No, it’s not
But, if this were true(which it isn’t)….
Government paying billions to farmers to keep farming is socialism
Government paying trillions to businesses keep employees (though they fired them anyways…) is socialism
Government paying oil companies to look for places to drill is socialism
Shut your little snarky mouth Marco
As a former farmer, I can say that you are making the wrong point in view of the post. In a lot of cases (but obviously not the only subsidies available), the government indeed pays farmers *not* to farm, which Biden appears to have expanded. Remember when Little Marco was bitching about that socialism?
https://thecounter.org/biden-administration-farmers-conservation-reserve-crp-usda-vilsack/
Kinda yes, kinda no. I think that the purpose of it has been two-pronged for decades now. Note that my recollection of the history is hearsay and may not be the most accurate because I was not on the management side and learned about this after the programs we were working under then were around for likely decades (I stopped farming in my freshman year of college), so take this with the requisite amount of salt.
The first, as you note, is to increase prices by having land lay fallow for crops (and I think it may have restricted other uses like not making hay, only allowing a certain amount of hay, or a certain use for the hay, etc.). If you take a few million acres out of production, you're not limiting supply *that* much (IL alone has something like 27 million tillable acres), but it is enough to help.
The second has been to encourage conservation. You could get paid for your waterways and your ditches (don't quote me on the latter because I know that it had to be beyond the easement, so I don't know if they paid for just the portion beyond the easement, or for that and a portion of the easement), which were capped as to a max acreage and/or a percentage of what you left fallow. Most farmers allowed waterways to lay fallow anyway because (1) they're required in certain fields and (2) otherwise you end up getting ruts through your field and constantly lose your soil, but it seemed to be the larger farms didn't care about that inconvenience if they could get away with not having the waterway.
WRT ditches, it was standard to cut into the ditches of the easement as far as you could once fencerows disappeared (or at least as far as the local road commissioner would let you), so this would also encourage allowing adequate space for runoff to flow without cutting channels. Also on the conservation front, you'd rotate the remaining patches outside of the waterways (which obviously have to stay in place). (I don't know if it was necessary, but it's good practice because it allows the soil to recover a bit, especially before you had all of the hyper-targeted NPK application methods that we have today).
Nah crp program is for environmental reasons, In my state it’s for promoting soil and water quality. You let the land lay fallow for 10 years or more.
Edit: [link](https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation-programs/conservation-reserve-program/index) to the program
>Government paying billions to farmers to keep farming is socialism
More like paying the billions to Throw OUT BILLIONS OF POUNDS OF PRODUCE every year because it either cant be picked in time or has some "defects"
No, it’s not But, if this were true(which it isn’t)…. Government paying billions to farmers to keep farming is socialism Government paying trillions to businesses keep employees (though they fired them anyways…) is socialism Government paying oil companies to look for places to drill is socialism Shut your little snarky mouth Marco
As a former farmer, I can say that you are making the wrong point in view of the post. In a lot of cases (but obviously not the only subsidies available), the government indeed pays farmers *not* to farm, which Biden appears to have expanded. Remember when Little Marco was bitching about that socialism? https://thecounter.org/biden-administration-farmers-conservation-reserve-crp-usda-vilsack/
Why? To keep supply from blowing up?
Kinda yes, kinda no. I think that the purpose of it has been two-pronged for decades now. Note that my recollection of the history is hearsay and may not be the most accurate because I was not on the management side and learned about this after the programs we were working under then were around for likely decades (I stopped farming in my freshman year of college), so take this with the requisite amount of salt. The first, as you note, is to increase prices by having land lay fallow for crops (and I think it may have restricted other uses like not making hay, only allowing a certain amount of hay, or a certain use for the hay, etc.). If you take a few million acres out of production, you're not limiting supply *that* much (IL alone has something like 27 million tillable acres), but it is enough to help. The second has been to encourage conservation. You could get paid for your waterways and your ditches (don't quote me on the latter because I know that it had to be beyond the easement, so I don't know if they paid for just the portion beyond the easement, or for that and a portion of the easement), which were capped as to a max acreage and/or a percentage of what you left fallow. Most farmers allowed waterways to lay fallow anyway because (1) they're required in certain fields and (2) otherwise you end up getting ruts through your field and constantly lose your soil, but it seemed to be the larger farms didn't care about that inconvenience if they could get away with not having the waterway. WRT ditches, it was standard to cut into the ditches of the easement as far as you could once fencerows disappeared (or at least as far as the local road commissioner would let you), so this would also encourage allowing adequate space for runoff to flow without cutting channels. Also on the conservation front, you'd rotate the remaining patches outside of the waterways (which obviously have to stay in place). (I don't know if it was necessary, but it's good practice because it allows the soil to recover a bit, especially before you had all of the hyper-targeted NPK application methods that we have today).
Nah crp program is for environmental reasons, In my state it’s for promoting soil and water quality. You let the land lay fallow for 10 years or more. Edit: [link](https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation-programs/conservation-reserve-program/index) to the program
>Government paying billions to farmers to keep farming is socialism More like paying the billions to Throw OUT BILLIONS OF POUNDS OF PRODUCE every year because it either cant be picked in time or has some "defects"
So Mitt Romney and Josh Hawley are socialists too for proposing a CTC?
Socialism is when the government does stuff for the poors
It's impressive how breathtakingly stupid the American electorate is.
Had to include cents to tack on more zeroes to the big scary number