Pigford Decision?

And would a farmer get a loan at the prevalent percentage rate or take advantage of special government guaranteed loans? What would your smart professional do?

I am a conservative and believe in the ethic of hard work and lots of sweat equity. But with this thread, I do believe that you have portrayed yourself with a heavy shade of bigotry. I do hope that I am mistaken.

Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, without regard to reason.

My client has a couple of very good interest rate loans on his ranch. The others survive with out the Gubment Teat as well.

My perceived bigotry, as you may call it, is that when government comes in and subsidizes farms and ordering them to NOT produce a crop, is wrong.

So please, indulge us viewers with how my words reflect, "a heavy shade of bigotry"?

Most folks on here know me and my talents. Perhaps, if you are truly a person of, "ethic of hard work and lots of sweat equity," you and I may enjoy a cup of coffee somewhere and talk. I suspect that you are innocently misunderstanding me. Email and written words have a way of fogging the vision of good folks. I can be guilty of that as well.

major bean wrote: The Pigford Decision was justified and it is a shame that the settlement has taken so many years to finalize.

Concerning the opinion that farmers can realize a successful business venture without government assistance, it is hogwash. 100% of the farmers of America need, request, and receive government assistance in order to be profitable. Anyone who says otherwise has no connection, understanding, or participation in agriculture.

Exactly... It's a shame the usual White-Aryan-Racists can't see that it was justified, and has nothing to do with so-called "reparations" dating back to the Civil War.

LadyJazzer wrote:

major bean wrote: The Pigford Decision was justified and it is a shame that the settlement has taken so many years to finalize.

Concerning the opinion that farmers can realize a successful business venture without government assistance, it is hogwash. 100% of the farmers of America need, request, and receive government assistance in order to be profitable. Anyone who says otherwise has no connection, understanding, or participation in agriculture.

Exactly... It's a shame the usual White-Aryan-Racists can't see that it was justified, and has nothing to do with so-called "reparations" dating back to the Civil War.

Your reference to "White-Aryan-Racists" shows you to be a self-loather.

Hardly... But thanks for your concern... Your label of "self-loather" is growing as tiresome as the rest of your posts.

Whenever the facts change, I will change my assessment. Until then self-loathers are self-loathers.

Facts have nothing to do with your silliness... But if it makes you happy... rofllol rofllol

I am from Kansas.

Here's a little history: one of the reasons the Dust Bowl (remember the Dust Bowl?) was so bad was that when the winds started to blow, there were thousands of acres of farmland that were barren -- farmers had grown the same crops in the same fields for decades, destroying all the nutrients in those fields. There was no crop rotation then. The Government (yes, the big bad Government) decided to pay farmers a subsidy to NOT plant certain crops so fields could regain some of their nutrients. The reason the Government paid the farmers a subsidy was so the farmers could EAT while they weren't growing their cash crop.

Has the situation changed today? Yes. There are very few family farms left. Agribusiness -- like the huge hog producers -- get the subsidies today.

I don't think Av8tor's client is a farmer -- especially if he lives in Colorado. A rancher, maybe, and maybe a small rancher -- but not a farmer.

In my former neck of the woods, farmers were encouraged to borrow money to modernize/expand their operations. Those farms were the first to go bankrupt when the price of produce did/has not kept pace with the cost of production. The additional cost of debt service broke them first. Later many of the other family farms went belly up as that trend continued.

Cat Crap Hill wrote: I am from Kansas.

Here's a little history: one of the reasons the Dust Bowl (remember the Dust Bowl?) was so bad was that when the winds started to blow, there were thousands of acres of farmland that were barren -- farmers had grown the same crops in the same fields for decades, destroying all the nutrients in those fields. There was no crop rotation then. The Government (yes, the big bad Government) decided to pay farmers a subsidy to NOT plant certain crops so fields could regain some of their nutrients. The reason the Government paid the farmers a subsidy was so the farmers could EAT while they weren't growing their cash crop.

Has the situation changed today? Yes. There are very few family farms left. Agribusiness -- like the huge hog producers -- get the subsidies today.

I don't think Av8tor's client is a farmer -- especially if he lives in Colorado. A rancher, maybe, and maybe a small rancher -- but not a farmer.

CCH,

Please don't take my experience and knowledge with some farmers and ranchers to imply that I speak for all. That is far from the case. My point that I wanted to raise was that not all farmers and ranchers needed to have the government bail them out or take advantage of the system. NOW, the previous statement had no intention of stating that "Any farmer or rancher that took a handout was taking advantage" either.

From personal experience living on a farm in Georgia, there were times when a helping hand would have been nice! However, my grandfather, being the proud man he was, did not take any. Nothing against folks that took the CCC payments!

What got in my crawl was that of those folks that felt they needed to sue the government because they may have been discriminated against because they had a skin color other than white - solely to play the "race card."

I leave the comment about the size of my client's ranch alone as that really has no bearing on the discussion.