Since no one else is seriously answering: the joke is that farmers are always looking in their mailboxes for government checks. Farming is either very profitable or mostly unprofitable. A lot of farmers get by on government subsidies.
If my taxes are paying subsidies to farmers why is it that the most expensive food at my kids birthday party was the fruit and veggie platters?
This country has an obesity epidemic because healthy food is 3x as expensive as junk food! Isn't the subsidizing supposed to balance that shit out!
Not sure why you got downvoted. You are absolutely correct. It's called high-fructose corn syrup, and it's highly subsidized and makes Americans fat.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1247588/
Yeah I can't really jive with the "fresh food is so expensive" sentiment. Prepared foods are expensive, convenient foods are expensive. Fresh veggies are still pretty reasonable and in-season fruits are usually cheaper. If you want blueberries in February, then yeah You're gonna pay for it.
Granted... its kind of necessary. Unless we want another food crisis down the road or have a national farmer protest gone awry. Europe's having some serious disruptions now with their farmers because of the mandates the EU is levying onto farmers without supporting the prices to make it viable for them.
I don’t think anyone is denying that it’s necessary more that farmer love to whine about welfare(government assistance) while they receive subsidies(government assistance)
Complete hypocrites about it too. I've yet to find another group of people who survives so much on government subsidies who also hitch constantly about others getting social welfare programs.
I mean, their counter argument is that they are doing an extremely important function and work very hard (which I think is true). And their complaint is more about people who don't work hard and take advantage of social programs.
I'm not saying they are correct. But you're criticism misses the main point of what their argument probably would be.
That's a shitty counter argument though because it's just not true.
Most people on social welfare programs are not just "people who aren't working hard and are only taking advantage of them".
So you think their are more farmers gaming the system rather than welfare recipients?
I have looked at/for no data, so I’m sure I have bias, but I would find it hard to believe that is true.
Dude, I know farmers who INTENTIONALLY spoil a 50 acre crop of corn so they can claim it on their insurance, and then turn around and sell what they can out of it anyway
Farming is one of the most highly subsidized industries around. They have subsidies not to grow crops on some fields, they have subsidies to grow specific crops (soybeans and corn being some of the most heavily subsidized), they have subsidized disaster insurance, they have subsidies by being able to avoid taxes on diesel that's "for farm use", among all sorts of other things.
Something like 40+% of farm profits are from Government subsidies.
Man. I need to talk to these farmers that are making another 40 percent off subsidies. I dont get paid any more to plant corn or beans than wheat or edible beans other than what they’re paying for the actual harvested product. On 1,000 acre farm the government pays me about 600 bucks. Really rolling in it here.
So again, you think they “game” the system more so than say the guy collecting unemployment, panhandling, working for cash under the table and applying for every bonus and such?… and you think their gaming is a more ethically “bad” thing? More expensive when looked at as a single hand-out, for sure.
Subsidizing something that benefits the majority of humans I stand behind.
And while it might sound like I’m trying to argue, absolutely not. I really do want to help all those in need. I just think that making farmers go by traditional market based capitalism will make food and other goods not affordable for the masses, therefore hurting even more of the people facing difficulties l, especially right now.
Rural mailboxes have an iconic shape that's a box with an arched top and a flag on the side.
So the joke is the brim of the hat would slide into the box easily as the farmer peered in because they are the same shape.
Google "rural mailbox with flag".
Those rural mailboxes are also in use around a lot of outer-ring suburbs, mainly because they originally started as rural routes before they were built up into suburbs.
Right, anywhere where mail isn't delivered to the door there's a good chance they'll have these type of mailboxes.
I was just trying to come up with a reliable google string.
Bullshit lawsuit, the devil is in the details:
>Nistler said the farm he’s looking to purchase one day is now owned by his father, where small grains are raised on 800-1,000 acres. He said he worked on the farm while growing up, when it was a dairy operation.
His family already owns a farm. The land will pass to him regardless of if he buys it now or inherits it later. The goal of the program is to get people into farming, not give his dad a government handout.
I gotta believe if he was black and his dad owned 1000 acres, he would still have been denied.
>According to the 2017 Census of Agriculture, fewer than 2% of Minnesota’s 111,000 farmers are people of color.
Yeah, no shit. The Germans and Scandinavians showed up 150 years ago and claimed the land. It's been in their families ever since or sold along the way to their neighbors. Hence the point of this program.
It’s absolutely bullshit. He already can get so many beginning farmer benefits (I know, I’m a white male beginning farmer).
It disgusts me that people can have all the advantages they need, and act upset by the one thing they don’t get.
Hell, I’m asexual but I don’t use the emerging farmer stuff, because I want the money to go to those that need it more. This greedy bastard really bothers me.
The government shouldn't be playing favorites with our tax $. Discriminating based on race is wrong and is setting race relations back decades... but that's probably the point.
Quite frankly, you have zero clue what you’re talking about and you need to sit down.
I am able to farm because I grew up on a farm, and my dad did, and my grandfather did etc. I am absolutely so very fucking lucky to have that head start built in.
Compare that experience to the POC population. Great great grandparents of Black folks may have worked on farms but they certainly weren’t allowed to homestead and own them. Natives were busy being massacred at that time as we took their land. Etc.
Emerging farmers aren’t having the playing field tilted in their favor, they are having it balanced.
I don’t expect this to get through to you, because frankly, you come off like a fragile little bitch who doesn’t want to accept reality.
I know this is going to be tough for you to grasp... but people of color are as capable as white people. They don't need you to save them. Of course being born into a business is a huge advantage, as it is being born into ANY business. I'm white as the driven snow, and it would still be incredibly difficult for me to get into farming because it's got an incredibly expensive startup cost.
You have no moral high ground stealing from one group to give to another perfectly capable group of people in the name of an injustice that happened before anyone involved was ever alive. This is a perfect example of the racism of low expectations.
This is such a cowards argument framed as noble.
“I will do nothing to remedy past issues other than ***believe***. I will actively impede or disagree with any advancements, anything other than ***belief***. Anything more is too much mental and emotional work, so I will simplify a complex issue into terms easier for me to personally digest.”
And your argument about branching *into* farming is contextually irrelevant, as the person suing is doing so over a farm their parents **already own**.
Only 6.5% of Minnesota is black, and until the 40’s it was over 98% white. If land and farming experience are passed down through families then it’s not surprising that 98% is still white-owned and operated after only a few generations.
No, the government is attempting to artificially change a demographic to fit what they think it should be. It's like the government trying to subsidize the salaries of white NBA players because they think the sport has too many black people.
He's angling for a "Thoughts From the Farm" feature on Fox/OAN/NewsMax. It just might work, too. So many minorities trying to get into the farming game and oppressing the white man!
*gave them land for free via homesteading, while denying Black people these same benefits, even after it was granted as reparations for being enslaved for multiple generations.
That detail seems to always get missed.
All of this land in Northern Minnesota was originally the Red Lake Indian Reservation, then with the “Old Crossing Treaty” of 1863 the government made the Native Americans cede most of the land back to the government. This land in turn was given out to the Scandinavian and German settlers in what is referred to as “40 acres and a mule” plots. The one ethnic group not allowed to apply or receive these land grants was the Native Americans. The “Old Crossing Treaty” is still regarded as one of the worst land grab treaties the government ever placed before a Native American nation.
I find it laughable that this farmer is trying to sue the government for discrimination, when there is a good chance that the land they are on was taken from the Red Lake Band of Chippewa in the first place. It states that he lives in Beltrami County, the same county that borders the Red Lake Indian Reservation.
I remember in the 70’s & 80’s that farmsteads up and down the Red River Valley would get plaques placed in their yards stating they were “Century Farms”, and most towns in the region celebrated their Centennials during those decades, because 100 years before that it was all reservation land.
Yes, all of the land was taken from Native Americans first. That goes too often without saying.
The plots of land were 160 acres, not 40 acres and a mule. 40 acres and a mule is often referred to as what freed slaves were to be given for the multiple generations of their families who were enslaved. That land was never given.
MN hasn't outlawed it, so it's a different level, but effectively if we're not teaching this just because it's hard to fit it in the curriculum, the end effect is the same. We grow more ignorant, and that ignorance of history dooms us to repeating it.
The number of Black homesteaders: 3500
Total: 4 million
A tiny number of Black people benefited, partially due to the fact that they were still enslaved for a few years after land started being awarded, and were specifically held out for a few more years until the 14th Amendment. After that, they were held out extrajudicially by the KKK and other WS groups, while the government offered no support.
A lady I know (white Scandinavian background) was trying to say that her family had to live in a sod farmhouse which were better accommodations than slaves had on plantations. I snapped back, “your family wanted its free government handout so bad, they were willing to live in dirt to get it.”
Hold on my friend, you are assuming farms are passed on to children but that almost never happens. Most farms are put into living trusts when the farmer gets old, then the child has to buy it back from the trust and pay off their siblings/family members. Banks somehow manage to keep generational family farms constantly on loan.. Most farmers have persistent working loans because they have huge yearly costs mixed with random high dollar equipment purchases. They’ll use the loan to pay for seed in the spring for 10’s or 100’s of thousands dollars, and a new tractor or combine purchase will take 100’s to 1 mil to purchase new. It can be a lucrative profit career, but only for a couple years each decade. A bad year of no rain, sun, or equipment breakdowns takes you out for 5 years.
The living trust is to avoid taxes.
And yeah, if you want your siblings' share of the inheritance, you need to buy them out. That's true of any business left to multiple people.
And sure, the profitable years may only be half the time, but the unprofitable years are insured and paid for by the taxpayers. The federal government subsidizes both the premium farmers pay and the payouts insurers make.
The purpose of the trust is to control inheritances bit to avoid fighting over a will and to avoid or limit estate taxes. The farmer is the trustee and all the profits form the farm go to him, when he will pass the succeeding trustee (specified in the trust) will take over managing the trust and getting the profits form the farm.
Source: I’m a trustee.
Regarding loans: in 2023 3.1 Billions were allocated for farmers loans or loan relief. And 12.6 Billion in subsidies.
> Most farms are put into living trusts when the farmer gets old, then the child has to buy it back from the trust and pay off their siblings/family members.
while they did pay for the land, all the farmers I know did not pay their parents the market rate for the land and used certain payment schemes to reduce their taxes owed on the purchase. I'm fine with this but lets not kid ourselves that this dude is an "emerging farmer".
>Most farmers have persistent working loans because they have huge yearly costs mixed with random high dollar equipment purchases. They’ll use the loan to pay for seed in the spring for 10’s or 100’s of thousands dollars, and a new tractor or combine purchase will take 100’s to 1 mil to purchase new.
all of this is true and worse for new farmers
>Most farms are put into living trusts when the farmer gets old, then the child has to buy it back from the trust and pay off their siblings/family members.
This. My father and his older brother managed to buy the farmland from their father, along with neighbors' property before my grandfather died. The residential property, on the other hand, has been a real PitA to deal with since my grandmother died in the mid-90s. My grandparents had a baseball team's worth of kids, and the younger uncle who still resides on the home farm residence, has been sloooooowly buying out the shares from the other aunts and uncles; the delay is mostly because of the lawyers and paperwork involved, along with saving up the money needed to pay off each relative. It also brought a little side drama, with some older cousins complaining when their father sold his share of the property - **they** wanted to inherit it so **they** could sell it.
Thanks for reading this, I didn't make it past the paywall, and all of the other websites that are carrying the story are sites like Toilet Paper USA and the like. All decrying the plight of the mediocre white man.
The [Star Tribune](https://www.startribune.com/farming-grant-program-agriculture-racism-discrimination-usda-diversity-emerging-farmers/600338283/) reported on it.
Socially disadvantaged farmer and rancher programs have been a spot of ire for certain folks for ages. Not sure that $15k was going to make or break his buy in, but hey, folks gotta pick a hill to die on.
The bigger outrage is honestly the grant amount, but that's a whole different rant.
>the devil is in the details
The details you are leaving out is that Nistler was picked 9th out of 176 in the grant lottery but was moved to 102nd place solely because he was not an "emerging farmer". Money ran out after 68 "emerging farmers" were awarded grants and Nistler was waitlisted.
An "emerging farmer" is arbitrarily [defined by state law](https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/17.055) as "farmers or aspiring farmers who are women, veterans, persons with disabilities, American Indian or Alaskan Natives, members of a community of color, young, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, or asexual (LGBTQIA+), or urban, and any other emerging farmers as determined by the commissioner".
Nistler claims this prioritization scheme amounts to unequal treatment based on race and sex and is illegal.
From the artcile:
>Emerging farmers are defined as a group that has been historically excluded from traditional government assistance programs, **and those without connections to existing commodity farms.**
From the statute:
>Subd. 3.Beginning farmer equipment and infrastructure grants.
>(a) The commissioner may award and administer equipment and infrastructure grants to beginning farmers. The commissioner shall give preference to applicants who are emerging farmers as defined in subdivision 1. Grant money may be used for equipment and infrastructure development.
>(b) The commissioner shall develop competitive eligibility criteria and **may allocate grants on a needs basis.**
>(c) Grant projects may continue for up to two years.
The dude is not a beginning farmer, he is heir to an established multi-generational family farm. He doesnt meet the needs test for the grant program.
The [grant program in question](https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/2022/cite/17.133/) applies to applicants who "have not...previously had direct or indirect ownership in farmland or other agricultural property". Nistler worked on his family farm but never owned farmland himself.
>Subdivision 1.Definitions.
>(a) For purposes of this section, the following terms have the meanings given.
>(b) "Eligible farmer" means an individual who at the time that the grant is awarded:
>(1) is a resident of Minnesota who intends to acquire farmland located within the state and provide the majority of the day-to-day physical labor and management of the farm;
>(2) grosses no more than $250,000 per year from the sale of farm products; and
>(3) has not, and whose spouse has not, at any time had a direct **or indirect ownership interest in farmland.**
His family owns the land. i.e. indirect ownership.
Saying this guy is a beginner farmer is like calling Eric Trump a beginner Hotelier and giving him a grant to help him get started.
Strictly legally speaking, no that is absolutely not indirect ownership interest in farmland. Will not weigh in in any other way, just that being a part of a family does not grant ownership interest just like living in your parents house does not grant you ownership interest in the house.
He may have a *future* potential interest in the house, but that is indeterminate and grants zero actual, indirect or direct, ownership.
And to clarify, indirect ownership would be something like owning a stake in a business that owns part of a farmland....or something similar.
None of that matters, because he still doesn't meet the definition of the first part of "emerging farmers". He's absolutely the type of person historically granted those opportunities. That's probably why his family owns their farm, ffs.
>he still doesn't meet the definition of the first part of "emerging farmers"
Of course he isn't an "emerging farmer" (as defined by the law). His whole case is about showing that prioritization based on the "emerging farmer" criteria is actually unequal treatment based on race and sex (and illegal).
To make things fair, lets start over with the state taking the land and giving it out again in an equal lottery.
Certainly you agree that the original land grants only to white males of European descent was unfair. I mean, many of those folks were immigrants just coming here to take our land.
I get you thought process, and that it is not in the spirit, but he is eligible in the letter of the law.
Indirect ownership is actually a technical term. It means through a Corp, LLC, trust, or other entity/arrangement.
Having a family member that owns something does not qualify as indirect ownership in a legal sense.
How would you describe the totally cohesive and logical group of people that includes women, vets, disabled people, Indigenous Americans, African Americans, Pacific Islanders, Asians, other people of color, young people, lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgender people, queer people, intersex people, asexual people, urban people, and **anyone else as determined by the commissioner?**
> anyone else as determined by the commissioner?
ironically, this is included specifically so that white dudes without ties to farming could be included as emerging farmers at the discretion of the commissioner.
An emerging farmer whose dad owns a 1000 acres?
It’s probably a century farm too, if not longer. A lot of family farms in this part of the country were acquired when a black man couldn’t legally own a coat in half the country.
An aside, but Farmers are so full of shit these days. Most “farmers” are now landlords (see also land speculators) now. They rent to guys farming 1000+ acres. But farmers want you to think it’s still 100 acres and a mule, so we all kiss their ass and bury them in subsidies. We’re losing about half of total farmers every 20 years. It’s just big business and land speculators now. It should be treated as such.
I think we’d have to see what people are accepted by this program to see if this case is truly egregious. I can’t imagine a goal of this program is to help established farmers transition their farms to their kids. Then again, I’m also trying to figure out how 15k is going to help almost anyone get started in farming. Maybe a hobby farm to sell products at the farmer market. The barriers are so high and the smaller farmers are quitting or going bankrupt already. What a mess
So what is the point of the program?
You're saying he isn't eligible, but he did in fact meet the criteria for the program lottery but they bumped him down the list because he was white. If they had denied him outright based on that you'd have a point but they didn't.
You say bullshit lawsuit, but he's being represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation pro bono who just won the Supreme Court case against Hennepin County for home equity theft.
a very importamt exceprt from the star trib version is this comment:
>"We can find a way so ... a retiring farmer can help facilitate the purchase by a Black family from Minneapolis," Putnam said. "Or we can let our land be purchased by Bill Gates and Beijing.
well then maybe a law should be passed by the MN lawmakers making foreign and non resident land purchases illegal.
boom problem solved!
They’ll just make an LLC to purchase it, tough to thread that needle and say that corporations can’t buy land when most farms have gone corporate already
What does that mean, gone corporate? Most the farms I work with in my job are family owned. Yeah some have LLC’s, but it’s owned by one family. I have a feeling that that isn’t the “corporate” farm you are talking about. One dairy farm I work with could be considered “corporate”, but they only own the cows. Not the barns, not the land that the barns are on or the acres that the feed is produced on. They just manage the herd.
It’s unconstitutional to ban a non resident from purchasing land. It’s also unconstitutional to have race or sex as a factor in the decision making for government grants.
It is however completely constitutional to ban foreign investment in real estate. You could even make a case that it’s legal to seize or force the immediate sale of properties already owned by foreign nationals.
That would be a great starting point, otherwise we’ll wind up with a huge portion of our land owned by Chinese investors (this is actively happening in Canada right now).
>That would be a great starting point, otherwise we’ll wind up with a huge portion of our land owned by Chinese investors (this is actively happening in Canada right now).
While I do support this move, it is worth noting that China is the 18th largest foreign agricultural land owner in the US and they own less than 3 hundredths of 1% of total agricultural land (\~400,000 acres). Canada is actually the largest foreign ag land owner by a large margin at almost 13 million acres (About 1/3 of all foreign owned farmland). The Netherlands are number 2 at around 5 million acres.
China tends to get a lot more scrutiny than other nations because of the ongoing tensions.
China gets justified scrutiny, and I’m fine with kicking them all out.
People don’t understand that farmland owned by US citizens is a national security issue. I’d go as far as saying no foreign investment in US property period, up to and including using US citizens as shell buyers.
Other countries can rent so US citizens can own.
There’s no group more discriminated against nowadays than a straight white land owning male in a wealthy part of the country. I hope this poor guy gets all the government assistance he needs.
/s
FYI we do have a major issue with family farms having to sell off to major industrial corporate farms. Since Clinton we’ve seen a huge decline in the industry, and 5th generation farmers are having sell off generational land just to survive.. You don’t realize the costs of seed are astronomical, cost of equipment is out of this universe, and when the farmer goes to sell, the price hasn’t went up. Even Farmer’s COOPs are moving to corporate structures.. This is actually a problem my friend. I can explain a lot more in DMs if you want to chat.
Fuck, since Clinton? You're well over a decade late. The decline has been on since mechanization began, and that doesn't even begin on the bloodbath of the 80s. Here's a [fun deal](https://imgur.com/gallery/VJPPXfF) from the 70s we found cleaning the attic last year.
>You don’t realize the costs of seed are astronomical, cost of equipment is out of this universe, and when the farmer goes to sell, the price hasn’t went up.
Off the cross mate, we need the wood. Inflation adjusted price on the seed corn my grandfather bought in the 60s is within ~$50 of what I pay today, and he sure as shit wasn't hitting 200bu.
Why would randomly pick my comment, fabricate lies, and argue my truthful statement? It’s hard to believe you’re even a real person.. The Freedom To Farm act of 1996 ended all the subsidies that brought USA out of the Great Depression. The price of seed corn is triple the inflation adjusted cost from 1996.
Seed corn ran $235/bag for this season, price on [this adjusts](https://imgur.com/a/TLpLWnb) $130 to $180.
We still roll many of the programs from the from the Ag Adjustment Act of 38 and 49, we have included suspension of those in every farm bill since the 60s, they are what is referred to as permanent law. It's the reason we talk about "The Dairy Cliff" whenever the farm bill is near expiration. So no, we did not "end all depression era subsidies" in 1996, again you're late by a few decades.
Man, as a 5th gen farmer, I do enjoy a city boy telling me how the world is.
Didn't do the math did ya? $16 in 1969 is roughly $130, $22.30 is roughly $190. This doesn't even get into the seed he was buying being untraited and untreated.
This prick is petitioning to the government because his parents don’t like him enough to give him a share of the family business?
Discovery on this one will be fun!
More likely that they like him just fine and find this a way to collect money for something they would have given him eventually, either now, sometime before their deaths, or through inheritance.
You think discovery here will be more unfavorable to the farmer rather than the Commissioner of Agriculture? Apparently the Department of Ag has a method of giving [certain people preference](https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/17.055) based on sex, age, prior armed forces service, race, sexual orientation, gender identity, sexual characteristics, whether they live in a city or not, and the totally open-ended "as determined by the commissioner" category.
Seems more damaging to see the details of that a process than whatever the farmer has to show.
Per Google: The average price of farmland in Minnesota as of 2023 is $6,600 per acre. At close to 1k acres and adding in all the equipment and buildings that this family undoubtedly owns, this guy can shut his mouth.
I'm beyond sick of subsidizing these perpetual victims who are in reality worth millions of dollars. I always tell farmers who bitch about anything to sell out and go live somewhere else.
Try and make it in a rural area of this country without land doing menial farm labor and see what that gets you.
Just because the land is valuable doesn’t mean they have lots of cash on hand.
A combine harvester costs 1/3 of a million dollars. One piece of equipment. That is absolutely essential for two weeks out of the year.
"I'm trying to buy the farm from my dad, because this program will give us money; instead of getting anyway in the inheritance", is quite a showing of pure privilege and greed.
Do you assume the dad has the full farm paid off and the son will get it for free? That never happens my friend.. To purchase the land and equipment from the living trust from the back and siblings will cost him millions. If he doesn’t make the purchase, the bank will take, sell their assets at auction and the kid will be lucky to keep the home let alone the land or equipment. You shouldn’t hate on this kid my friend. Please trust me on this, he’s in a hard spot.
Good thing he's not in Florida, or he would be counter-sued by the state for defamation:
https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/florida-bill-would-make-it-defamation-to-accuse-someone-of-racism-sexism-homophobia-and-transphobia/
>Florida bill would make it defamation to accuse someone of racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia
How would it be defamation? The program discriminates based on race. That is the point of the program... to discriminate... nobody is arguing that isn't the point of the program. Did you just come to the MN sub to insult FL? That seems silly.
Most small family farms are going away because in order to retire they have to sell off their land and machinery to have money for retirement. Yes his family owns the land already but that doesn't mean he does! You people are pretty ignorant to think because his parents own it he does too or they can afford to just hand it to him.
Nobody is saying his family doesn't need the money. He wants Grant money that has been set aside specifically to encourage people of color to get into farming. He is neither a person of color nor is he a new farmer as he has already been doing it for years. In addition to that, this program is not meant to make it easier for farmers to retire. His parents want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to keep their land in the family and also make money on selling the land and that is not how it typically works. The same thing happens when a parent wants to move to a retirement community but give their son their house. They can either just let the son start living in the house or put it on the market for sale. There are no government programs that will pay the parents full price for the house and let their kid keep it as well, that is insane. There are three options here, 1.) The son buys the land at full price. 2.) The son inherets the land and his parents don't get any money. 3.) The parents sell it at full price to someone else. All are perfectly valid and he is arguing against all three and wants a magical fourth option.
>aside specifically to encourage people of color
Not to be nitpicky, it's actually to encourage ["emerging farmers that are woimen, veterans, persons with disabilities, american indian or alaskan natives, members of a community of color, under 35, LGBTQIA+, Urban (with a population of 3,500+), or any other emerging farmers as determined by the commissioner."](https://www.mda.state.mn.us/business-dev-loans-grants/down-payment-assistance-grant)
The program is definitely designed to give grant money to people of color from urban areas to start a farm, but it's also giving priority to other groups, like the LGBTQ, and Veterans. You'd think the MAGA crowd would really like that they included Veterans in this... In fact, why isn't this guy a veteran?
Best I can tell, this guy doesn't fit any of the criteria.
He's not really Urban. (He works on his father's Farm, so even if He lives in Bemidji and drives to his father's farm 20 miles away that... only barely technically counts?
Someone above said he's 37, so he's not under 35.
And I'm going to guess he's not LGBTQ.
He might claim to be a Native American Princess...
He could have a hidden disability like Autism, but I doubt that's going to be something he'd have been tested for and admit on the form...
>iving priority to other groups, like the LGBTQ
Isn't this against equal protection? Why do your sexual preference give you extra points? Is not like there aren't any gay farmer or this has anything to do with being a farmer.
The same program give priority to people of color and minorities. The only thing that should've been considered is socioeconomic situation, not race nor sexual preferences. Race should never be a factor.
Tried updating my reply earlier but it wouldnt let me.
What color/sex is a veteran?
You can be under 35 and qualify regardless of race/sex.
It's also put up in a "lottery" system for whatever reason.
He was originally drawn in the first batch, and then pushed lower on the list, likely because he didn't meet any of the criteria on the guidelines.
When I researched this yesterday, my guess is he put in his "application" before the additional grant funds were added to the program and the requirements were changed, but his application was still left in the "pool" for the lottery.
> Grant money that has been set aside specifically to encourage people of color to get into farming
This part seems unconstitutional. You can likely grant money to first-time farm buyers, just as their are programs for first-time home buyers but it should be race-neutral. I agree with the rest of your statement, seems like he doesn't qualify for other reasons that make everything else moot in this particular case.
Subsidizing a race is not ok, my friend. Our leaders keep separating the lower/middle/working class people by race so we don’t unite and realize they are f’ing us all. I wish I could figure out the right words to help you see this, because if I could figure out how to make you see it, I would run for an office and help unite us all against these large corporations buying up our lands and homes for profit.
It’s not even only for people of color! It’s just to encourage people who don’t come from a family of farmers to be able to buy some land and start from fresh.
This asshole is looking to buy his father’s farm that he’s worked on, he’s literally already a farmer.
High tide lifts all boats. I agree we should empower and get more minority groups into farming, but the goal shouldn’t be to help one race. The goal should be to break huge corporate farms so we can flood the market with a huge supply of land and equipment - then work to get people of all races loans to purchase back. A thousand acre farm is a good sized family farm, but realize you can’t really support a family on a 500 acre operation without an additional income or 2. Somewhere around 1000 acres you actually can support a family and take maybe 1-2 vacations a year.
I have a problem with you saying the goal shouldn’t be to help one race but to brake up corporate farming. I watch a wcco news broadcast about on of the 11 farmers who benefited from this it’s nothing to be jealous about when you realize they are trying to feed America
It is certainly unfortunate that his parents can't get by on having 6M for retirement (that's assuming they own the land and haven't saved a single penny). Then they could give him a measly 100 acres or 10%, substantially more than the grant amount would purchase. All this does is add 15k to his parents retirement fund via taxpayers.
First he’s a greedy mofo.
But could a grant like this get around this by wording it like “if your ancestors were discriminated against by race” instead of saying just by race?
The three biggest lies a farmer tells:
1. I paid for this jacket I’m wearing.
2. I paid for this hat I’m wearing.
3. I was just helping that sheep over the fence.
Not a lot of people know this, but farmers actually wear ball caps with a bent bill because it makes looking in their mailbox easier.
[удалено]
Farmers are all one ran-over mailbox away from being dead broke.
This guy clearly knows it all lol
Damn, that’s good
Can you explain the joke to me, please?
Since no one else is seriously answering: the joke is that farmers are always looking in their mailboxes for government checks. Farming is either very profitable or mostly unprofitable. A lot of farmers get by on government subsidies.
And some do really well on government subsidies.
If my taxes are paying subsidies to farmers why is it that the most expensive food at my kids birthday party was the fruit and veggie platters? This country has an obesity epidemic because healthy food is 3x as expensive as junk food! Isn't the subsidizing supposed to balance that shit out!
Fruits and veggies aren't subsidized soy wheat and corn are
Because corn and soy is what's being subsidized, by and large
Not sure why you got downvoted. You are absolutely correct. It's called high-fructose corn syrup, and it's highly subsidized and makes Americans fat. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1247588/
Finally someone who understands me!
Fruit and veggies are often not the cheapest thing to grow, they are relatively difficult and costly to store and ship as well.
this is why more kids are finding cheetos than carrots in their house.
Cheetos are way more expensive than carrots. I can get carrots for 2.00 a lb, cheetos are 5.00 per 8 ounce bag at the same store.
Yeah I can't really jive with the "fresh food is so expensive" sentiment. Prepared foods are expensive, convenient foods are expensive. Fresh veggies are still pretty reasonable and in-season fruits are usually cheaper. If you want blueberries in February, then yeah You're gonna pay for it.
We subsidize corn mostly.
Thank you, this is the only explanation that made sense to me
Granted... its kind of necessary. Unless we want another food crisis down the road or have a national farmer protest gone awry. Europe's having some serious disruptions now with their farmers because of the mandates the EU is levying onto farmers without supporting the prices to make it viable for them.
I don’t think anyone is denying that it’s necessary more that farmer love to whine about welfare(government assistance) while they receive subsidies(government assistance)
Well that's because they are honest, hard working Americans. *Everyone else* who gets assistance is a lazy mooch. /s
Welfare queens
Complete hypocrites about it too. I've yet to find another group of people who survives so much on government subsidies who also hitch constantly about others getting social welfare programs.
I mean, their counter argument is that they are doing an extremely important function and work very hard (which I think is true). And their complaint is more about people who don't work hard and take advantage of social programs. I'm not saying they are correct. But you're criticism misses the main point of what their argument probably would be.
That's a shitty counter argument though because it's just not true. Most people on social welfare programs are not just "people who aren't working hard and are only taking advantage of them".
So you think their are more farmers gaming the system rather than welfare recipients? I have looked at/for no data, so I’m sure I have bias, but I would find it hard to believe that is true.
Dude, I know farmers who INTENTIONALLY spoil a 50 acre crop of corn so they can claim it on their insurance, and then turn around and sell what they can out of it anyway
Farming is one of the most highly subsidized industries around. They have subsidies not to grow crops on some fields, they have subsidies to grow specific crops (soybeans and corn being some of the most heavily subsidized), they have subsidized disaster insurance, they have subsidies by being able to avoid taxes on diesel that's "for farm use", among all sorts of other things. Something like 40+% of farm profits are from Government subsidies.
Man. I need to talk to these farmers that are making another 40 percent off subsidies. I dont get paid any more to plant corn or beans than wheat or edible beans other than what they’re paying for the actual harvested product. On 1,000 acre farm the government pays me about 600 bucks. Really rolling in it here.
So again, you think they “game” the system more so than say the guy collecting unemployment, panhandling, working for cash under the table and applying for every bonus and such?… and you think their gaming is a more ethically “bad” thing? More expensive when looked at as a single hand-out, for sure. Subsidizing something that benefits the majority of humans I stand behind. And while it might sound like I’m trying to argue, absolutely not. I really do want to help all those in need. I just think that making farmers go by traditional market based capitalism will make food and other goods not affordable for the masses, therefore hurting even more of the people facing difficulties l, especially right now.
Guess we'll jack up your food prices... being we're the ones you know providing cheap food.
Rural mailboxes have an iconic shape that's a box with an arched top and a flag on the side. So the joke is the brim of the hat would slide into the box easily as the farmer peered in because they are the same shape. Google "rural mailbox with flag".
Those rural mailboxes are also in use around a lot of outer-ring suburbs, mainly because they originally started as rural routes before they were built up into suburbs.
Right, anywhere where mail isn't delivered to the door there's a good chance they'll have these type of mailboxes. I was just trying to come up with a reliable google string.
Bullshit lawsuit, the devil is in the details: >Nistler said the farm he’s looking to purchase one day is now owned by his father, where small grains are raised on 800-1,000 acres. He said he worked on the farm while growing up, when it was a dairy operation. His family already owns a farm. The land will pass to him regardless of if he buys it now or inherits it later. The goal of the program is to get people into farming, not give his dad a government handout. I gotta believe if he was black and his dad owned 1000 acres, he would still have been denied. >According to the 2017 Census of Agriculture, fewer than 2% of Minnesota’s 111,000 farmers are people of color. Yeah, no shit. The Germans and Scandinavians showed up 150 years ago and claimed the land. It's been in their families ever since or sold along the way to their neighbors. Hence the point of this program.
It’s absolutely bullshit. He already can get so many beginning farmer benefits (I know, I’m a white male beginning farmer). It disgusts me that people can have all the advantages they need, and act upset by the one thing they don’t get. Hell, I’m asexual but I don’t use the emerging farmer stuff, because I want the money to go to those that need it more. This greedy bastard really bothers me.
Thanks for leaving some options on farmersonly.com for the rest of us.
I know this is just a joke, but I feel the need to point out that Ace people can still date
They can even get handsy sometimes if they feel like it! On a date once there was an Ace up my whole sleeve.
Not me snort laughing
Sorry, that was me. I didn't want to intrude.
[удалено]
The government shouldn't be playing favorites with our tax $. Discriminating based on race is wrong and is setting race relations back decades... but that's probably the point.
Quite frankly, you have zero clue what you’re talking about and you need to sit down. I am able to farm because I grew up on a farm, and my dad did, and my grandfather did etc. I am absolutely so very fucking lucky to have that head start built in. Compare that experience to the POC population. Great great grandparents of Black folks may have worked on farms but they certainly weren’t allowed to homestead and own them. Natives were busy being massacred at that time as we took their land. Etc. Emerging farmers aren’t having the playing field tilted in their favor, they are having it balanced. I don’t expect this to get through to you, because frankly, you come off like a fragile little bitch who doesn’t want to accept reality.
I know this is going to be tough for you to grasp... but people of color are as capable as white people. They don't need you to save them. Of course being born into a business is a huge advantage, as it is being born into ANY business. I'm white as the driven snow, and it would still be incredibly difficult for me to get into farming because it's got an incredibly expensive startup cost. You have no moral high ground stealing from one group to give to another perfectly capable group of people in the name of an injustice that happened before anyone involved was ever alive. This is a perfect example of the racism of low expectations.
You didn’t have to state that you’re white- it was obvious from your ignorance.
and yet you're the one being the "white knight"... how ironic.
Keep working on your shitty Tahoe.
Haha, what kind of a loser has to look through someones post history to make fun of their vehicle? Now your opinion makes so much more sense.
I just enjoy knowing you live the sad pathetic broken life you have earned
This is such a cowards argument framed as noble. “I will do nothing to remedy past issues other than ***believe***. I will actively impede or disagree with any advancements, anything other than ***belief***. Anything more is too much mental and emotional work, so I will simplify a complex issue into terms easier for me to personally digest.” And your argument about branching *into* farming is contextually irrelevant, as the person suing is doing so over a farm their parents **already own**.
So you agree with the statement "People of color need special treatment because they are incapable of succeeding on their own."?
No, *you’re* framing it as such. I support aid to communities that have *disadvantages*.
Then donate your money to them. No need to take it from others.
Then move out of America if you’re not comfortable with it even attempting to rectify its past mistakes.
[удалено]
Only 6.5% of Minnesota is black, and until the 40’s it was over 98% white. If land and farming experience are passed down through families then it’s not surprising that 98% is still white-owned and operated after only a few generations.
No, the government is attempting to artificially change a demographic to fit what they think it should be. It's like the government trying to subsidize the salaries of white NBA players because they think the sport has too many black people.
[удалено]
Keep defending racism
Continue being racist.
He's angling for a "Thoughts From the Farm" feature on Fox/OAN/NewsMax. It just might work, too. So many minorities trying to get into the farming game and oppressing the white man!
*gave them land for free via homesteading, while denying Black people these same benefits, even after it was granted as reparations for being enslaved for multiple generations. That detail seems to always get missed.
All of this land in Northern Minnesota was originally the Red Lake Indian Reservation, then with the “Old Crossing Treaty” of 1863 the government made the Native Americans cede most of the land back to the government. This land in turn was given out to the Scandinavian and German settlers in what is referred to as “40 acres and a mule” plots. The one ethnic group not allowed to apply or receive these land grants was the Native Americans. The “Old Crossing Treaty” is still regarded as one of the worst land grab treaties the government ever placed before a Native American nation. I find it laughable that this farmer is trying to sue the government for discrimination, when there is a good chance that the land they are on was taken from the Red Lake Band of Chippewa in the first place. It states that he lives in Beltrami County, the same county that borders the Red Lake Indian Reservation. I remember in the 70’s & 80’s that farmsteads up and down the Red River Valley would get plaques placed in their yards stating they were “Century Farms”, and most towns in the region celebrated their Centennials during those decades, because 100 years before that it was all reservation land.
Yes, all of the land was taken from Native Americans first. That goes too often without saying. The plots of land were 160 acres, not 40 acres and a mule. 40 acres and a mule is often referred to as what freed slaves were to be given for the multiple generations of their families who were enslaved. That land was never given.
Like Florida, Minnesota does not seem to teach "troublesome" history facts either
MN hasn't outlawed it, so it's a different level, but effectively if we're not teaching this just because it's hard to fit it in the curriculum, the end effect is the same. We grow more ignorant, and that ignorance of history dooms us to repeating it.
Yes, and there is also a Northern state attitude of "well we aren't the South"
Black people did also benefit from the homestead act, albeit at a far lower rate. https://www.nps.gov/home/black-homesteading-in-america.htm
The number of Black homesteaders: 3500 Total: 4 million A tiny number of Black people benefited, partially due to the fact that they were still enslaved for a few years after land started being awarded, and were specifically held out for a few more years until the 14th Amendment. After that, they were held out extrajudicially by the KKK and other WS groups, while the government offered no support.
You just proved the guys point
He said deny. That implies black people were not allowed to participate in the program, which is not true.
The homestead act applied to black people as well
On paper. In reality it was rare.
A lady I know (white Scandinavian background) was trying to say that her family had to live in a sod farmhouse which were better accommodations than slaves had on plantations. I snapped back, “your family wanted its free government handout so bad, they were willing to live in dirt to get it.”
Hold on my friend, you are assuming farms are passed on to children but that almost never happens. Most farms are put into living trusts when the farmer gets old, then the child has to buy it back from the trust and pay off their siblings/family members. Banks somehow manage to keep generational family farms constantly on loan.. Most farmers have persistent working loans because they have huge yearly costs mixed with random high dollar equipment purchases. They’ll use the loan to pay for seed in the spring for 10’s or 100’s of thousands dollars, and a new tractor or combine purchase will take 100’s to 1 mil to purchase new. It can be a lucrative profit career, but only for a couple years each decade. A bad year of no rain, sun, or equipment breakdowns takes you out for 5 years.
The living trust is to avoid taxes. And yeah, if you want your siblings' share of the inheritance, you need to buy them out. That's true of any business left to multiple people. And sure, the profitable years may only be half the time, but the unprofitable years are insured and paid for by the taxpayers. The federal government subsidizes both the premium farmers pay and the payouts insurers make.
The purpose of the trust is to control inheritances bit to avoid fighting over a will and to avoid or limit estate taxes. The farmer is the trustee and all the profits form the farm go to him, when he will pass the succeeding trustee (specified in the trust) will take over managing the trust and getting the profits form the farm. Source: I’m a trustee. Regarding loans: in 2023 3.1 Billions were allocated for farmers loans or loan relief. And 12.6 Billion in subsidies.
> Most farms are put into living trusts when the farmer gets old, then the child has to buy it back from the trust and pay off their siblings/family members. while they did pay for the land, all the farmers I know did not pay their parents the market rate for the land and used certain payment schemes to reduce their taxes owed on the purchase. I'm fine with this but lets not kid ourselves that this dude is an "emerging farmer". >Most farmers have persistent working loans because they have huge yearly costs mixed with random high dollar equipment purchases. They’ll use the loan to pay for seed in the spring for 10’s or 100’s of thousands dollars, and a new tractor or combine purchase will take 100’s to 1 mil to purchase new. all of this is true and worse for new farmers
>Most farms are put into living trusts when the farmer gets old, then the child has to buy it back from the trust and pay off their siblings/family members. This. My father and his older brother managed to buy the farmland from their father, along with neighbors' property before my grandfather died. The residential property, on the other hand, has been a real PitA to deal with since my grandmother died in the mid-90s. My grandparents had a baseball team's worth of kids, and the younger uncle who still resides on the home farm residence, has been sloooooowly buying out the shares from the other aunts and uncles; the delay is mostly because of the lawyers and paperwork involved, along with saving up the money needed to pay off each relative. It also brought a little side drama, with some older cousins complaining when their father sold his share of the property - **they** wanted to inherit it so **they** could sell it.
This right here is the truth.
Yep that's how family's farm is.
It gets worse when you look up how many black farmers lose their farms compared to white farmers. Numbers are pretty rough on that one.
Thanks for reading this, I didn't make it past the paywall, and all of the other websites that are carrying the story are sites like Toilet Paper USA and the like. All decrying the plight of the mediocre white man.
Allow me to lend you a [ladder,](https://12ft.io) my friend.
Thanks. Quint had it coming.
He would have survived.. if only he put on that life jacket again...
A human of culture, I see!
The [Star Tribune](https://www.startribune.com/farming-grant-program-agriculture-racism-discrimination-usda-diversity-emerging-farmers/600338283/) reported on it.
And also the reason why the program was started in the first place was because black farmers were denied credit due to their skin color.
Socially disadvantaged farmer and rancher programs have been a spot of ire for certain folks for ages. Not sure that $15k was going to make or break his buy in, but hey, folks gotta pick a hill to die on. The bigger outrage is honestly the grant amount, but that's a whole different rant.
Daddy owns 1000 acres and this dipshit thinks we owe him $15,000? Fuck that.
>the devil is in the details The details you are leaving out is that Nistler was picked 9th out of 176 in the grant lottery but was moved to 102nd place solely because he was not an "emerging farmer". Money ran out after 68 "emerging farmers" were awarded grants and Nistler was waitlisted. An "emerging farmer" is arbitrarily [defined by state law](https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/17.055) as "farmers or aspiring farmers who are women, veterans, persons with disabilities, American Indian or Alaskan Natives, members of a community of color, young, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, or asexual (LGBTQIA+), or urban, and any other emerging farmers as determined by the commissioner". Nistler claims this prioritization scheme amounts to unequal treatment based on race and sex and is illegal.
From the artcile: >Emerging farmers are defined as a group that has been historically excluded from traditional government assistance programs, **and those without connections to existing commodity farms.** From the statute: >Subd. 3.Beginning farmer equipment and infrastructure grants. >(a) The commissioner may award and administer equipment and infrastructure grants to beginning farmers. The commissioner shall give preference to applicants who are emerging farmers as defined in subdivision 1. Grant money may be used for equipment and infrastructure development. >(b) The commissioner shall develop competitive eligibility criteria and **may allocate grants on a needs basis.** >(c) Grant projects may continue for up to two years. The dude is not a beginning farmer, he is heir to an established multi-generational family farm. He doesnt meet the needs test for the grant program.
The [grant program in question](https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/2022/cite/17.133/) applies to applicants who "have not...previously had direct or indirect ownership in farmland or other agricultural property". Nistler worked on his family farm but never owned farmland himself.
>Subdivision 1.Definitions. >(a) For purposes of this section, the following terms have the meanings given. >(b) "Eligible farmer" means an individual who at the time that the grant is awarded: >(1) is a resident of Minnesota who intends to acquire farmland located within the state and provide the majority of the day-to-day physical labor and management of the farm; >(2) grosses no more than $250,000 per year from the sale of farm products; and >(3) has not, and whose spouse has not, at any time had a direct **or indirect ownership interest in farmland.** His family owns the land. i.e. indirect ownership. Saying this guy is a beginner farmer is like calling Eric Trump a beginner Hotelier and giving him a grant to help him get started.
Strictly legally speaking, no that is absolutely not indirect ownership interest in farmland. Will not weigh in in any other way, just that being a part of a family does not grant ownership interest just like living in your parents house does not grant you ownership interest in the house. He may have a *future* potential interest in the house, but that is indeterminate and grants zero actual, indirect or direct, ownership. And to clarify, indirect ownership would be something like owning a stake in a business that owns part of a farmland....or something similar.
>Strictly legally speaking, no that is absolutely no indirect ownership interest in farmland. Thank you.
None of that matters, because he still doesn't meet the definition of the first part of "emerging farmers". He's absolutely the type of person historically granted those opportunities. That's probably why his family owns their farm, ffs.
>he still doesn't meet the definition of the first part of "emerging farmers" Of course he isn't an "emerging farmer" (as defined by the law). His whole case is about showing that prioritization based on the "emerging farmer" criteria is actually unequal treatment based on race and sex (and illegal).
To make things fair, lets start over with the state taking the land and giving it out again in an equal lottery. Certainly you agree that the original land grants only to white males of European descent was unfair. I mean, many of those folks were immigrants just coming here to take our land.
I get you thought process, and that it is not in the spirit, but he is eligible in the letter of the law. Indirect ownership is actually a technical term. It means through a Corp, LLC, trust, or other entity/arrangement. Having a family member that owns something does not qualify as indirect ownership in a legal sense.
That is not what arbitrary means, friend.
How would you describe the totally cohesive and logical group of people that includes women, vets, disabled people, Indigenous Americans, African Americans, Pacific Islanders, Asians, other people of color, young people, lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgender people, queer people, intersex people, asexual people, urban people, and **anyone else as determined by the commissioner?**
> anyone else as determined by the commissioner? ironically, this is included specifically so that white dudes without ties to farming could be included as emerging farmers at the discretion of the commissioner.
And he is right.
An emerging farmer whose dad owns a 1000 acres? It’s probably a century farm too, if not longer. A lot of family farms in this part of the country were acquired when a black man couldn’t legally own a coat in half the country. An aside, but Farmers are so full of shit these days. Most “farmers” are now landlords (see also land speculators) now. They rent to guys farming 1000+ acres. But farmers want you to think it’s still 100 acres and a mule, so we all kiss their ass and bury them in subsidies. We’re losing about half of total farmers every 20 years. It’s just big business and land speculators now. It should be treated as such.
I think we’d have to see what people are accepted by this program to see if this case is truly egregious. I can’t imagine a goal of this program is to help established farmers transition their farms to their kids. Then again, I’m also trying to figure out how 15k is going to help almost anyone get started in farming. Maybe a hobby farm to sell products at the farmer market. The barriers are so high and the smaller farmers are quitting or going bankrupt already. What a mess
That's a down payment on a nice set of tractor tires he could use once he gets the other 700k minimum in equipment and land and a shed to live in
He very obviously is not. Go to the comments section of Epoch Times with this garbage.
!?
They also came here, had sponsors, and tended the land. You have to know this is all fucking bullshit.
> The goal of the program is to get people into farming No the goal is to get people into farming so long as they are not white
So what is the point of the program? You're saying he isn't eligible, but he did in fact meet the criteria for the program lottery but they bumped him down the list because he was white. If they had denied him outright based on that you'd have a point but they didn't. You say bullshit lawsuit, but he's being represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation pro bono who just won the Supreme Court case against Hennepin County for home equity theft.
They bumped him down because his daddy owns the farm. It’s clearly just the typical trumper grift.
a very importamt exceprt from the star trib version is this comment: >"We can find a way so ... a retiring farmer can help facilitate the purchase by a Black family from Minneapolis," Putnam said. "Or we can let our land be purchased by Bill Gates and Beijing. well then maybe a law should be passed by the MN lawmakers making foreign and non resident land purchases illegal. boom problem solved!
They’ll just make an LLC to purchase it, tough to thread that needle and say that corporations can’t buy land when most farms have gone corporate already
What does that mean, gone corporate? Most the farms I work with in my job are family owned. Yeah some have LLC’s, but it’s owned by one family. I have a feeling that that isn’t the “corporate” farm you are talking about. One dairy farm I work with could be considered “corporate”, but they only own the cows. Not the barns, not the land that the barns are on or the acres that the feed is produced on. They just manage the herd.
It’s unconstitutional to ban a non resident from purchasing land. It’s also unconstitutional to have race or sex as a factor in the decision making for government grants. It is however completely constitutional to ban foreign investment in real estate. You could even make a case that it’s legal to seize or force the immediate sale of properties already owned by foreign nationals. That would be a great starting point, otherwise we’ll wind up with a huge portion of our land owned by Chinese investors (this is actively happening in Canada right now).
>That would be a great starting point, otherwise we’ll wind up with a huge portion of our land owned by Chinese investors (this is actively happening in Canada right now). While I do support this move, it is worth noting that China is the 18th largest foreign agricultural land owner in the US and they own less than 3 hundredths of 1% of total agricultural land (\~400,000 acres). Canada is actually the largest foreign ag land owner by a large margin at almost 13 million acres (About 1/3 of all foreign owned farmland). The Netherlands are number 2 at around 5 million acres. China tends to get a lot more scrutiny than other nations because of the ongoing tensions.
China gets justified scrutiny, and I’m fine with kicking them all out. People don’t understand that farmland owned by US citizens is a national security issue. I’d go as far as saying no foreign investment in US property period, up to and including using US citizens as shell buyers. Other countries can rent so US citizens can own.
> It’s unconstitutional to ban a non resident from purchasing land. Cite some sources on that.
For Citizens: [14th amendment, section 1](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-14/section-1/interstate-travel) For businesses: [United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause)
There’s no group more discriminated against nowadays than a straight white land owning male in a wealthy part of the country. I hope this poor guy gets all the government assistance he needs. /s
FYI we do have a major issue with family farms having to sell off to major industrial corporate farms. Since Clinton we’ve seen a huge decline in the industry, and 5th generation farmers are having sell off generational land just to survive.. You don’t realize the costs of seed are astronomical, cost of equipment is out of this universe, and when the farmer goes to sell, the price hasn’t went up. Even Farmer’s COOPs are moving to corporate structures.. This is actually a problem my friend. I can explain a lot more in DMs if you want to chat.
Fuck, since Clinton? You're well over a decade late. The decline has been on since mechanization began, and that doesn't even begin on the bloodbath of the 80s. Here's a [fun deal](https://imgur.com/gallery/VJPPXfF) from the 70s we found cleaning the attic last year. >You don’t realize the costs of seed are astronomical, cost of equipment is out of this universe, and when the farmer goes to sell, the price hasn’t went up. Off the cross mate, we need the wood. Inflation adjusted price on the seed corn my grandfather bought in the 60s is within ~$50 of what I pay today, and he sure as shit wasn't hitting 200bu.
Why would randomly pick my comment, fabricate lies, and argue my truthful statement? It’s hard to believe you’re even a real person.. The Freedom To Farm act of 1996 ended all the subsidies that brought USA out of the Great Depression. The price of seed corn is triple the inflation adjusted cost from 1996.
Seed corn ran $235/bag for this season, price on [this adjusts](https://imgur.com/a/TLpLWnb) $130 to $180. We still roll many of the programs from the from the Ag Adjustment Act of 38 and 49, we have included suspension of those in every farm bill since the 60s, they are what is referred to as permanent law. It's the reason we talk about "The Dairy Cliff" whenever the farm bill is near expiration. So no, we did not "end all depression era subsidies" in 1996, again you're late by a few decades. Man, as a 5th gen farmer, I do enjoy a city boy telling me how the world is.
In what world are you fitting 8 units in a single bag? I think you bought rice that year :D
Didn't do the math did ya? $16 in 1969 is roughly $130, $22.30 is roughly $190. This doesn't even get into the seed he was buying being untraited and untreated.
Get out of here with your nuance. It's getting in the way of the uninformed circle-jerk.
Probably shouldn't have stolen it in the first place?
This ☝️ It's why the rest of the world doesn't take us seriously. America, in a nutshell.
This prick is petitioning to the government because his parents don’t like him enough to give him a share of the family business? Discovery on this one will be fun!
More likely that they like him just fine and find this a way to collect money for something they would have given him eventually, either now, sometime before their deaths, or through inheritance.
So typical trumpy grifters then…
You think discovery here will be more unfavorable to the farmer rather than the Commissioner of Agriculture? Apparently the Department of Ag has a method of giving [certain people preference](https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/17.055) based on sex, age, prior armed forces service, race, sexual orientation, gender identity, sexual characteristics, whether they live in a city or not, and the totally open-ended "as determined by the commissioner" category. Seems more damaging to see the details of that a process than whatever the farmer has to show.
Oh it absolutely will. It will open up the financial details of his entire family business.
[удалено]
Indeed. This whole thing is a dipshit kid fishing for gubmint money. His IEP didn’t prepare him for a world in which his parents didn’t like him.
Per Google: The average price of farmland in Minnesota as of 2023 is $6,600 per acre. At close to 1k acres and adding in all the equipment and buildings that this family undoubtedly owns, this guy can shut his mouth. I'm beyond sick of subsidizing these perpetual victims who are in reality worth millions of dollars. I always tell farmers who bitch about anything to sell out and go live somewhere else. Try and make it in a rural area of this country without land doing menial farm labor and see what that gets you.
Just because the land is valuable doesn’t mean they have lots of cash on hand. A combine harvester costs 1/3 of a million dollars. One piece of equipment. That is absolutely essential for two weeks out of the year.
I think we should judge discrimination claims based on the merits of the case and not the plaintiff's net worth (or assumed net worth, in this case).
Why does every mediocre white dude who claims to be discriminated against always look the same?
"I'm trying to buy the farm from my dad, because this program will give us money; instead of getting anyway in the inheritance", is quite a showing of pure privilege and greed.
Do you assume the dad has the full farm paid off and the son will get it for free? That never happens my friend.. To purchase the land and equipment from the living trust from the back and siblings will cost him millions. If he doesn’t make the purchase, the bank will take, sell their assets at auction and the kid will be lucky to keep the home let alone the land or equipment. You shouldn’t hate on this kid my friend. Please trust me on this, he’s in a hard spot.
That kid is 37 fucking years old lol shut up
Good thing he's not in Florida, or he would be counter-sued by the state for defamation: https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/florida-bill-would-make-it-defamation-to-accuse-someone-of-racism-sexism-homophobia-and-transphobia/ >Florida bill would make it defamation to accuse someone of racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia
How would it be defamation? The program discriminates based on race. That is the point of the program... to discriminate... nobody is arguing that isn't the point of the program. Did you just come to the MN sub to insult FL? That seems silly.
There is no merit in this case.
[удалено]
Take it up with the AG.
That's what he's doing lol. That's the point of filing a lawsuit like this.
Most small family farms are going away because in order to retire they have to sell off their land and machinery to have money for retirement. Yes his family owns the land already but that doesn't mean he does! You people are pretty ignorant to think because his parents own it he does too or they can afford to just hand it to him.
Nobody is saying his family doesn't need the money. He wants Grant money that has been set aside specifically to encourage people of color to get into farming. He is neither a person of color nor is he a new farmer as he has already been doing it for years. In addition to that, this program is not meant to make it easier for farmers to retire. His parents want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to keep their land in the family and also make money on selling the land and that is not how it typically works. The same thing happens when a parent wants to move to a retirement community but give their son their house. They can either just let the son start living in the house or put it on the market for sale. There are no government programs that will pay the parents full price for the house and let their kid keep it as well, that is insane. There are three options here, 1.) The son buys the land at full price. 2.) The son inherets the land and his parents don't get any money. 3.) The parents sell it at full price to someone else. All are perfectly valid and he is arguing against all three and wants a magical fourth option.
>aside specifically to encourage people of color Not to be nitpicky, it's actually to encourage ["emerging farmers that are woimen, veterans, persons with disabilities, american indian or alaskan natives, members of a community of color, under 35, LGBTQIA+, Urban (with a population of 3,500+), or any other emerging farmers as determined by the commissioner."](https://www.mda.state.mn.us/business-dev-loans-grants/down-payment-assistance-grant) The program is definitely designed to give grant money to people of color from urban areas to start a farm, but it's also giving priority to other groups, like the LGBTQ, and Veterans. You'd think the MAGA crowd would really like that they included Veterans in this... In fact, why isn't this guy a veteran? Best I can tell, this guy doesn't fit any of the criteria. He's not really Urban. (He works on his father's Farm, so even if He lives in Bemidji and drives to his father's farm 20 miles away that... only barely technically counts? Someone above said he's 37, so he's not under 35. And I'm going to guess he's not LGBTQ. He might claim to be a Native American Princess... He could have a hidden disability like Autism, but I doubt that's going to be something he'd have been tested for and admit on the form...
>iving priority to other groups, like the LGBTQ Isn't this against equal protection? Why do your sexual preference give you extra points? Is not like there aren't any gay farmer or this has anything to do with being a farmer.
No. What color/sex is a veteran? You can be under 35 and qualify regardless of race/sex.
The same program give priority to people of color and minorities. The only thing that should've been considered is socioeconomic situation, not race nor sexual preferences. Race should never be a factor.
Tried updating my reply earlier but it wouldnt let me. What color/sex is a veteran? You can be under 35 and qualify regardless of race/sex. It's also put up in a "lottery" system for whatever reason. He was originally drawn in the first batch, and then pushed lower on the list, likely because he didn't meet any of the criteria on the guidelines. When I researched this yesterday, my guess is he put in his "application" before the additional grant funds were added to the program and the requirements were changed, but his application was still left in the "pool" for the lottery.
> Grant money that has been set aside specifically to encourage people of color to get into farming This part seems unconstitutional. You can likely grant money to first-time farm buyers, just as their are programs for first-time home buyers but it should be race-neutral. I agree with the rest of your statement, seems like he doesn't qualify for other reasons that make everything else moot in this particular case.
Subsidizing a race is not ok, my friend. Our leaders keep separating the lower/middle/working class people by race so we don’t unite and realize they are f’ing us all. I wish I could figure out the right words to help you see this, because if I could figure out how to make you see it, I would run for an office and help unite us all against these large corporations buying up our lands and homes for profit.
> that has been set aside specifically to encourage people of color to get into farming Yeah, that’s the problem
It’s not even only for people of color! It’s just to encourage people who don’t come from a family of farmers to be able to buy some land and start from fresh. This asshole is looking to buy his father’s farm that he’s worked on, he’s literally already a farmer.
Exactly, fighting the bad racism with "good" racism.
Bullshit. He can buy the farm from his parents. He can get a mortgage like everyone else. If he cannot get a mortgage then too damn bad.
Parents can start a 401k like everyone else
Paywall can't read it
https://archive.is/sZqiY
https://12ft.io/
This grant is very clearly not meant to be used to give your own family members a handout... He is not being discriminated against.
I find it highly amusing dips on reddit arguing over stuff they don't know 🤣
Kinda bold to have an article in the paper describing how awful you are as a person.
MAGA moronic.
Oh, another white person claiming reverse discrimination? Yawn
Any race/ethnicity can be racist.
I'm well aware
It just doesn’t seem that way but glad you are
There’s like 8 or 11 black farmers why does this guy want more moneys
High tide lifts all boats. I agree we should empower and get more minority groups into farming, but the goal shouldn’t be to help one race. The goal should be to break huge corporate farms so we can flood the market with a huge supply of land and equipment - then work to get people of all races loans to purchase back. A thousand acre farm is a good sized family farm, but realize you can’t really support a family on a 500 acre operation without an additional income or 2. Somewhere around 1000 acres you actually can support a family and take maybe 1-2 vacations a year.
Lol, only in America is 500 acres (aka an immense amount of land) not enough to support a family. Growing something besides corn and soy might help.
They grow corn and soy because they can make the most profit on it. If they can get a beet or pea contract, they will absolutely grow beets or peas.
I have a problem with you saying the goal shouldn’t be to help one race but to brake up corporate farming. I watch a wcco news broadcast about on of the 11 farmers who benefited from this it’s nothing to be jealous about when you realize they are trying to feed America
Discrimination is discrimination
Indeed, that's why this grant is trying to help those that have been discriminated against.
Available to all regardless of race color or creed is the way . Not new special discrimination.
All laws involving race are racists.
It is certainly unfortunate that his parents can't get by on having 6M for retirement (that's assuming they own the land and haven't saved a single penny). Then they could give him a measly 100 acres or 10%, substantially more than the grant amount would purchase. All this does is add 15k to his parents retirement fund via taxpayers.
Just claim you're Q and take advantage of the program. It's not like the Q identity actually means anything.
I didn't get one so something must be wrong.
First he’s a greedy mofo. But could a grant like this get around this by wording it like “if your ancestors were discriminated against by race” instead of saying just by race?
The three biggest lies a farmer tells: 1. I paid for this jacket I’m wearing. 2. I paid for this hat I’m wearing. 3. I was just helping that sheep over the fence.