|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 3, 2016 17:02:03 GMT -6
Bryce I know more about SD than you ever will no offense, the bulk majority of that corn resides EAST of the mo River. The reason they are 7th and not 1-3. The western half is high desert plateau, meaning annual rain fall is not great. You cannot grow corn or beans in the dead of winter. There is some wheat ground yes, but the only corn you will find in the western 1/3 to 1/2 is along the irrigation district by Sturigs.
Also most cattle ranches are open range production they do not worry about corn prices , the feedlots worry about corn prices. They are grass fed no corn only hay and cake in the winter, some have tried the ethanol by product until cost got too high then went back to cake and hay.
The actual increase price on corn and beans makes cattle prices go higher not lower. Also you time in a major reduction in cattle numbers from drought years coupled with high grain prices and we wonder why cattle prices have been high for the last 4-5 years? The number of cattle in production is way off but comming back some. No cheaper place to raise cattle than western open range. Fact.
Also sheep market is all time highs and those guys are doing super well, grass and 6 months of time and lambs are selling above 200.00 each. Shipped to feed lots in the eastern areas as well as cattle. Not many feeds lots in western SD Bryce.
FWIW I have been to every county in the state of South Dakota I know the state very well.
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Mar 3, 2016 17:12:36 GMT -6
I know that, corn won't yield in the dry west, but Ag payments are ag payments and we don't differentiate the portions of the state you want to choose to use to advocate your case. It is not the two sate's fault that their major crops are ones that are most susceptible to wide swings in prices or yield but the facts are the program works to shore up their net income so they can continue to grow crops. With new genetics ND is rapidly expanding corn acres as well. Most of the CRP acres are in the west so I t is government payments that are buoying up income in those areas as well. Also the dry areas of the west is where the oil is so many of those receiving little to no USDA payments have done very well with their rigs or their land. Why would a cattle rancher not be concerned about the corn price? If corn is $7.00 per bushel how much less is a 500 lbs. feeder steer worth for the feedlot to make enough money to buy the feeder calf? When there was a shortage they were high, but ask them how good their market looks for the next couple calving seasons, even with low cost corn. Also those two states are some of the largest sellers of carbon credits in the USA, so they are capitalizing on development elsewhere for leaving their land in grass. farm.ewg.org/farms_by_state.phpAbove is a link to percentage of farmers receiving subsidies. ND leads the nation I do believe SD is about 4th with NE and IA as high or higher. Also note that both states have several hundred million dollars of livestock subsidies, so it is not true that cattle ranchers receive no benefits from the farm program. Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 3, 2016 21:31:55 GMT -6
Crp in the Dakotas are way down Bryce and the GFP has been working for ways to keep bird numbers up, anything where corn can be fpgrwoing much of it is now in production as CRP payments today are a joke, only those with a strong interest in conservation still have acres in CRP. Too much money in crops and pay to pheasant hunt operations.
Ag payments do not take place in the western regions of either Dakota unless your talking some wheat ground which trying to make money off 4.53 wheat it is really at a 5 year low. I put cost too high to make money off wheat as very few see the advertised price by the time they deduct on wheat.
The western Dakotas are about cattle,sheep and hay that is what makes up the bulk of both western states. Your break down does not tell the difference between East river and west river of either state, betting 67-68 percent of the 73 is all in the eastern half.
Tell me how exactly how livestock is subsidized? Far different than insurance payments. There are no price supports on livestock that I am aware of . Those high cattle prices saw more CRP lost because they needed it for grazing higher priced cattle, and you cannot graze CRP with out an emergency order from the Feds. South Dakota lost 100,000 or more acres in CRP ground. The price needs to be more competitive or farmers and ranchers will find a higher dollar use for the idle ground.
They leave there land in grass because most of it is heavy clay and will not support nothing but livestock and hay. Now bees are big business in both states. Oil? The oil is mainly the Bakken formation by Dickson, ND very darn little oil at all in western SD and outside of the Bakken area. The cattle market even with a drop is still better than the 10-15 year avg. prices are down about 600.00 over the highs of the last few years, but still far better than the avg. Again no cheaper place to raise Cattle or sheep than the western plains. Ground per acre is cheaper, far cheaper than other areas, far less taxes and little grain input done. Spring calves are sold in October and Novemeber to feed lots, they winter just the bred cattle for the most part and replacements and a few Bulls. Sheep same deal Lamb in May sold by Halloween. The ewes and Rams held over and replacement ewes. If I where In the market I would be invested in sheep, again a great market the last 7-8 years. The demand for now is far out doing the supply. 75 lb feeder lambs bringing 205-210. Those are historic highs.
I worked for a lady that lambed out 10,000 ewes she starts shed lambing in January and didn't finish until June. Very large barn and 3-4 Peruvians working for here and she has 15-20 guard dogs.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 3, 2016 21:37:26 GMT -6
The point remains the Dakotas are still a great bet for retirement aged folk as the cost of living is cheaper than many other states and unemployment is super low. Yes both states ran by republicans for many years as well.
You have what you need great medicine, cheaper homes, less taxation, plenty of shopping, many things to see and do in both states, low crime rates, Liberial gun laws and very few restrictions on people.
And drum roll please, The top reason why you would live in South Dakota? They can never run the state in a budget deficit, yes that is 100 percent correct, their is a state constitution that says the governor and state legislators have to pass a surpluses budget or balanced it is against the law for them to ever run the state in a deficit. That makes them a stronger state for sure.
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Mar 3, 2016 22:11:12 GMT -6
You were the one that stated those states receive few if any benefits and that is not true. I don't question retirement etc. that you now use to change the topic. Federal tax dollars flow to SD and ND at higher rates per farm than almost all states and that includes wool subsidies and livestock subsidies, which are mostly west of the river. You continue to want to divide the state to prove your point and the point is you are wrong in your assessment about subsidies and who gets them etc. etc. There is no real harm in being wrong, but being in denial can be an issue that can cause many other concerns. I am sure you understand a lot about SD as you lived there and I did not but even though you trapped on many ranches you appear to have learned very little about their income sources and the subsidies that they receive which lends me to believe you don't understand their farm and ranch practices nearly as much as you state you do. I made a living needing to know those factors in the farmers I worked with and thus understand how those systems work even if I don't live there.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 4, 2016 6:11:57 GMT -6
Bryce never stated at all they receive no benefits I stated the livestock producers receive little to nothing and that is factual. any state that grows row crops is getting price supports and even the bee industry gets a very generous portion of price supports on honey and for good reason. I have little issues with price supports when used to carry out the need.
Again you tell me cattle and sheep producers receive price supports, tell me exactly how they receive a govt check? The last livestock price support was the wool subsidy has been gone for years. Then brought back in 2000 at 1/50th the rate almost previous to Clinton gettin rid of it. Take the current sheep numbers it the wool Subsidy avgs out to a shade less than 4 dollars per head. I know many sheep ranchers who did not bother with such. There are sheep raised for slaughter and some raised for wool. Those selling for meat slaughter wool is just a small side income, many years nothing of an income as by the time you pay for shearing or hire help nothing left. the lambs not around long enough to get a shearing from them.
So we can move on I was wrong about the wool subsidy, but is a pin dot of a mark in the sheep ranchers pocket book at the very best. Nothing like row crops period. Clinton took it away in it's old form and left office owning some favors and brought it back with a major reduction in funding. Again has nothing to do with retirees living in the Dakotas.
Again this is a side issue, you stated the Dakotas offered little for older people which is false. They rely on too much AG supports and inflated pricing from oil, which is just not the case.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 4, 2016 11:52:07 GMT -6
I hate to keep harping- but why can't you say who you are supporting?
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 4, 2016 17:12:46 GMT -6
Tman tell me why it matters in this topic? I get your intention perfectly, divert away from the topic at hand. That min wage is a job killer above 10.10, that a high min wage does nothing for the common man proven out to be fact many times over, that Bernie is a socialist, so I pick my candidate and we divert away from such.
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Mar 4, 2016 21:10:07 GMT -6
You did not even notice that SD received over 500 million in livestock subsidies and you continually state the ranchers get little to none? There are not many dairy farms or hog farms in SD so I am betting that most of that 500 plus million was beef or sheep.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 4, 2016 21:35:17 GMT -6
Bryce 500 million when the wool subsidy is at 20 million nation wide? Tell me then exactly what subsidy do cattle producers get? Show me where to find the subsidy on beef? Your looking at East river row crops and some wheat out west. Bees get a good chunk, bees keep us going without them where in BIG trouble. I know a bee guy that does 750,000-1 million annually.
The eastern half of SD is largely row crops, SD is a good sized state, much of that is eaten up by row crops unless you can show me the beef Subsidy?
The wool subsidy today makes up .1 percent of the program yes .1 percent nation wide! I do not know where your numbers come from? If they are labeled a cattle ranch and they got insurance from the blizzard a few years back? Or if they are getting something for crops? Show me where to Find the annual cattle subsidy/price support? I have found the break down of all USDA AG subsidies and cattle doesn't even show up from the CBO?
Corn is number one ,cotton,wheat,rice and soybeans, then dairy,peanuts,sugar, oil seeds, then honey,tobacco,wool and other crops, no where does it state beef or lamb slaughter subsides? No where.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 4, 2016 21:38:21 GMT -6
Again what does this have to do with Wyoming and SD being ranked in the top 3 states for retirees? It is about low taxation, low unemployment, and great medical care in SD. Low crime and a great quality of life.
If the republicans are so wrong then why are these states so highly ranked for retirement for many years? Then why do they have some of the lowest unemployment for numbers of years? Do you even know the last time a democrat was a govenor in SD? Or the last time the state legislator where controlled by the Democratic Party? The last time SD voted for a democrat for president was 1964" the last democratic govenor was 1978 and only 5 counties in the state vote democrat on a Reliable basis, those 5 counties comprise Indian reservations. They didn't even vote for their own McGovern when he ran for president! He didn't carry his home state!
The state has done very well being ran by republicans even though some say the death of the common man is the Republican Party.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 4, 2016 22:03:28 GMT -6
Agriculture in SD is 21 Billion annually, the economic impact in the state is 13.4 Billion annually, pheasant hunting alone brings in 219 million each fall and walleye fishing is another big one, AG sector jobs amount to 173.000 jobs. Pheasant hunting adds another 4.500 jobs and 100 million in salaries,wages and business compensation each year.
Then add in citi bank and first premiere card center in Sioux Falls and lots of medicine Avers health and Sandford health and many other business in Sioux Falls, rapid city, Aberdeen,Watertown, Brookings, Yankton lots of manufacturing taking places in SD, they are very business friendly on their taxation a on such as well.
Citibank assets amount to 2.5 trillion dollars yes trillion. Employs close to 2,000 people.
Sandford health employs 26,000 between SD and ND and other states. Denny Sandford from Sioux Falls has donated over 1 billion to this health care group! Plus much more for other ventures inside the state. Used to be known as Sioux Valley health care.
Ellsworth Air Force base has 8,300
Tyson foods home office is in SD
Avera health employs 14,000 plus home office Sioux Falls,SD they serve over 1 million people in the tri state area.
South Dakota is 17 percent lower than the national avg for cost to business and is the 3rd lowest in the nation. In 2013 South Dakota got the top ranking for best state in the nation for business ventures due to low cost, no corporate taxes, no income tax at the state level, lower sales tax than other states, strong state finances, some of the lowest utility rates in the nation.
Yet after all of these numbers you want to talk about 500 million in row crop subsidy as the saving grace and Balance beam for the Dakotas? We never even got into the other economic impacts of the state, like strugis, black hills stock show and rodeo that attracts over 100,000 people in one week. Deadwood and the gambling which is down because of the economy but still brings in millions and millions.
I could list far more large business in other small towns across the state of SD. Gehl corperation is bases in Madison,SD every hear of them? How about Bobcat sitting in ND.
For small population states primarily due to weather and sparsity factor outside of a few major cities they do very well state wide, hence low unemployment. Many business comes to the Dakotas because of the business climate and people willing to work. Having a balanced budget amendment to the state constitution makes them all the more solvent as well.
|
|
|
Post by PamIsMe on Mar 5, 2016 2:49:10 GMT -6
haven't read all this thread butthis did catch my eye:
" a high min wage does nothing for the common man proven out to be fact many times over.."
When has there ever been a "high" minimum wage to prove any of the sort?
Pam
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 5, 2016 6:52:34 GMT -6
and even more so Pam- every time we have raised them inimum wage- we have entered an era f prosperity.
Why do I keep asking you TC? more to the point, why do you continually refuse to say who you support? why do you prefer tearing someone else down, rather than promoting someone?
I just fnd it odd, you don't stand up for oyur beleifs
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 5, 2016 7:37:30 GMT -6
Pam you state you never read what was posted but want to know where to find the information on high min wage LOL, it is in the thread. I could garner more if you like or you could do a non biased Internet search for such as well.
Tman just because you say so doesn't make it true LOL. Again look at the prosperity of Washington state and others who have higher min wages , the proof is there and it does not equal prosperity. The numbers are there, don't know what else to tell you. They show that those with a lower job skill get forced out with higher min wage , again many states think it was time to raise such in the last year or two, let's see where it leads in 3-5 years. More business, less and where their unemployment rates are and go.
I fully understand your stance on the issue, we get the the added increase in wage cost from all the profits a business of 40-100 employees has sitting around these days....... We did the break down 40 employees over 5 years adds 3 million more in wages , that is not including all the higher taxation that would go to the fed govt either. I know plenty of business models of 40 employees that have 3 million plus sitting in a flush account good grief.
Again the other dog and pony show would be the sliding scale for poverty, we certainly aren't going to cut that funding so the new scale would be at or close to the new min wage meaning people making 30,000 or close to it and a few de pendants would still qualify, I have made that and less in my life and never applied for any benefits. It is a scam that is being uncovered more and more, raise min wage, fed govt takes in more tax dollars and we keep the same number of people of the federal system. Some see that as a win/win I see that as a total waste of tax payer money in that FORM. Again the job market will bear out the wage issue, no one has told me any large business that pays the federal min wage to date, not a one.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 5, 2016 7:56:36 GMT -6
You see it as tearing down, I see it as getting information out on a candidate with a belief process that wants to make our country closer and closer into a socialist nation, if people want that move to a socialist nation. our forefathers and the wars we have fought never included socialism or injustice, about freedoms and choices and lower taxation not higher. We do not have a king or queen. If we want to tax the crap out of business then what incentive is their for business to make money at all? Some think business has an endless supply of cash, and they are recession proof, they are not and input cost and what is left truly matters we don't have a centralized govt yet! Business owners and free enterprise should not be beholden to the federal govt for solving the nations ill's. People need to account for themselves as well, much more than I see with the democratic runners who want business to account for millions of people. I am voting for Eric Greitens for Missouri govenor and yes he is running, if he doesn't get the nomination he will be my write in vote. Interesting read. www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/07/13/former-navy-seal-why-am-no-longer-democrat.html
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 5, 2016 8:09:46 GMT -6
I don't care who you vote for in state contests- you start a post with 'Bernie the bum" but you don't see that as negative. Oh my what the colored glasses hide!
Still waiting- and you still ducking-
Are you Trump supporter that doesn't want to come out of the closet?
Me? I support Bernie, I voted for Bernie, I gave money to Bernie
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 5, 2016 8:27:52 GMT -6
If you want to start a new thread on who you voting for fine, this one is about ideals on a candidate IMO should stay that way.
Tman you can vote for who ever you wish, that again is one of our freedoms protected by our constitution and the people who have fought for those rights.
Again I would take any of the 3 running for the republicans against either Bernie or Hillary. The differences are very easy to see on many accounts.
Again in the end you will vote for Hillary because she will be the democratic nominee, not your choice but the hand dealt, I will end up voting for not my first choice but the person with better ideals for me and my family and the country in my mind than Hillary.
So who we support or send a few bucks to really matters not at this point in the game I feel. Your best case would be Bernie works a deal for VP running with Hillary . Trying to get some of that young vote she would really need to put her over the top. She does horrible with young voters. They seem to be past the Clinton era. Many where in diapers at the time.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 5, 2016 8:38:42 GMT -6
I will say Trump scares a lot of people on both sides, because he has the freedom to attack from any and all angles. He is an unknown with no real voting record on anything and has the money to do what his brain trust thinks needs to be done. He has the right base worried and the left worried, I would call that someone with high influence that could sway a fair share of voters.
What ever happens I see the debates in the coming months to be must watch TV for sure.
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Mar 5, 2016 11:48:11 GMT -6
you continually avoid the issues raised. I see why you like candidates that avoid answering questions. Where the livestock subsidies of 500 million come from I don't know but if sheep are 20 million for wool and you have minimal dairy and hogs then the bulk of that 500 million that was stated as livestock on the website must come from beef or lives sheep etc. I don't know the breakdown but I doubt that the USDA would incorrectly publish the number for just SD. By comparison WI with 1.3 million dairy cows and 1 million dairy heifers had 64 million in USDA livestock subsidies in the same year. I can see that 21 billion looks big to you but in WI our economic impact with far, far fewer acres in crops and ranches is 88 billion and 175,000 jobs in just dairy alone. We only have about 8 million crop acres compared to SD with twice that many acres or more. I don't feel it my job to find out specifically how and who the SD farmers received that much livestock subsidy just to prove to you who would refuse to accept the results to begin with. Obviously reading the data on the link I left is above your willingness to be informed.
Bryce
|
|