Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

We hear a lot about farm subsidies and how the Pubs love their forms of socialism while they denounce other forms and use that word as a scary word to influence votes. And that's a totally fair criticism. However, I see lots of folks using it as an example of how the blue states lot more in than the redder states. If you're strictly speaking about dollars, then yes. But are you really standing on the moral high ground if the government has to pay the people who are growing your food because you aren't willing to pay them a living wage? Is the subsidy really for the farmer, or the person buying the food? It seems to me that the winners here are the fatties who don't make much money (so, none of us). I get that large corporate farms pretty well screw up my argument, but that eventually happens any time you try to do something to help small businesses. 

Can we just act like we all play an important part in the functioning of our society, even if those other folks vote bad and probably smell bad too? 

Posted

Farmer post during the first minute of daylight saving time.  Well Played

Posted

Some factoids about US ag policy.

The first comprehensive ag policy, FDRs AAA, actually reduced agricultural output and destroyed food crops to support prices.

At that time, 25% of farms were family-occupied.

It's now down to about 2%.

Fewer than 0.1% of the American population is employed by farms.

It's safe to say that heavy governmental intervention in agriculture originally was to protect and assist "family farmers."  It's also pretty safe to say that there aren't many family farmers to help out anymore.

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 3
Posted

I don’t know nearly enough about this, but if the issue is the cost of food it seems like flooding the market with corn has more negative impacts than other ways that could address that problem.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 3
Posted

Those are good points. Now let's tear them down. Not because they are bad points, but because statistics don't really do a very good job of telling the whole story.

How many of thos family farms became LLC's for business purposes but still function as family farms? I'm sure it is a number that is shrinking by the minute.

And when we look at the .1% of Americans who are employed by farms, are we looking at the counted population, or the actual population? There are probably lots of folks slipping between the cracks, depending on the crops and the level of automization involved.

I have no reason to doubt your numbers, and you are generally a pretty rational poster, so let's go with less than 1%. 

It's a pretty sad state of affairs that our policies have led us to this point. I don't want my tax dollars going to some billionaire who happens to own interest in a farm, but if they go to a family farmer who is providing us food without getting rich, then I think my point about farm subsidies really benefitting the fatties the most still stands.

Posted

Farmers should stand up for the public assistance provided to their economic sector.

Other sectors need the same public investment.

Nothing to be ashamed of. This is a mixed market economy after all. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
  On 3/14/2021 at 5:34 AM, Celery Man said:

I don’t know nearly enough about this, but if the issue is the cost of food it seems like flooding the market with corn has more negative impacts than other ways that could address that problem.

Expand  

I understand your point w/respect to corn and its myriad uses in industry and the cost to irrigate, etc but you will have to pry the golden ear of steamed sweet corn, dripping with butter and salt from my cold dead hands....

Posted
  On 3/14/2021 at 5:40 AM, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

I have no reason to doubt your numbers, and you are generally a pretty rational poster, so let's go with less than 1%. 

It's a pretty sad state of affairs that our policies have led us to this point. I don't want my tax dollars going to some billionaire who happens to own interest in a farm, but if they go to a family farmer who is providing us food without getting rich, then I think my point about farm subsidies really benefitting the fatties the most still stands.

Expand  

Interesting that this "less than 1% of the money goes to where it really needs to go" is ok and not socialism when it aligns with a cause you agree with. Now let's do this with literally every other form of spending that Republicans are against.

Posted (edited)
  On 3/14/2021 at 5:40 AM, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Those are good points. Now let's tear them down. Not because they are bad points, but because statistics don't really do a very good job of telling the whole story.

How many of thos family farms became LLC's for business purposes but still function as family farms? I'm sure it is a number that is shrinking by the minute.

And when we look at the .1% of Americans who are employed by farms, are we looking at the counted population, or the actual population? There are probably lots of folks slipping between the cracks, depending on the crops and the level of automization involved.

I have no reason to doubt your numbers, and you are generally a pretty rational poster, so let's go with less than 1%. 

It's a pretty sad state of affairs that our policies have led us to this point. I don't want my tax dollars going to some billionaire who happens to own interest in a farm, but if they go to a family farmer who is providing us food without getting rich, then I think my point about farm subsidies really benefitting the fatties the most still stands.

Expand  

The stat I quoted referred to family-occupied farms, as opposed to owned, I believe in an effort to avoid false distinctions between those titled to individuals or groups and legal entities, yet are still "family" operations.  And it still probably captures some pretty "corporate" operations where the family still maintains a homestead on-premises.

And, I assume the 25>>0.1% numbers, however frail the calculation, were calculated in the same or a very similar way.

Regardless of the accuracy of the statistics, I think it is indisputable that farming and agriculture is a much, much more "corporate" endeavor than it was when market manipulation entered our ag policy.

Finally, insuring adequate food supply is an oft-cited justification for our ag policy.  I found it ironic that the first ag policy, and I think that continued for several decades, actually reduced the food supply in the name of stabilizing and supporting prices.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
  On 3/14/2021 at 5:40 AM, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

I don't want my tax dollars going to some billionaire who happens to own interest in a farm, but if they go to a family farmer who is providing us food without getting rich, then I think my point about farm subsidies really benefitting the fatties the most still stands.

Expand  

I'd rather Texas reform the ag exemption on property taxes so rich people don't get tax breaks for owning a ranch.

But that's just me.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)

More corporate welfare 

 

also how do you make a million dollars cattle ranching in Texas?

start with 2 million

Edited by Sawbonz
Posted
  On 3/14/2021 at 4:38 PM, Royalfan5 said:

One of the dumbest things in political discourse is the fixation on family farms like they are only component of Agriculture in the US. (I saw this as someone who works with family farms for a living) Pretty much all your major field crops are still produced by family owned operations. Pretty much all of your cow herd is in the hands of family operations. The areas of livestock that have shifted into more corporate control like pork, poultry, and dairy have done so mostly for labor reasons, as having a small scale livestock operation is a shitty way to make a living because you can’t warrant outside labor, and it wears your body the fuck out. My Grandfather didn’t spend a single night away from home until he sold the dairy cows when he was in the late 50’s and his and my grandmas joints were shot from years milking in a flat parlor. Every hog man in my family excepting my dad who died young from cancer, have at least one joint fused or replaced. Same for all the neighbors. When you have to scale to warrant outside labor you can rotate it provides for a lot better quality of life for everyone. For your grain crops, it’s not near as exhausting on day to day basis, but it’s essential a long term real estate commodity play that takes a long time to payoff with significant risk in the meantime, which is not for everyone. Most of the family farms that are gone didn’t go broke, they decided that they didn’t want to run on that treadmill anymore, and their kids didn’t either, and we need to stop pretending otherwise. The misty vision of the family farm isn’t going to comeback, unless you explicitly pay people to live shittier lives so you can have them as museum pieces. The United States will keep trucking along as an agricultural power because of our natural resources and technology it just won’t look like you think it should.

Expand  

Dairy is hard hard work. My spouse's uncle held out for a long time, and his son took over but yeah, it was not an easy go of it. My husband's late grandmother, a wonderful woman, was born in a sod house. I wish our children could've met her, she had some great stories.

Posted
  On 3/14/2021 at 5:15 AM, TwiceHorn said:

Some factoids about US ag policy.

The first comprehensive ag policy, FDRs AAA, actually reduced agricultural output and destroyed food crops to support prices.

At that time, 25% of farms were family-occupied.

It's now down to about 2%.

Fewer than 0.1% of the American population is employed by farms.

It's safe to say that heavy governmental intervention in agriculture originally was to protect and assist "family farmers."  It's also pretty safe to say that there aren't many family farmers to help out anymore.

 

 

Expand  

Huh. I would have thought your 25% number to be higher than that at the time. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
  On 3/14/2021 at 3:27 PM, TwiceHorn said:

Finally, insuring adequate food supply is an oft-cited justification for our ag policy.  I found it ironic that the first ag policy, and I think that continued for several decades, actually reduced the food supply in the name of stabilizing and supporting prices.

Expand  

Conservation Reserve Program still does this. Very lucrative and more profitable than farming in many instances. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
  On 3/14/2021 at 7:00 PM, Kennythetiger said:

Huh. I would have thought your 25% number to be higher than that at the time. 

Expand  

Same, that surprised me.  But giant corporate meat packers were a thing by the late 19th, so maybe that had crept outward to other ag.

Posted
  On 3/14/2021 at 5:12 PM, Mrs Whiggins said:

Dairy is hard hard work. My spouse's uncle held out for a long time, and his son took over but yeah, it was not an easy go of it. My husband's late grandmother, a wonderful woman, was born in a sod house. I wish our children could've met her, she had some great stories.

Expand  

My father is in his 70s and still describes the best day of his life as the day my grandfather sold their dairy cows. 
I am in my 40s and describe the best day of my life as the day my father sold our herd of angora goats. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
  On 3/14/2021 at 7:05 PM, Kennythetiger said:

My father is in his 70s and still describes the best day of his life as the day my grandfather sold their dairy cows. 
I am in my 40s and describe the best day of my life as the day my father sold our herd of angora goats. 

Expand  

I love goats.....when they belong to other people. I think that is the issue right there for our increasingly urban society. The reality of production especially with animals is that it is labor. Certain job categories people will justify paying shit wages while rationalizing, "it's a calling," (teachers/social workers, etc). Some aspects of farming are quite rewarding as with the other jobs I mentioned but it comes with a cost for certain.

 

Posted

I'm good with developing agriculture policies that target support for "family farms".  Let's work on defining that.  

Anybody have statistics on the % of government dollars that go to large agriculture corporations? Can those dollars be re-directed to "family farms"?  

The above sounds very much like picking winners and losers.  So maybe we just stop the dollars to agriculture corporations?

 

But really none of this is going to change.  There is no ground swell of support for major shifts in current agriculture policy....within the Senate.

Posted

I know less about this than celery, despite having grown up on a large production farm, but I’ve always had a feeling that corn subsidies are a contributing factor to the obesity epidemic.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
  On 3/15/2021 at 4:57 PM, Buzzrock said:

I know less about this than celery, despite having grown up on a large production farm, but I’ve always had a feeling that corn subsidies are a contributing factor to the obesity epidemic.

Expand  

image.gif.3c0749d656d2e3523c6614e197aa28ee.gif

Posted (edited)
  On 3/15/2021 at 4:47 PM, swraith said:

I'm good with developing agriculture policies that target support for "family farms".  Let's work on defining that.  

Anybody have statistics on the % of government dollars that go to large agriculture corporations? Can those dollars be re-directed to "family farms"?  

The above sounds very much like picking winners and losers.  So maybe we just stop the dollars to agriculture corporations?

 

But really none of this is going to change.  There is no ground swell of support for major shifts in current agriculture policy....within the Senate.

Expand  

Why family farms?  Just some notion of wholesome rural ag-ness?

Insuring a food supply seems necessary.  Insuring some excess for global trade seems nice.

Don't know that big ag needs any subsidies to accomplish those goals.  Do family farms?  Is there a particular reason we want family farms?

Legit question.

We talk and hear a lot about the rural/urban divide, politically.  I find myself thinking the rurals at least deserve some respect and consideration, despite who they vote for.  But there are a lot of social and fiscal costs associated with the rurals.    I can't explain why I feel like they deserve respect and consideration.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
  Reveal hidden contents

corn economy - 2013 article - remains best overview i've seen

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted

I'd also like to point out the main piece of subsisdation that keeps your corn acres up is that by and large the crop insurance program and how it's subsidized and set up is more lucrative for corn even in a supply environment that is crying out for more soybean acres. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
  On 3/15/2021 at 6:08 PM, Royalfan5 said:

I'd also like to point out the main piece of subsisdation that keeps your corn acres up is that by and large the crop insurance program and how it's subsidized and set up is more lucrative for corn even in a supply environment that is crying out for more soybean acres. 

Expand  

Part of the issue here is that corn is a crop which is much more easy for farmers to profitably manipulate across a variety of weather and soil conditions.  Soybean yields are much more weather sensitive, and even at the current market positions, you can make more money per acre growing corn.  If it's too wet, soybeans develop mold.  If it's too dry, they burn up.  Corn varieties can continue to thrive in wet years if you keep hitting them with fertilizer, and the drought resistance of modern varieties is pretty damn impressive.

You could eliminate direct subsidies and insurance, and in most years we make more money growing corn.  You grow soybeans to make a better margin off the next year's crop and hope they can break even or make you a little money.

To get people away from growing corn, you have to have a profitable replacement.  That doesn't really exist right now in the corn belt.  We aren't growing corn because of direct subsidies.  We grow corn because it's the most profitable crop to grow in this environment.  It would likely take direct subsidization of alternative crops or increased CRP rates to push people away from growing corn.

Even then, if direct subsidies and indirect subsidies like ethanol go away, you'll still see a lot of corn acres to keep up with livestock feeding demand.  Less than now, of course.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
  On 3/15/2021 at 6:28 PM, Al_4_ISU said:

Part of the issue here is that corn is a crop which is much more easy for farmers to profitably manipulate across a variety of weather and soil conditions.  Soybean yields are much more weather sensitive, and even at the current market positions, you can make more money per acre growing corn.  If it's too wet, soybeans develop mold.  If it's too dry, they burn up.  Corn varieties can continue to thrive in wet years if you keep hitting them with fertilizer, and the drought resistance of modern varieties is pretty damn impressive.

You could eliminate direct subsidies and insurance, and in most years we make more money growing corn.  You grow soybeans to make a better margin off the next year's crop and hope they can break even or make you a little money.

To get people away from growing corn, you have to have a profitable replacement.  That doesn't really exist right now in the corn belt.  We aren't growing corn because of direct subsidies.  We grow corn because it's the most profitable crop to grow in this environment.  It would likely take direct subsidization of alternative crops or increased CRP rates to push people away from growing corn.

Even then, if direct subsidies and indirect subsidies like ethanol go away, you'll still see a lot of corn acres to keep up with livestock feeding demand.  Less than now, of course.

Expand  

I get that. That being said, the current corn set up gets corn acres in parts of the Western Corn Belt that should be heavier on beans or sorghum in NE, KS, SD, and CO that the one size fits all stuff in the farm program shifts to corn. 

Posted
  On 3/15/2021 at 6:37 PM, Royalfan5 said:

I get that. That being said, the current corn set up gets corn acres in parts of the Western Corn Belt that should be heavier on beans or sorghum in NE, KS, SD, and CO that the one size fits all stuff in the farm program shifts to corn. 

Expand  

That's definitely true.  Those fringe acres likely wouldn't shift without it.  I was surprised last summer when I went out to Yellowstone and saw corn planted all the way to the foothills of the Black Hills.  When I made that drive as a kid, you shifted to wheat as soon as you crossed the Missouri.

I'm just talking about what's going on where I'm at.  We're more well suited for corn production than anywhere else in this country save for parts of Illinois.

Posted (edited)

Ethanol plants and feeders benefit from welfare we provide to Corn Producers. 

It lowers their costs to produce their products (ethanol and livestock).

Socialism in action.  

That word frightens so many people. 

Edited by washparkhorn
  • Like 1
Posted
  On 3/15/2021 at 6:42 PM, Al_4_ISU said:

That's definitely true.  Those fringe acres likely wouldn't shift without it.  I was surprised last summer when I went out to Yellowstone and saw corn planted all the way to the foothills of the Black Hills.  When I made that drive as a kid, you shifted to wheat as soon as you crossed the Missouri.

I'm just talking about what's going on where I'm at.  We're more well suited for corn production than anywhere else in this country save for parts of Illinois.

Expand  

That's why it's always fun for me when my Iowa clients bitch about weather and what not, to tell them about what my Kansas guys have to deal with. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)

"Family" in this context should probably be readjusted to "small business."  Whether it's purely a family operation is pretty irrelevant, except for some frothy emotional appeal.  I think the question of interest is whether it is part of a massive corporate entity like ConAgra, Cargill, etc.

And that's not a matter purely of "big corporation bad," but there are a lot of valid reasons that big corps don't need help the way small businesses might (access to credit for one thing), and the big corps probably have an undue influence on policy due to their massive expenditures on lobbying.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
  On 3/15/2021 at 6:37 PM, Royalfan5 said:

I get that. That being said, the current corn set up gets corn acres in parts of the Western Corn Belt that should be heavier on beans or sorghum in NE, KS, SD, and CO that the one size fits all stuff in the farm program shifts to corn. 

Expand  

When my spouse was an undergrad in Lincoln he had to come up with a marketing plan for an underutilized grain or something along those lines. He got outvoted (group project) in favor of an amaranth cookie but I always loved his idea: a cereal called Captain Milo. Nestle already made a product called 'Milo' that was derived from malted wheat so his idea got the downvote. IIRC, sorghum doesn't need as much irrigation as corn.

Posted
  On 3/15/2021 at 9:28 PM, Mrs Whiggins said:

When my spouse was an undergrad in Lincoln he had to come up with a marketing plan for an underutilized grain or something along those lines. He got outvoted (group project) in favor of an amaranth cookie but I always loved his idea: a cereal called Captain Milo. Nestle already made a product called 'Milo' that was derived from malted wheat so his idea got the downvote. IIRC, sorghum doesn't need as much irrigation as corn.

Expand  

Milo does well in dry conditions and China loves it. Usually trades at a discount of 30-50 cents to corn, currently is at 90-140 premium. The rub is that if it’s dry you’ll raise 90 bushel milo and 60 bushel corn, but if it’s good you’ll raise 100 bu milo and 160 bu corn. Also it’s really itchy and prone to create enough dust to blow up a grain elevator. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
  On 3/15/2021 at 10:27 PM, Royalfan5 said:
Milo does well in dry conditions and China loves it. Usually trades at a discount of 30-50 cents to corn, currently is at 90-140 premium. The rub is that if it’s dry you’ll raise 90 bushel milo and 60 bushel corn, but if it’s good you’ll raise 100 bu milo and 160 bu corn. Also it’s really itchy and prone to create enough dust to blow up a grain elevator. 

Just to point out the difference in corn potential, 160 bu/acre would be an abject failure for us and most farmers in my area.
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
  On 3/15/2021 at 11:46 PM, Al_4_ISU said:


Just to point out the difference in corn potential, 160 bu/acre would be an abject failure for us and most farmers in my area.

Expand  

Yeah but when your cash rent is 70 bucks an acre it’ll do just fine 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
  On 3/15/2021 at 6:46 PM, washparkhorn said:
Ethanol plants and feeders benefit from welfare we provide to Corn Producers. 
It lowers their costs to produce their products (ethanol and livestock).
Socialism in action.  
That word frightens so many people. 

I have no issue with subsidies for American farmers. But let's be very clear about what they are. They are socialist welfare. Both for the farmers and for the consumers.
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
  On 3/16/2021 at 1:27 AM, BradInATX said:


I have no issue with subsidies for American farmers. But let's be very clear about what they are. They are socialist welfare. Both for the farmers and for the consumers.

Expand  

It's time to take back that word. A welfare check is what I asked for once when I called the local law enforcement to check on a situation that ultimately turned out to be a domestic abuse/stalking situation. Welfare has to do with the state of doing well with respect to well-being. Is that so wrong that we should look out for our fellow citizens and want them to do well and prosper? The idea of loving fellow Americans has been turned on its head to the point that many of us seemingly hate fellow Americans and see everything as a taking something out of a sandbox instead of building a sandbox together. Maybe I'm hung up on the idea of the solo American who wasn't really so alone when you read the historical accounts. Heck, some of the early plains settlers went insane when they didn't have neighbors....

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted (edited)
  On 3/16/2021 at 1:59 AM, Mrs Whiggins said:

It's time to take back that word. A welfare check is what I asked for once when I called the local law enforcement to check on a situation that ultimately turned out to be a domestic abuse/stalking situation. Welfare has to do with the state of doing well with respect to well-being. Is that so wrong that we should look out for our fellow citizens and want them to do well and prosper? The idea of loving fellow Americans has been turned on its head to the point that many of us seemingly hate fellow Americans and see everything as a taking something out of a sandbox instead of building a sandbox together. Maybe I'm hung up on the idea of the solo American who wasn't really so alone when you read the historical accounts. Heck, some of the early plains settlers went insane when they didn't have neighbors....

Expand  

 

I agree. I chose that word for a reason. We have countless posters on this board that no doubt get together with their buddies and piss and moan about welfare queens buying lobster with food stamps while receiving welfare of some form or fashion, completely oblivious to their own hypocrisy.

I can tell you the race of the recipient of a social program almost 100% of the time based on the person describing it and the word they use. 

A subsidy is almost always a white person. Welfare is almost always a person of color.

Edited by BradInATX
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
  On 3/15/2021 at 11:10 PM, Hagbard Celine said:

for the gallery:

can you grow soy indoors in a vertical agriculture aquaponic setup like vegetables?

Expand  

Would think the cost of production would exceed any profit to be made.   Plus harvest would be an issue.

There are some pretty intense subsidies on rice, sugar and honey as well.   I think that has to do with keeping some domestic production for protection in trade situations. 

 

I wish we could get away from the vertical integration and back to local production.   We could solve so many problems if we started farming our lands like we did before corporate farming.    And the corporate farmers like AI aren't getting rich either.  They have to take on more and more acreage to justify the larger machinery.  Cotton harvest now is pretty much all custom work, since the harvesters are a quarter million apiece.  You can't afford own one for just 2000 acres of cotton.

I worked for a corporate farm in high school, kind of like AI's.  The farmer told me then, back in the 70s that our soil wasn't anything but structure, we used it to hold up plants, we added all the nutrients.  He was right about that.  

I'd really like to see a push, some incentive programs to go back more to small natural farms.  Those highlighted on Kiss the Soil are what I am alluding to.

Posted
  On 3/16/2021 at 2:01 AM, BradInATX said:

 

I agree. I chose that word for a reason. We have countless posters on this board that no doubt get together with their buddies and piss and moan about welfare queens buying lobster with food stamps while receiving welfare of some form or fashion, completely oblivious to their own hypocrisy.

I can tell you the race of the recipient of a social program almost 100% of the time based on the person describing it and the word they use. 

A subsidy is almost always a white person. Welfare is almost always a person of color.

Expand  

Perhaps it also got started as subsidy was to a group of people (farmers/airlines/etc) and welfare went to an individual. Among individuals, it is easier for the whole 'I'll be the judge of your worthiness to be deserving' metric that is applied. Race plays a factor and always has, but the welfare that goes to the farm owner is/was viewed differently than the welfare that goes/went to the crop picker all the way back to the Joad family.

Posted
  On 3/16/2021 at 2:18 AM, Mrs Whiggins said:

Perhaps it also got started as subsidy was to a group of people (farmers/airlines/etc) and welfare went to an individual. Among individuals, it is easier for the whole 'I'll be the judge of your worthiness to be deserving' metric that is applied. Race plays a factor and always has, but the welfare that goes to the farm owner is/was viewed differently than the welfare that goes/went to the crop picker all the way back to the Joad family.

Expand  

You might be right about the origins. Probably so. If you asked, say, an average Trump voter to describe college grants for persons of color or tax breaks for minority owned businesses, do you think they'd describe them closer to their perception of "welfare" or that of "subsidies"? I know where my money would be.

Posted
  On 3/16/2021 at 2:37 AM, BradInATX said:

You might be right about the origins. Probably so. If you asked, say, an average Trump voter to describe college grants for persons of color or tax breaks for minority owned businesses, do you think they'd describe them closer to their perception of "welfare" or that of "subsidies"? I know where my money would be.

Expand  

Welfare, no doubt. It's also the perception not unlike (and pardon as this is not meant to offend) when the lily white subdivision suddenly discovers a minority family has bought a home. It's the 'they're taking over the neighborhood' effect. When one combines that along with the bias of considering someone who 'looks' like you as having similar values, etc and an outgroup (someone who doesn't 'look' like you) as being untrustworthy to use any funds wisely, it most likely creates a fear based resentment that reinforces the belief that certain outgroups are taking advantage of unfair benefits.

No one talks about the Koch brothers being able to log public forests for private gain, but we have covered the costs for that to the tune of a billion dollars a year.

  • Hook 'Em 1


×
×
  • Create New...