Paying for some NOT to farm their land and paying for some that haven't yielded enough (bad crops for whatever reason)?
2006-10-06 08:36:03 · 8 answers · asked by lethallolita 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
They shouldn't, but it's yet another way to buy votes.
Farmers tend to be hard-working people who have conservative values. In order to get them to vote Democrat, they wave our money in their faces.
I have no problem with the government helping a farmer who has had some natural disaster destroy his crops. What person would go into such a risky business if there were no "insurance" to cover catastrophic losses? Would you work a job where you might lose an entire year's salary if the weather got bad?
However, all other subsidies are bad. If the price of corn or grain has to rise to keep the farms afloat, so be it. Let the market - not the government - dictate what a gallon of milk should cost.
2006-10-06 08:38:18 · answer #1 · answered by FozzieBear 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
farm crop prices, yields, and expenses vary greatly from year to year. the govt subsidies help "level out" farmers income and expenses from year to year. with no government programs, eventually, bad crops, prices would eventually drive many, or most farmers out of business. the USA does not need to be dependant upon other countries for our food.
maybe, you think , let them go out of business. let the markets and supply and demand operate. the problem with that is not enough people would be able to replace the farmers that left the business. land, equiptment, etc is too expensive. experience and expertice take years to develop. cheap, abundant food is too important of a recource for stability in this country.
the paying people not to grow , is a very small part of a large program. more money goes to payments for things like drought, too much rain or other natural disasters. in all cases, the amounts paid to farmers do not make them rich, by any stretch of the imagination.
with no govt subsidies, be prepared to pay - $5.00 for a loaf of bread, $10.00 gallon of milk, etc.
2006-10-06 08:52:11 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
....or even to produce more crops than people can eat, in order to keep prices artificially high!
they shouldnt, apart from wasting tax payers dollars, they just eradicate the soil, by constantly tearing up the countryside, and creating vast dustbowls.
about time they made the farmers earn their living.
2006-10-06 08:41:16 · answer #3 · answered by chris s 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
They shouldn't. The program is no longer necessary to keep the market afloat and is not longer serving it's purpose.
But who's going to keep their job by shutting down the waterhole?
2006-10-06 08:51:22 · answer #4 · answered by Phoenix, Wise Guru 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
keeps the markets running properly, although maybe it would be better for ther US gov't to buy up the surpluses in the market with the same money and then do something with those surpluses instead of paying people not to grow things.
And thanks for being a Fan.
2006-10-06 08:39:50 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Uh, they shouldn't. It is just another example of your tax dollars going to waste. God forbid the government should actually focus on problems it was created for....
2006-10-06 08:43:10 · answer #6 · answered by Goose&Tonic 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
They shouldn't it's called socialism when countries do that.
2006-10-06 08:43:27 · answer #7 · answered by N3WJL 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It shouldn't
2006-10-06 08:38:41 · answer #8 · answered by marcus93257 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋