Should we eliminate farm subsidies?

Question

We could use the extra funding to drive down the national debt. Caution - It might effect the price of food. This way the weaker farmers would go away and the larger, more corporate farms could run agriculture in a more efficient manner. It's a more streamlined form of capitalism and survival of the fittest.

I live in a rural state - so to clarify I know a lot of small farmers. And the small farmer receives a LOT of subsidies. I just want to hear how people would reconcile the support for unadulterated capitalism with what has traditionally been an American institution (the small farm).

One last and I'm done. If we eliminate subsidies, how will that impact us knowing that Canada already subsidizes its farming and logging industries?

Answer 1

It's a valid question.

I don't get any for my sheep & goat operation. Don't need 'em. The ones who thrive on those subsidies, who gobble up most of the pie, are the massive corporations. Those are the ones who fight to keep subsidies around the hardest. If anyone were the "weaker farmer" it'd be the bloated overhead big dogs and you can be sure they'll be the ones fighting tooth and nail to keep the subsidies. After all, they've got the deep pockets to afford the lobbyists. The rest of us are just making a living.

As far as corporate farms being more efficient, well they are, but is that your only concern with the food you eat? I mean, it's a lot more efficient for me to stuff my sheep full of hormones and antibiotics to get them to market faster, but do you really want to eat that? I personally prefer to have choices in the matter, and driving the smaller farms under is the surest way for us all to wind up eating whatever Monsanto decides to splice together.

Answer 2

Actually, the small farmer needs subsidies to compete, both with corporations(who make a pretty penny on the subsidies, by the way) and foreign farm products which are supported by their governments and low wages.

We see a similar problem in Mexico where corporate farms are driving small farmers out of work. With no jobs to feed their families, where are they going to try and make a living.

Subsidies are not the answer in their current form, but think before you eliminate the small farms and the local economies they hold up.

Answer 3

I would suggest visiting some of your local small farms,
and the communities that surround them. In Bush's new Budget plan he is Proposing to Eliminate some of the Farmers subsidies, which in turn have a domino effect, and keep the oil/gas prices high, due to the rising cost of corn to produce ethanol, the small farmer cannot compete, and would probably have to sell off equipment, and find another trade. Most of these small farmers, and communities, was supporting Bush, but now the truth is coming out.

Answer 4

Actually the farmers receiving the subsidies are the large corporate farmers and not really the "family" farmers. Removing the subsidies might make it possible for the smaller farmers to compete with the larger farms, thus increasing competition. I guess your position depends on which side of the aisle you stand on.

Answer 5

Actually, eliminating farm subsidies would cause prices to fall in many cases. The subsidies actually take the form of paying "farmers" to NOT grow certain crops, which means a lower overall supply and a a higher overall price.

In the case of sugar, eliminating the subsidies would probably end most production of sugar in the continental US, leaving us to buy cheaper sugar (without the tariffs) from growers in climates like Jamaica more suited to the crop.

Eliminating subsidies is always a net benefit to society.

Answer 6

Virtually all the subsidies already go to corporate farms, so yes, I'm in favor of eliminating them.

By cutting the subsidies, the price of some foods would rise a bit, but of course that rise would then allow small farmers to actually compete.

Answer 7

it's time to end the Abuse of Farm Subsidies, i.e. John Wayne won $4 hundred,000 a three hundred and sixty 5 days for not planting on land he could have in no way planted on is ridiculous. even if for the small relatives farmer it is turning out to be a endangered species, it nevertheless makes sound experience. we've too many human beings interior the Congress itself that acquire this kind of providence each 3 hundred and sixty 5 days to ever replace the technique. The President proposes regulation and the Congress's job is to pass regulation and suitable the money to enact the regulations and purposes off the government. in case you surely need replace in this united states replace Congress, changing Presidents or events for that remember in undemanding terms adjustments what path the President tries to get the Congress to pass. Getting Congress to act itself, nicely pardon the pun, distinctly much takes an act of Congress!

Answer 8

At least have some drastic and draconian reform, if not eliminate them altogether. They are the worst kind of welfare, because they as often as not pay farmers vast sums to NOT produce food!

The farm bill that was pushed through a few years ago was a disaster of socialist dystopia, and the biggest disappointment was that it was mainly a Republican boondoggle...what the **** is happening to this country?

Answer 9

It's the subsidies that attract the big corporate farmers into the industry.

Answer 10

especially where food is concerned, i think we need to avoid concentrating practices and breeds. what you speak of might be more efficient (except when gas prices go up and affect transportation costs), but efficiency and food are not necessarily good bed fellows.

i'm not sure how i feel about farm subsidies but i am afraid of monocultures.