Talk:Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008

Unititled

The farm bill isn't really a 'farm subsidy' bill. It covers many other areas of ag policy. I'm going to hold off on working on this article until a bill passes, because right now it seems to change on a daily basis. ike9898 (talk) 16:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Its budget is ~50% farm subsidies, so I think it's safe to call it a farm subsidy bill. johnpseudo 18:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that the bill has made some attempt to close the "Enron Loophole", and some discussion of this point would be worthwhile. Although perhaps that subject itself is large enough that it would make sense to have a separate page, and a link to it from this page. Ericy (talk) 12:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Could someone add a section or maybe a chart that explains where the billions of dollars are going.Mantion (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Johnpseudo - where did you get that 50% from? From my understanding, that is way off. In reality, about 68% of the bill is for nutrition programs, aka food stamps. The remaining third is farm subsidy. I will work on a chart for this later.--Longstreet9 (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering if you all have any info about the actual monetary break down (amount and percent spent on food safety, commodity programs, administration, nutrition ect.) Also, I think that some information about the way in which commodity subsidies are spent (types of crops) would be really helpful. And do they still spend taxpayer money on building waste ponds for CAFOs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.170.14.10 (talk) 06:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Also isn't the farm bill one of the most expensive pieces of legislation that the government passes? why is it only a low priority? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.170.14.10 (talk) 06:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Question

I have a question regarding the text "current cap on payments to anyone making over $750,000 per year" as it currently appears in http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/2007_U.S._Farm_Bill. Perhaps knowledgable individuals can comment on these questions: What is meant by "making"? Does this mean "gross" income from the farm, i.e. the total money collected from the sale of produce from the farm? Or does it mean what is left after expenses (i.e. "net" income)? An add on here is "How much do farmers actually take home?" And who is "anyone"? Does this apply to any entity engaged in farming? Both "sole proprietor" family farms and corporations?Johnfravolda (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This might answer a couple of your questions. I believe the $750k figure is net farm income. So theoretically you could make $400k in stock, $1.2million in farm income, and invest $500k in farm supplies and still receive subsidies. As far as the specifics of who gets the money- [http://farm.ewg.org/farm/pdf/payelig03.pdf This] will help. It's quite convoluted, and there are many urban-dwellers who get cash just for having a stake in a company or partnership that farms. johnpseudo 20:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Concern

NBC5.com of Chicago has done recent investigative reporting on this legislation. On page 561 of the document three lines of text effectively end any statute of limitations on the government for debts owed by citizens. This investigation revolves around a woman whose 2012 tax return was seized for overpayment of a social security benefit when she was 8 years old in 1968. This allows for tax return seizures due to the government's own mistakes in any state of the union. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sistertroutlily (talk • contribs) 22:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm new to this so I won't edit anything but what about this from the article-

President George W. Bush has also expressed opposition to the bill, and vetoed it because of its high cost and negative impact on poorer farmers; his veto threat enabled numerous Republican congressmen to attach pork to it, making the bill more expensive than it would have been had not threatened to veto it and forced Democratic leaders to let Republican congressmen attach pork to it.[13]

The problem is that the citation mentions nothing about pork or the veto threat allowing extra things to be added to the bill. Unless someone can find a source for this, I'm going to remove the portion about pork, as there is no backup for it.--Longstreet9 (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It's good how you incorporated how the groups are helping to improve this bill and how voluntary groups have played a strong role in helping the bill. It is mentioned in the first paragraph in provisions about a permanent disaster program but the name of the name program is unknown. This would be some important information to include in the provisions part of the article. Also if information about voluntary groups are included, you should site the link. Use of graphs and pictures would be really helpful to show a visual of what is really going on. --user:nquinte1

Update tag

I've tagged the article with {{update}}, as the first sentence says the bill in still under consideration, and the rest of the article stinks of having been updated a few words at a time.

• "The House voted to overturn the president's veto shortly thereafter, and with the margins by which the bill was passed, a Senate override also happened; so The Congress overrode the president's veto, passing the bill into law"
• "President George W. Bush has also expressed opposition to the bill, and vetoed it because of its high cost and negative impact on poorer farmers; his veto threat enabled numerous Republican congressmen to attach pork to it, making the bill more expensive than it would have been had not threatened to veto it and forced Democratic leaders to let Republican congressmen attach pork to it."

This is a train wreck. It needs to be rewritten. Melchoir (talk) 06:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

source not cited

The second and third paragraph of the article are copied directly from this source http://www.partnership-africa.org/sites/default/files/PCHPA%20Mercier%20Food%20Aid%20Report%20June%202011%20FINAL.pdf They are not cited appropriately. Waterbug42 (talk) 19:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071201191549/http://www.manilastandardtoday.com:80/?page=politics2_oct19_2007 to http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=politics2_oct19_2007

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Georgia Gwinnett College supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)