. What am I missing?

 
The liberal MN press loves to talk about how few minority farmers are in Minnesota. I suspect many black owned farms in Minnesota are smaller hobby farms and not large grain, cattle or hog operations.

Well the vast majority of farmers are multi-generational farmers that started in the 1870s - 1880s (or so) via immigration into the northern US terrirtories from Germany, Sweden and Norway. A few other countries are represented in some areas. Most African Americans moving into Minnesota came as part of the industrial expansion (early 1900s to 1960s) and not the homested act.

Maybe in the South there have been some unfair business acts on black farmers... no clue on that.
 
The liberal MN press loves to talk about how few minority farmers are in Minnesota. I suspect many black owned farms in Minnesota are smaller hobby farms and not large grain, cattle or hog operations.

Well the vast majority of farmers are multi-generational farmers that started in the 1870s - 1880s (or so) via immigration into the northern US terrirtories from Germany, Sweden and Norway. A few other countries are represented in some areas. Most African Americans moving into Minnesota came as part of the industrial expansion (early 1900s to 1960s) and not the homested act.

Maybe in the South there have been some unfair business acts on black farmers... no clue on that.

I don't think the issue has anything to do with business practices, or the South (which hasn't seen the kind of "mostly peaceful" protests sparked by racial issues that, say, Minneapolis is undergoing for quite some time).

The implication seems to be that the US Government has placed minority group farmers (not just black) at a disadvantage in some way. Hence, minority farmers with loans from USG should have them forgiven. But then one wonders - if the Government was discriminating against them - then how were these farmers able to obtain said loans in the first place?

Bogus as it appears to be or not, these payoffs represent a one-for-one decrement to legitimate CRP efforts. That can't be good, IMHO.
 
That's so unfair that the farmers get preferred treatment. The city folk need their government mortgages and any student loans or federal debt forgiven as well. I need not worry...it's probably in the works.
 
Farm subsidies not included in above conversation. Add those in some time. You can see subsidies by every county, every state and even every farmer or company (where corp farming allowed).
 
My original comment was not an attempt to explain the $4B loan incentives, it was to show that this is a liberal issue at both state and Fed levels. MN is (I suppose) a few months behind the Biden plan ... but is working to find financial support for minority (mainly black) farmers
 
IRT the $4 billion real dollars to be diverted from actual conservation efforts, I don't think we are actually looking at "incentives". The beneficiaries aren't folks looking to get into farming. Nor, in most instances, are they being forced out of farming because people stopped eating during the COVID crisis - rather, they had the good fortune to be self employed in a business where the product remained in full demand - and their work was mostly outdoor/not elbow to elbow in a factory or office. It appears to me that it is simply a payoff based on no factor other than skin pigmentation and assumed past and/or future voting preferences.

This is not how you unite a country. But then I doubt that is the intent of today's policy makers.
 
Back
Top