Yes, but only to the extent that those farms provide foods and grains to third world countries, where children and the elderly die from hunger and starvation.
No, instead the government should buy the crops that would otherwise not have been grown, and should give these crops to feed the hungry (in place of foreign aid and domestic food stamps).
Commercial companies paid farmers to plant what they wanted or not plant at all. Thus, instead of real farming where there is a rotation of various crops, which would always re-nourish the ground, the ground is now like the dust-bowl of the early 2oth century. So, if the government were to pay the farmer it should be to first nourish the ground and then to plant a rotative selection of plants that would continue the helping and enriching of the soil.
No. Governments should offer different alternatives to help thrive the agricultural process. such as introducing bees to raise instead to help pollinate for stronger and healther crops, along with helping to reduce water consumption
Only Black and Hispanic Farmers. Real Hispanic and not people that look White.
We need to realize that most unhealthy and uncontrollable condition occur within large factory farms and also realize what their unfair size advantage means to small business. This is a case of survival of the greediest not fittest. "Greediest" also referring to its over consuming American customers. We all consume way more than needed making us the cause in so many ways as well
This is a stupid question. Humanity as a whole should be invested in the idea that no one should ever be hungry...ever.
Yes, and give power back to farmers and away from big food corporations and deny subsides to farmers who don't grow any crops
No, We should nationalize all farms.
Factory Farms are unethical and should never be subsidized by the government. They should be regulated though.
Yes, and bring back the strategic grain reserve in a growing program to buffer exports, humanitarian aid, and our own food supply against climate disaster.
No because it politicizes nutrition which is why Americans are all overweight.
No reason why farmers can not grow food all year long. There's people all over the world in need of food. The children can not eat money, but they can eat fresh produce, and their Country pay's Our Farmers to grow it!
The ground needs to rest.
First of all, there is this thing called winter, farmers can't grow year long and as far as I know almost always have a single crop a year. Throwing money at farmers does give incentive for increased production, however that is not necessarily a good thing. Competitive markets, such as farming, will produce the most beneficial output without government intervention, assuming farmers are taxed based on their contribution to pollution and deforestation.
Small, organic vegetable farms to provide close, safe farms to every community. Stop subsidizing Corn! Increase seed variety by reversing patents on nature.
yes, but only for farmers using Genetically Modified Enhanced crops
On one hand, the government has no right to play favorites, on the other hand, it sounds like it could ruin the US agriculture industry.
It's hard to form an opinion on this because of corporate/government involvement, and the extent they have killed independent farmers.
Pay farmers to NOT grow food while people in the US go to bed without food? That sounds unAmerican and just plain retarded.
Yes, but pay them to grow food to provide for food banks
Government should stimulate / support business when needed. Food security is a nation security issue and should be considered as such.
Regardless, we (as a country) should be working toward not producing food in so much excess. We should be producing and stocking stores with food based on supply and demand rather than constantly having everything fully stocked. This will reduce food waste and will reduce the amount of subsidies needed by farmers in the first place as they will not have to supply nearly as much product on a regular basis.
if you subsidize oil and wind why not farm
I think the answer lies in between a lot of these answers. Yes give the farmers an incentive to bring on new methods, such as organic farming, or using wind technology, or drip irrigation rather than irrigation canals as they do in the San Joaquin Valley, where I grew up. Also, make it where there is a food bank to give away food that is not sold and is going to go bad to poor people. I live below the poverty level and would love to have more fresh fruit and vegetables, especially organic
Yes, and invest in development, and poverty alleviation, in rural areas.
Yes, but subsidize more crops that are conducive with more healthy lifestyles. Try to cut back on so many simple sugars.
We need to promote the use of plant-based diet! When people eat more plant-based foods, farmers will likely be more successful.
Yes, but only to incentivize environmental friendly strategies, not income support.
Only by way of crop insurance, not land-bank schemes.
All long standing subsidy programs should be abolished - and a new "blind" program instituted based on what important crops require government subsidy
Only if they cannot make a decent crop that year due to weather.
Yes, but primarily farmers growing plant food that will be fed to humans, not cattle.
Any person, group or business that wants to be subsidized can but Any person, group or business that doesn’t want to be subsidized doesn’t have to be, in that case let the free markets run it’s natural normal course for those who don’t want to be subsidized at all , & add subsidizing in the market for those individual people, companies , & groups that want it. Let the free will of individuals decide on that.
Still have much to learn regarding this subject matter
Yes, but only small local farms instead of large corporations and make GMOs illegal. Also restrict some agricultural patents
Yes, but that's at the discretion of the intent of Congress to subsidize; i.e. to have cheap affordable foods for Americans, or to bolster our output to foreign starving nations.
Only for small local farms that actually grow crops.
Yes but create a standard which they must stick to
Yes, but they should ensure that they do not go to farmers who do not grow crops.
No, agriculture should be collectivized.
Yes, but allow excess and gov subsidy purchases for low income and food bank use. The amount we can produce makes hunger a sin and embarassment.
So long as other contries are subsidizing their farmers
No, farm subsidies should be handled at the state level and should be dependant on the efforts and products that are being created by the farm
Yes, but only non-animal agriculture
Yes, but only for environmentally sustainable and organic farms
This issue should be held at state level rather than federal. The gov should not intervene with the free market unless very necessary.
Yes, but subsidies should only go toward plant agriculture, not animal agriculture
Yes, but priority should go to small farms with affirmative action, and reduce waste
The state should decide whether to subsidize farmers or not.
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
