A farm subsidy is a form of financial aid paid to farmers by the government. The purpose of the aid can be to supplement their income or influence the cost and supply of agricultural products. The U.S. government pays farmers more than $20 Billion a year in farm subsidies. Proponents argue that the subsides are necessary since net farm income has decline by 32% between 2014 and 2015. Opponents argue that the farmers should fend for themselves and point out that 2,300 farmers who do not grow crops receive annual subsidies.
@ISIDEWITH12yrs12Y
Yes
@9GY3CC55mos5MO
A subsidy is a bribe from the government to ensure that the system as we know it maintains its relevance.
@ISIDEWITH10yrs10Y
No, end all government subsidies and let the free market run its course
@9GY3CC55mos5MO
The free market encourages healthy competition within the public sector and boosts motivation and productivity for workers to achieve their objectives. While I stand behind my position, I understand that it might not be possible. The gradual decline of baseline productivity is directly linked to the increase of government investment in state and local economies; the government is seen as a necessary component of state affairs simply because the modern individual (thanks to closed source media and corporate monopolies) is no longer competent enough to handle the affairs alone.
@9GBSWHC6mos6MO
i think the federal government should be supporting farmers the most they can because they provide for everyone
@9FPB5H87mos7MO
Yes, I think the government should continue to assist farmers. If they do not farmers may very well go out of business. People might also make fake foods that might not be as safe and healthy as farm grown foods.
@ISIDEWITH12yrs12Y
@ISIDEWITH12yrs12Y
@ISIDEWITH10yrs10Y
@4QJ4ZM43yrs3Y
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).
@4SVM8YT3yrs3Y
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
@4PPMZ963yrs3Y
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.
@4SCHFFX3yrs3Y
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.
Almost certainly no, but willing to reconsider for food security purposes (but suspect no still)
@5367WJV3yrs3Y
yes, but only for farmers using Genetically Modified Enhanced crops
@4RBR3VK3yrs3Y
Small, organic vegetable farms to provide close, safe farms to every community. Stop subsidizing Corn! Increase seed variety by reversing patents on nature.
@5792F643yrs3Y
This is a stupid question. Humanity as a whole should be invested in the idea that no one should ever be hungry...ever.
@4WDJ3953yrs3Y
No, We should nationalize all farms.
@4VBZP9C3yrs3Y
No because it politicizes nutrition which is why Americans are all overweight.
@4R5G9W23yrs3Y
Yes, and give power back to farmers and away from big food corporations and deny subsides to farmers who don't grow any crops
@4Q7W7C23yrs3Y
Factory Farms are unethical and should never be subsidized by the government. They should be regulated though.
@4Q2QYFY3yrs3Y
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.
@4PYJ89Q3yrs3Y
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!
@8P5NHM93yrs3Y
The ground needs to rest.
@8WPPZ8YLibertarian2yrs2Y
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.
@4QRTPKL3yrs3Y
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.
@56G5G4L3yrs3Y
Pay farmers to NOT grow food while people in the US go to bed without food? That sounds unAmerican and just plain retarded.
@4RHV2TW3yrs3Y
It's hard to form an opinion on this because of corporate/government involvement, and the extent they have killed independent farmers.
@dnilasor3yrs3Y
Only Black and Hispanic Farmers. Real Hispanic and not people that look White.
@4TN4SZP3yrs3Y
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
@4V6HC693yrs3Y
Yes, but pay them to grow food to provide for food banks
@4SF46643yrs3Y
Yes, and invest in development, and poverty alleviation, in rural areas.
@4S3XX793yrs3Y
All long standing subsidy programs should be abolished - and a new "blind" program instituted based on what important crops require government subsidy
@danhughes3yrs3Y
Government should stimulate / support business when needed. Food security is a nation security issue and should be considered as such.
@4RKFP643yrs3Y
if you subsidize oil and wind why not farm
@4RBBG3Q3yrs3Y
Only if they cannot make a decent crop that year due to weather.
@4QJT2453yrs3Y
Yes, but only to incentivize environmental friendly strategies, not income support.
@4Q832DC3yrs3Y
Yes, but subsidize more crops that are conducive with more healthy lifestyles. Try to cut back on so many simple sugars.
@4Q6KCB23yrs3Y
Only by way of crop insurance, not land-bank schemes.
@4PPZ4MS3yrs3Y
We need to promote the use of plant-based diet! When people eat more plant-based foods, farmers will likely be more successful.
@4PLFG4F3yrs3Y
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
@4PG2S443yrs3Y
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.
@9D4ZK5T9mos9MO
Yes, bring back the ever normal granary to keep prices stable through boon and famine.
@9LHVNVD4 days4D
Yes, but only for small farms instead of large corporations and as a temporary measure to stabilize prices
@9LCQP89 2wks2W
Regardless, they should not subsidize farmers to NOT produce food. Only subsidize them TO produce food.
@9L7R77L 2wks2W
Yes. The agricultural sector is extremely important. I also think if we subsidise farmers who even protect sacred animals, it would be beneficial for the country.
@9KT467Q1mo1MO
Subsidies should be provided to stabilize prices, and should primarily be directed towards smallers farms, instead of larger corporations.
@9JZ64J2Independent2mos2MO
Yes but only in times of decline and only to farms that either grow crops and or raise animals for farming purposes.
@9JVRWQW2mos2MO
They should be reduced gradually over a period of twenty to twenty-five years until there are no more subsidies except for temporary subsidies as needed for national security interests.
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
