While we are still talking about NO and Katrina, to this day, watch how quickly this will be forgotten.

Its like the two siblings, one of which never causes any problems for his parents, does all the work asked of him, no questions asked.......... The other is always a problem.

Which one gets all the parental attention?

It has always been so I guess. Just the way it is..................

was wondering the same thing myself chico!

I was also wondering why al sharpton & co. have not come to bakersfield to defend the 5 hoodlems who killed Mr. Perez - wow, he's slippin'! I guess Imus using the 'racial slur' "there you go" is more important!

You are right Chico about the child who never causes any problems and always does his work.  These people in Iowa and Missouri and other Mid-West states are self-sufficient farmers who take care of their own.  They are too proud to ask for help and pull together as a team.  You really have to admire people like that who look inward at their own community to solve their problems.  No welfare or federal assistance for these people.  They will survive as they always have through their own hard work and innovation.  

Really not bragging, but I come from a farming family and know how they think.  They are very independent and do not want anybody interfering in their work, so that is probably why they do not ask for help.  My grandpa used to say don't trust the government and don't ask for help or they will try to run your life.  Well, I can see now how true his sentiments are. 

Just a guess--the more unusual a story, the more newsworthy.  It was rather unusual seeing New Orleans underwater with dead bodies lying around and people huddling in the Superdome.  Plus, the hysterical rumor-mongering that went on with the stories of murder & rape in the Superdome, the National Guard forcing people over a bridge to their deaths, etc--it took on a movie quality that the press really likes (that blurring of fact and TV disaster-movie-of-the-week fiction.)

Meanwhile, the midwest floods on such a routine basis that perhaps it's just not that interesting anymore.  Ditto for tornadoes in Oklahoma and hurricanes in Florida.  Now, an earthquake in Chicago would be media GOLD!

Too bad it's rhetorical Chico, but  I'm still waiting for the Big One to hit here. But then Hollywood might not be here to make comment.

Hey Sam, that was really funny.  Not sure that you meant to make a joke though.  I guess Catherine is right about sensationalism of New Orleans and the Superdome, etc.  Too bad that Iowa is just not that interesting for media.  I guess floods are considered dull and not really newsworthy.  Yeah we probably need a big earthquake in Chicago or New York or even LA.  But let's not hold our breath waiting -- it may happen before you know it. 

Chico

Those stories fade away.   To be replaced by new (almost identical) stories.  That's life.  

Anyway, I don't want every human problem in my face every day.   I want to move on.

PS    You're examples have a distinct conservative slant to them.

Katrina and NO has not faded away Audrey

Iowa, etc. will

It has for me.

Really not bragging, but I come from a farming family and know how they think.  They are very independent and do not want anybody interfering in their work, so that is probably why they do not ask for help.  My grandpa used to say don't trust the government and don't ask for help or they will try to run your life.  Well, I can see now how true his sentiments are. 

So very true Sox.......... This is why the  "Blue" States have mostly big cities, highly urban areas.

Show me a typical Farmer/rancher and I'll show you someone who is self-reliant by nature.

(now just watch the Libs jump on Farm Subsidies -- ha!)

their understanding of farm subsidies in their genesis is about equivalent to their comprehension of oil leases...................

They are very independent and do not want anybody interfering in their work, so that is probably why they do not ask for help. 

I knew a farmer who used to say things like this. He never mentioned the tens of thousands of dollars in subsidies he received each year from the government. Might as well be on welfare.

like I just said

(except it didn't come from the left -- ha!)

Allotments, subsidies, etc. are a result of Govt interevention in markets -- doesn't mean the intent (like futures market) was wrong in its genesis, just that they like anything else can be abused.

Still sruprised that farm subsidies comment didn't come from the Left first, though........  ;-)

Not sure why you're surprised, Chico.  Who likes farm subsidies but farmers?  Serious question.

Utilizers of the products which subsidies support, like them. Land set aside by allotment for certain staple crops for instance, could be put into other crops.

Again, Govt intervention, but someone has decided that cotton (by way of example) needs to have land available for that deemed staple usage when needed. The best intentions of man sometimes have unintended consequences.

To answer your question more specifically (still using cotton example) the entire textile industry and ultimately the consumers of same always appreciated the subsidies as an adjunct to ensuring a constant supply........

witbee:  What farm subsidies???  Obviously we were in the wrong kind of farming, because as far as I know we never got a dime of subsidy money.  They were sheep farmers and also some alfalfa farming too.  My grandpa did just fine, but my Dad almost lost his shirt in sheep business.  He just barely got out of business without having to file bankruptcy.  Fortunately for him, his father did make some money from trucking of hay and sheep.  This he inherited and saved him from losing everything.  I don't know who is getting this subsidies, but it is not the sheep ranchers or hay farmers.  Maybe cotton farmers.   

Cotton is the one that came to my mind Sox.

A lot of us have had to diversify into areas such as trucking, brokering hay, etc. due to market conditions.

It is this ability to adapt that differentiates some of us from those that just feel they are entitled when people no longer need their buggy whips.......

Of course with our  "entitlement" mentality in play today, it is much easier to just ask for Govt help (subsidy) to keep producing those buggy whips no one much needs anymore.....

Ah.  I see.  Well, I bow to your superior knowledge of farming.  It seems like a sort of insurance, am I right?  To have it in case we need it kinda thing?  I can kind of understand that.  Still, I think it might have started out that way, and ended where the pork spending is now.

Who subsidizing the "average Joe" when he's unable to work because of the weather, the market, or injury?

The average joe isn't a commodity, Mom.  Wall St and the gov't have proven commodities are more important to this country.

My knowledge of subsidies is hazy but doesn't it also prevent everyone from growing the same crop?   Some that are cheaper and easier to grow might cause a surplus and drive the price down where others not grown and become scarce drives the price up.  Unequal trade balance?  Or is that the point you were making Chico?

LOL..dumb it down for us.

Thank farm subsidies for keeping the price of commodies down....

No kidding Nancy.  Am I gonna have to get a book on this subject, too?  : )

Thanks Roy.   It's been years since I had anything to do with ranching or involved with farmers (alfalfa) and with time and lack of use, memory dims.  But that's the way I remember it.  If everyone grew soybeans and no one grew greens beans we'd be in trouble.  Who'd grow corn for the newest rage?

Milk is another, or at least used to be another, where they paid dairy farmers to not produce so that the price could stay level.  I don't know if it's still true but milk used to be price controlled and a store could not sell it for less than they paid for it.  Wonder if that's still the case.

My first husband`s second wife`s brother had a neighbor who was in the milk business for over 20yrs and his dad`s friend had a son who was into the price control business, he controled the prices but he died, could be why the are not controlled nowdays, he had lactose problems

Subsidies are meant to stabilize the markets. Many years we would be paying less for some commodities than we do now. More growers equals more supply equals lower prices.

And what about the famous corn subsidies? How are they affecting the sky-rocketing price of corn?

Nancy, Wit -- Corn could be a good example. If the fear was that everyone were going to commit acreage to corn and not other staples, subsidies could be given to alternate crops to keep everyone from committing it all to corn.

Of course the most economically viable crops for ethanol or bio-diesel would be non foodstuffs or even soybeans for diesel (but of course corn is not economically viable for fuel as we are now witnessing) that can be grown when that ground for the main crop would lie fallow anyway.

I honestly think all these food crops will ultimately be used for food, and even some of the switch grasses and other oil crops will be replaced with the high conversion ration things like the previously discussed micro algaes and LS9 technology.

But the idea you proposed Nancy, about everyone not growing the same economically  "hot" item and paying fallow ground to ensure it is there if needed, were all part of the govt's plan when subsidies were introduced. To try and even out the spikes in the overall market and over time and all crops, reduce prices as Roy stated. Of course, as with all Govt Programs -- the best laid plans => unintended consequences sometimes prevail. When you have big farms (corps) purposely NOT growing  ANYTHING to net out a higher price for doing nothing (after all OH, seed, fertilizers, etc. considered, then the purpose is effectively defeated and even being abused. This has been happening in more recent years and is why the ADM's of the world and their supporters are coming under more scrutiny.

Like labor unions -- a good idea gone bad?

From what I understand on the network news, some farmers have taken to generating wind energy on their acerage and selling it. I'm waiting for them to give up crops altogether and start growing oil from bugs.

A couple of points on this thread. The flooding on the Mississippi into Illinois, Iowa and Missouri is a vastly different scenario than what took place in the Gulf. The population density along the flooding river and canals is less than 10% of the affected population in New Orleans alone. Most of the farmers and business people in these small Iowa towns had plenty of warning, time and the means to evacuate. The floods happened over days of steady rain to allow people to assess where they stood, or waded, before making their getaway. None of these scenarios occurred in New Orleans. Katrina was fast and ferocious trapping far more people in its wake than these damaging floods.

I'm tired of reading  the bogus comparisons bertween these two events. They are in no way similar except that they both added to the nation's misery index.  I am also a little ticked-off on this recent flood, because this is the second major flood to have occurred in this region within fifteen years, and most of the damage could have been mitigated with better land and wetland usage. The fact that only two crops are grown in this region  through petrochemical warfare on the land should say all there is to say  about how stupid  our agriculture policies are today.  Here is a link  to that  loony  left-wing newspaper in Minneapolis, The Star Tribune, and columnist Dennis Anderson's take on the event. Yes, it is sad that floods have wiped out homes and businesses, but tragic land mismanagement and the dependence on two crops  were the ultimate  cause of this  disaster  for the second time. 

Farm subsidies began in the Great Depression to help farmers. The way subsidies are calculated and used today is much different than originally envisioned during the depression. In the 1970s, Earl "Rusty" Butz was Nixon's secretary of agriculture. It was under his guiding hand that the subsidies, which under the depression had been loans were changed to direct payments to farmers. He was also responsible for the memorable phrases "adapt or die" and "get big or get out." He single handedly dealt small famers the fatal blow in terms of competing in the food marketplace. All of the original crops getting subsidized in the depression -corn, cotton, wheat, soy and peanuts- are still getting royalties thanks to the American taxpayer, whether they need to be subsidized today or not. Innovative new agricultural products until this last farm bill never got a subsidy. As you can see the subsidy makes all the difference in the type of crops our agriculturists invest in. We are a nation of corn, soy and wheat, and it is killing us.

I lived and worked in the New Orleans area (Plaquemines Parrish).

We all knew NO was the equivalent of a big bowl surrounded by water.

It was a matter of time.

The question really is, does it make sense to build up the sides of the bowl for an even greater ultimate disaster down the road?

I get tired of all the declarations by a segment of the population that blame everyone else for the tragedy, and primarily due to the ethnicity of those involved, believe it is everyone else's duty to save people from themselves and where they choose to live.