<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Why the disaster trust fund is bad news]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Tasermons Partner http://www.grist.org/article/a-storm-is-brewing/ Tue, 04 Mar 2008 20:14:36 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/a-storm-is-brewing/1 Payment reflections...

...Farmer payments may not necessarily reflect an increased or different number of disasters in those states, but rather the large numbers of farmers in those states.  Many of those states are in the midwest and south-central areas, which happens to be the most heavily farmed area of the country.

Any natural disaster in those regions, even if it occurs at the same frequency elsewhere, would have more impact 'casue it's more likely to effect more farms and farmers in that region, where it's the dominate land use.

]]> Payment reflections...

...Farmer payments may not necessarily reflect an increased or different number of disasters in those states, but rather the large numbers of farmers in those states.  Many of those states are in the midwest and south-central areas, which happens to be the most heavily farmed area of the country.

Any natural disaster in those regions, even if it occurs at the same frequency elsewhere, would have more impact 'casue it's more likely to effect more farms and farmers in that region, where it's the dominate land use.

]]> Comment #2 by Pangolin http://www.grist.org/article/a-storm-is-brewing/ Tue, 04 Mar 2008 21:00:45 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/a-storm-is-brewing/2 Red State=Welfare State

Let's face it, all of those midwestern states that have been voting for Republicans in the last several presidential elections are welfare states. They live on the subsidy dollars extracted from taxpayers living and working on the coasts.

This disaster subsidy program is just another way of farming the federal government instead of managing the land. The farmers in turn are farmed by banks, agribusiness and evangelical christian churches that promote racism in order to get GOP candidates elected. Maybe it's just that a flat horizon is bad for brain development or something.  

The only reason that this extortion flies year after year is that the anti-democratic allocation of senators and electoral college seats give those red states about 20x the voting power of a California citizen.

A little democracy in the US would be nice for a change. These funds have nothing to do with need and plenty to do with greed.

Put the Carbon Back

]]> Red State=Welfare State

Let's face it, all of those midwestern states that have been voting for Republicans in the last several presidential elections are welfare states. They live on the subsidy dollars extracted from taxpayers living and working on the coasts.

This disaster subsidy program is just another way of farming the federal government instead of managing the land. The farmers in turn are farmed by banks, agribusiness and evangelical christian churches that promote racism in order to get GOP candidates elected. Maybe it's just that a flat horizon is bad for brain development or something.  

The only reason that this extortion flies year after year is that the anti-democratic allocation of senators and electoral college seats give those red states about 20x the voting power of a California citizen.

A little democracy in the US would be nice for a change. These funds have nothing to do with need and plenty to do with greed.

Put the Carbon Back

]]> Comment #3 by guywcole http://www.grist.org/article/a-storm-is-brewing/ Wed, 05 Mar 2008 00:43:26 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/a-storm-is-brewing/3 Adjusted for population / farming product?

Does the report make any adjustments for the number of farmers or the agricultural product of those states?  It seems to me that some states are bound to get more assistance for farmers.

Also, of that 1% who received 10%, how many are large-scale operations?  I know that the Grist community isn't big on CAFO's and corporate farming, but the larger corporations stand to have larger losses.

Just a thought.

]]> Adjusted for population / farming product?

Does the report make any adjustments for the number of farmers or the agricultural product of those states?  It seems to me that some states are bound to get more assistance for farmers.

Also, of that 1% who received 10%, how many are large-scale operations?  I know that the Grist community isn't big on CAFO's and corporate farming, but the larger corporations stand to have larger losses.

Just a thought.

]]> Comment #4 by Britt Lundgren http://www.grist.org/article/a-storm-is-brewing/ Wed, 05 Mar 2008 03:44:57 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/a-storm-is-brewing/4 the numbers don't add up . . .

Some states do indeed have more farms than others, but that alone can not explain the skewed distribution of disaster payments to certain states and certain individuals.  For example, let's look at South Dakota and neighboring Nebraska.  According to the USDA, South Dakota has 32,000 farms covering 44 million acres, with an average farm size of 1400 acres.  Nebraska has 49,000 farms covering 46 million acres, which means it has a somewhat smaller average farm size of 900 acres.  

If the distribution of disaster payments could be explained by differences in the number of farms or farm size, shouldn't these two states have received comparable disaster payments over the past two decades?  Yet according to the Environmental Working Group data, the total amount these states have received in disaster payments between 1985-2005 is significantly different: South Dakota farmers collected $1.35 billion, while farmers in Nebraska collected $880 million.  The difference in the number of repeat payment recipients is even more striking: between 1985-2005, 2,550 South Dakota farmers received disaster payments at least 11 times, compared with 354 farmers in Nebraska.   The size of a state's agricultural sector doesn't explain the distribution of disaster payments.  

]]> the numbers don't add up . . .

Some states do indeed have more farms than others, but that alone can not explain the skewed distribution of disaster payments to certain states and certain individuals.  For example, let's look at South Dakota and neighboring Nebraska.  According to the USDA, South Dakota has 32,000 farms covering 44 million acres, with an average farm size of 1400 acres.  Nebraska has 49,000 farms covering 46 million acres, which means it has a somewhat smaller average farm size of 900 acres.  

If the distribution of disaster payments could be explained by differences in the number of farms or farm size, shouldn't these two states have received comparable disaster payments over the past two decades?  Yet according to the Environmental Working Group data, the total amount these states have received in disaster payments between 1985-2005 is significantly different: South Dakota farmers collected $1.35 billion, while farmers in Nebraska collected $880 million.  The difference in the number of repeat payment recipients is even more striking: between 1985-2005, 2,550 South Dakota farmers received disaster payments at least 11 times, compared with 354 farmers in Nebraska.   The size of a state's agricultural sector doesn't explain the distribution of disaster payments.  

]]> Comment #5 by Tasermons Partner http://www.grist.org/article/a-storm-is-brewing/ Wed, 05 Mar 2008 03:55:28 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/a-storm-is-brewing/5 What 'bout crop types?...

...could that explain the difference?  Certainly certain crops, which grow best in certain areas/states, are more vulnerable to certain types disasters than others.

The crop type may also influence value (a crop of peanuts amy be more valuable than a crop of pumpkins for example), and higher-yield/value crops might get compensated more than lower value crops.  

]]> What 'bout crop types?...

...could that explain the difference?  Certainly certain crops, which grow best in certain areas/states, are more vulnerable to certain types disasters than others.

The crop type may also influence value (a crop of peanuts amy be more valuable than a crop of pumpkins for example), and higher-yield/value crops might get compensated more than lower value crops.  

]]>