🚀 go-pugleaf

Phil Ronzone (phil@netcom.com) wrote:
: Oh no, facts are fine. It's just that you have so few of them Don.

:     >It's slang. It is, technically, a subsidy, not direct
:     >support, but the result is the same: you and I pay, and the
:     >rancher receives.

: Really? Ever consider the costs on meat production? Suppose we end all
: use of Federal grazing lands, and we thus get:

:      Billions (??) of dollars LESS in the Treasury,

:           AND

:      more expensive meat!

: Wow Don, let's make sure YOU'RE not head of the Treasury, OK?

Wow, Phil, let's see the math, OK?  You are implying that federal in-kind
subsidies of cattle grazing on federal land results in at least
two-billion dollars more in tax revenues (which are only a fraction of net
income generated from sales of cattle grazed on federal land) that would
not be generated elsewhere if the in-kind subsidies were cut off.  Just
how many millions of cattle do you suppose are being raised on federal
land that ranchers could not afford to raise if they had to pay market
rates for grazing rights?  And how much would the price of beef rise if 
we did away with our in-kind subsidies to the cattle industry?  Go ahead, 
Phil, awe us with your command of facts.