Taxpayers face payouts on sugar supports

  • Article by: Jim Spencer and MIKE HUGHLETT , Star Tribune staff writers
  • Updated: March 13, 2013 - 9:52 PM

With prices dropping, federal officials may be forced to take millions of pounds of sugar under a government program.

  • 12
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
texas_technomanMar. 14, 13 6:11 AM

Talk about welfare and entitlements. This is the group that had record profits last year. " The big 2012 sugar beet crop will offer a record-high payout for Minn-Dak Farmers Cooperative shareholders, with growers expected to receive about $225 million in gross payments, company officials announced at the group’s annual meeting in Fargo, N.D., on Dec. 4.'' I guess I shouldn't complain, at least this welfare program has bi-partisan support.

16
2
mmediaMar. 14, 13 7:15 AM

Welfare it is.

14
2
acctsah2Mar. 14, 13 7:40 AM

Why are we subsidizing sugar?

12
0
imswanMar. 14, 13 9:41 AM

Record profits in 2012...locked out workers to reduce wages...$80 million in taxpayer support... this is why our economy is failing. Too much wealth is concentrated at the top! We don't need a raise in the munimum wage, we need a to istall a maximum wage! 250 times the least paid employee. A company with the lowest wage earner making $25,000 would have a 100% tax rate on all wages over $6,250,000 .

6
3
therabbiMar. 14, 1311:26 AM

So much for supply and demand. This is more like supply and 'we'll buy it regardless of demand". Why are we subsidizing anything in the marketplace? Congressional leaders as so full of "sugar". They only support themselves. I would call any Minnesota Congressperson to explain why we are subsidizing sugar? They won't because the sugar industry donates heavily to keep their price controls in place. Why rock the boat when it is only us paying these ridicules subsidizes.

9
0
boobooligMar. 14, 1312:18 PM

What a waste.

4
0
splinedMar. 14, 1312:38 PM

For years we have heard the propaganda that the sugar program is a no cost program to the tax payers.

5
0
rampalincMar. 14, 1312:44 PM

Why does this article not expose the legislators that are involved in this scam. Who are they and where do they receive donations from. Also, what are steps taxpayers can take to protect themselves from fraud and abuse like this.

5
0
ruphinaMar. 14, 13 1:38 PM

Why didn't the reporter call an ethanol plant to find out what they would pay for refined sugar? And why are we paying the dimwits in the government who give such completely clueless answers? They love to tout the $80M number, but they never tell us how many farmers that represents, so we have no way to know how much a farmer might get. Another in a long line of very poorly researched articles by "journalists" who are either too obtuse to ask the right question, and apparently work for editors who are also obtuse or told too print the union line. Bill G.

2
2
marathongirlMar. 14, 13 1:38 PM

Hmm, maybe the soda companies should buy it up cheap and use it in their products. Considering the high price of corn lately, they'd do better for themselves and better for us to go back to it over HFCS.

1
2

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT