Do you think farm subsidies should be cut?

[bluestateguy]

The more I think about it, the more this seems like a waste of money. Paying farmers to not produce crops so as to manipulate the markets.

If we got rid of subsidies some food prices would go up, but other food prices would go down, and it might promote healthier competition.

Just a lot of welfare to a bunch of ungrateful conservative farmers out in flyover territory.

[leftstreet]

1. Are you talking about individual farmers or ConAgra?

:shrug:

[DCKit]

5. #1 There are too many corporations classified as "family farms".

Some of them aren't even farms.

[bahrbearian]

11. Exacty,, Michelle Bachman?

[Blue Owl]

Let's ask anti-Socialist Michelle Bachmann

I'm sure she'd be in favor of cutting these welfare-like subsidies.

[AngryAmish]

2. yes

[tosh]

3. Absolutely.

And my belief in this was solidified when I heard a local teabagging farm susbsidy recipient bloviate about drug testing for "welfare" recipients. I told him fine, as long as that covers ALL welfare recipients.

[xchrom]

4. conglomerates yes -- family farms absolutely not.

should subsidies be reviewed and targeted as times change? yes.

but there is good reason to give strong support to individual farmers and strengthen america's historical food growing traditions.

[Obamanaut]

6. Yes, and a lot of foreign aid as well. There is enough to spend money

on in the US without paying countries to be our friend.

[PDJane]

7. Foreign Aid should be expanded....

Since the US is actually taking more from the third world than it gives every year. Read Shock Doctrine and Anthony Perkins before you say something like that.

Seriously.

[Obamanaut]

23. Millions jobless, homelessness abounds, home foreclosures, many have

no medical care/insurance (many more are under insured).

I think it is a really good time to spend those dollars on the homeless, jobless, under insured, non insured, sick, ailing American citizens. But hey, that's just me.

oh, and stop the wars, bring home the troops and their families from the hundreds of military sites around the world. Close those sites and save the money currently being paid on leasing the property and the salaries of the civilian employees at those sites. Stop being policemen to the world.

[PDJane]

24. And all those things are disastrous.

However, if the countries that have been subjected to economic war revolt, the US will have more trouble than you can possibly imagine. You haven't been playing 'policeman to the world,' you know. You've been the corrupt dictator to the world, which is a whole other thing.

[Obamanaut]

25. Feel free to assume the foreign aid giveaways. We can use the relief.

[PDJane]

27. You give less as a percentage of GDP than we do......

And than the rest of the industrialized world. Americans don't actually see what they're doing in the rest of the world. Your standard of living is at the expense of the rest of the world, and it's going to start showing. What can't be sustained, won't.

[Obamanaut]

28. My vote would be for the percentage to drop to zero. If someone/anyone

else wants to pay extra to fill in, that's fine. Good for them.

[PDJane]

29. Since the US uses 25% of the world's resources,

for 5% of the world's population, and since the aid budget helps your balance of trade, that might actually work.....but only if you are willing to have your economy and standard of living drop precipitously.

[Maru Kitteh]

8. I think they should be reorganized on a sliding scale. The smaller your farm acrage/head

the greater your ability to qualify for assistance/subsidy. Giant corporate farms should not qualify for jack.

[Erose999]

9. Farm subsidies, especially the ethanol subsidy, is driving the overproduction of corn

by artificially inflating the price.

Growing up in GA, I remember every year the farmers would rotate crops. Soybeans, peanuts, cotton, corn, wheat, etc.

Now its just corn every single year. Just one big-ass monoculture of corn.

So if anything ending the corn subsidies would bring back the crop rotation, and help communities to have a more diverse harvest.

Anyone interested in cutting farm subsidies and its effect on family farms should read "The Citizenship Papers" by Wendell Berry.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzlqZiIxnL8

[Maru Kitteh]

22. The American lust for cheap beef is behind the overproduction of corn.

[pampango]

10. Definitely, but that's almost impossible politically. n/t

[dmallind]

12. I think they should be limited to independent farms under a revenue cap.

I lack the specialized knowledge to put a figure to that cap, but suspect a panel of farmers, economists and accountants could assign a fair number.

[Kennah]

13. If they use GMOs? Yes.

[Democrats_win]

14. Prices are going up, farmers are getting rich. End the subsidies now!

[progressoid]

21. Some are. But not from farming.

See below.

[Statistical]

15. End all of them. A worthless pure transfer of wealth.

Welfare for the rich.

[progressoid]

20. Um, no.

Here's some statistics, Statistical.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/WellBeing/farmhouseincome.htm#typology

In 2010, the average family farm is forecast to receive 13.0 percent of its household income from farm sources, with the rest from earned and unearned off-farm income (see table). Farm income is forecast to average $10,850 in 2010. The average off-farm income is forecast to be $72,344. Off-farm earned income is the major component of family income. About 73 percent of off-farm income for the average farm operator household in 2010 is expected to be from earned sources, such as wages and salaries and nonfarm businesses.




Most farmers I know make most of their money from non-farming sources.

[cascadiance]

16. Rolling back corporate farm subsidies can be characterized as helping with immigration reform!

Which will get a lot in the middle to support rolling back this corporate welfare if they understand the issues more and how this and illegal immigration are connected.

I'm not talking about farm subsidies for individual family farmers, but to the big ag companies.

What this has been doing is having tax payer money subsidize these companies *dumping* artificially cheap ag exports in many countries like those in South America that force local farmers there out of business when they can't compete against these artificially cheap products. The WTO SHOULD go after this sort of practice to protect local farming in these countries, but in fact the opposite, which we all know is more likely, has been what is happening.

When farmers are put out of work, they sell of their farms to World Bank/IMF beholden elites down in those countries, who turn around and create outsourcing plants for companies up here to outsource manufacturing cheap down there with this land, and staffed by these unemployed and out of work farmers. That by itself helps both ag companies and the outsourcing companies.

But then it gets worse. When these multinationals outsourcing down there find a cheaper place to outsource to in their race to the bottom, they end their leases of these plants down there and go to places like Asia instead, leaving a whole slew of unemployed workers there that no longer have farms and are forced to come up here for undocumented work to survive. And of course a third category of companies love being that part of the equation getting a steady supply of cheap undocumented labor streaming in.

And to top that off it was the WTO that came down on the Mexican government when it tried to enact a tariff on U.S. imports of soft drinks, etc. with HFCS instead of cane sugar (which Mexico puts in its own soft drinks). Of course the WTO ruled against Mexico imposing tariffs, even though it is the U.S. that was engaged in unfair competitive practices with ag subsidy cost reductions that artificially inflate their market advantage.

Getting rid of ag subsidies to big corporations, in addition to getting rid of a big debt source for our government, would do so many other things to help stop this big cycle that helps corporate profiteers at every level at the rest of our expense (American AND foreign workers!)

[progressoid]

17. Ha! Good luck with that.

Conservative AND liberals out here in flyover territory will raise Holy Hell. (By the way, one of those flyover territories that receives farm subsidies also has a lot of clout during Presidential elections)


However, some reforms to subsidies might be possible.

[Xithras]

19. Indeed on that.

I'm to the left of much of DU, but I'd vote for a Republican before I'd vote for a Democrat who wanted to simply abolish farm aid. Socialized support for our food production systems is NOT a bad thing!

The current system needs some work because it IS too heavily biased toward corporate producers, but the overall concept itself is sound.

[Xithras]

18. You're going to pay that money either way.

There have been numerous studies on this, and they nearly all agree. MOST food prices would increase, and some would increase dramatically (milk and cheese could double or triple in price, as an example).

You're either going to pay that money to the farmers to keep prices low, or you're going to pay it to the poor and middle class in the form of food aid when they can no longer afford a decent meal.

Subsidies are a form of social protectionism that should be encouraged by the left. Protecting our own food production sources and promoting the availability of low cost food for our own people is a GOOD thing. Open capitalistic competition coupled with free international food trade is a Tealiban wet dream and shouldn't be supported by any progressive.

Now, I'm not saying that our current subsidy system doesn't need some work, but abolishing it shouldn't even be on the table.

[howaboutme]

26. Most farms have become corporations

so yes I believe US farm subsidies should be cut. Food Inc is a good watch. But first our defense and aid subsidies to every nation including but not limited to Israel should face cuts. I heard some Republican saying we need to cut all foreign aid but we need to keep aid flowing for Israel.

When it comes to police, fireman, farmers or seniors or other USA entities facing cuts we need to cut aid to other countries first. Instead we should offer each American a check box on their IRS form to decide if they want their taxes going to specific countries.

We need to take care of the USA first.

[XemaSab]

30. We need to restructure our water system

Farmers use 90% of the water in California, but when there's a drought it's the 10% that's expected to get cut.

Farmers should not be allowed to re-sell their subsidized water, and we need to take a good, hard look at the crops that are the big water suckers. The acronym is CRAP: cotton, rice, alfalfa, and pasture. Why?

[Alexander]

31. Yes, especially corn. No more HFCS and ethanol-based fuels.

They're both a scam.

Unfortunately, since politicians of both parties want to win Iowa in the presidential caucuses, we get them all falling over themselves about how much they support farm subsidies and ethanol-based fuels.

[calikid]

32. Yes! and I'm a fifth generation farmer in California

[eridani]

33. Why not eliminate them and replace them with income support?

i.e.--in the event of crop failures or market gluts that push farmers' incomes too low, replace the lost income and let it go at that. Don't know where the line should be drawn here, but benefits should be heavily skewed toward lower income farmers.

[yellowwood]

34. An Emphatic Yes!

Take a look at the corn subsidies payments:
http://farm.ewg.org/top_recips.php?fips=00000&progcode=corn®ionname=theUnitedStates

These are not small farmers,

These subsidies are causing prices of farm land to rocket as big buyers scramble to corner the market. These "farmers" never get their hands dirty.

I read that about a third of the corn crop is going to ethanol as the government tries to find uses for all of this corn. Meanwhile, the farmland is depleted and needs to get expensive and oil-based fertilizer to make it usable.

This is one of the greatest boondoggle around.

World hunger continues to be a problem.

If the government wants to subsidize SMALL farmers, okay with me. And why not subsidize broccoli?

[FormerDittoHead]

35. The corn + ethanol subsides should be cut.

We grow too much corn. Ethanol is a boondoggle.

The ONLY reason they get what they get today is because Iowa is an early primary state.

And talk about healthier competition - how about competition from better alternatives? If corn became more expensive, maybe corn syrup wouldn't be used so much.

[Stinky The Clown]

36. No subsidies to Big AgriBizniss. Okay for true family farms.

We need to define clearly what constitutes a "family farm." It ought to involve family members and tractors; you know, the romantic view of what a family farm operation looks like.

For those families who are also clearly agribizniss (Perdue Poultry, for example), pay them subsidies ONLY to the max of what we define as a family farm, not on their entire holdings.

Limit subsidies to family farms.

[yellowwood]

37. Statistics --Like everything elsle--Great disparity

Average annual payments
Top 10% Bottom 80%
Average annual subsidy payments to Top 10% $29,658
Average annual subsidy payments to Bottom 80%. $572

•$246.7 billion in subsidies 1995-2009.

•62 percent of farmers in United States did not collect subsidy payments - according to USDA.
•Ten percent collected 74 percent of all subsidies.
•Amounting to $157.7 billion over 15 years.
•Top 10%: $29,658 average per year between 1995 and 2009.

http://farm.ewg.org/region.php?fips=00000&statename=theUnitedStates

[uncommon]

38. I have a big problem with paying farmers to now grow food.

Grow it and ship it to Bangladesh for pete's sake.

[Odin2005]

39. Look at the EU to see farm subsidies gone to absurd levels.

Folks there joke about butter mountains.

Get rid of them, they most go to Big Ag.

[barbiegeek]

40. Arizonia should not grow corn in the Desert, Monsanto cut. Family farms NO

Farming is an ENTIRE Industry with many components Be very Careful which subsidies are cut

We support:
Steel (equipment)
manufacturing (equipment)
Numerous government agency jobs
commodity trade
every FOOD you eat
feed-live stock
pet food & manufacturing jobs
medicines derived from our by products

Electrical Power WIND who's land do you think those wind mills are on

biodegradable plastics
clothing & shoe manufacturing (leather)
Transportation jobs-semi drivers, rail services,
Food packaging & paper manufacturers
Over seas shipping & ports & Exports

These are just off the top of my head.

[MilesColtrane]

41. No.

They should be structured to support smaller family farms.

Direct subsidies to American farmers are a small part of the federal budget. ($7.82billion in 2011)

Compare that to the European Union.

It spent the equivalent of $53billion in direct subsidies to farms and fisheries in 2010. That's 40% of the EU's budget.

I think it is worth the just over 2% we spend yearly to insure stable prices and steady production levels.

[bemildred]

42. Agribusiness yes, we can use the money to get small family farms going again. nt

[ChoppinBroccoli]

43. Here's Why I Love Farm Subsidies As An Issue

They disprove one of the right-wingers' biggest talking points (that if you work hard, you'll succeed--with success being defined in their pointy little heads as being rich). Nobody works harder than the American farmer. Know any who are rich? So the fact that farm subsidies even EXIST is proof that a huge chunk of right-wing ideology is complete and utter horse excrement.

[onethatcares]

44. yes I do, especially for tobacco

here is a crop that has no beneficial uses, which causes untold amounts of cancer, and we preach against its use while paying the growers.