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.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Voting for candidate:
@ISIDEWITH13yrs13Y
Yes
@9GY3CC52yrs2Y
A subsidy is a bribe from the government to ensure that the system as we know it maintains its relevance.
@ISIDEWITH11yrs11Y
No, end all government subsidies and let the free market run its course
@9GBSWHC2yrs2Y
@9FPB5H82yrs2Y
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.
@9GY3CC52yrs2Y
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.
@ISIDEWITH13yrs13Y
Yes, but only for organic farms
Organic farming is the safest way to farm, it is sustainable, eco-friendly, but most importantly, it has the least negative health effects. Industrial farms that rely on GMOs to produce maximum quantity do not deserve any government support, they're poisoning our people! When it comes to food, quality is just as important if not more important than quantity.
@4QJ4ZM45yrs5Y
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).
@4SVM8YT5yrs5Y
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
@4PPMZ965yrs5Y
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.
@4SCHFFX5yrs5Y
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.
@4Q7W7C25yrs5Y
Factory Farms are unethical and should never be subsidized by the government. They should be regulated though.
@4RBR3VK5yrs5Y
Small, organic vegetable farms to provide close, safe farms to every community. Stop subsidizing Corn! Increase seed variety by reversing patents on nature.
@4WDJ3955yrs5Y
No, We should nationalize all farms.
@4R5G9W25yrs5Y
Yes, and give power back to farmers and away from big food corporations and deny subsides to farmers who don't grow any crops
Almost certainly no, but willing to reconsider for food security purposes (but suspect no still)
@5367WJV5yrs5Y
yes, but only for farmers using Genetically Modified Enhanced crops
@4Q2QYFY5yrs5Y
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.
@4PYJ89Q5yrs5Y
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!
@8P5NHM95yrs5Y
The ground needs to rest.
@8WPPZ8YLibertarian4yrs4Y
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.
@4RHV2TW5yrs5Y
It's hard to form an opinion on this because of corporate/government involvement, and the extent they have killed independent farmers.
@4QRTPKL5yrs5Y
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.
@4VBZP9C5yrs5Y
No because it politicizes nutrition which is why Americans are all overweight.
@56G5G4L5yrs5Y
Pay farmers to NOT grow food while people in the US go to bed without food? That sounds unAmerican and just plain retarded.
@4TN4SZP5yrs5Y
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
@dnilasor5yrs5Y
Only Black and Hispanic Farmers. Real Hispanic and not people that look White.
@5792F645yrs5Y
This is a stupid question. Humanity as a whole should be invested in the idea that no one should ever be hungry...ever.
@danhughes5yrs5Y
Government should stimulate / support business when needed. Food security is a nation security issue and should be considered as such.
@4RBBG3Q5yrs5Y
Only if they cannot make a decent crop that year due to weather.
@4Q832DC5yrs5Y
Yes, but subsidize more crops that are conducive with more healthy lifestyles. Try to cut back on so many simple sugars.
@4PLFG4F5yrs5Y
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
@4SF46645yrs5Y
Yes, and invest in development, and poverty alleviation, in rural areas.
@4RKFP645yrs5Y
if you subsidize oil and wind why not farm
@4QJT2455yrs5Y
Yes, but only to incentivize environmental friendly strategies, not income support.
@4Q6KCB25yrs5Y
Only by way of crop insurance, not land-bank schemes.
@4PPZ4MS5yrs5Y
We need to promote the use of plant-based diet! When people eat more plant-based foods, farmers will likely be more successful.
@4PG2S445yrs5Y
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.
@9D4ZK5T2yrs2Y
Yes, bring back the ever normal granary to keep prices stable through boon and famine.
@4V6HC695yrs5Y
Yes, but pay them to grow food to provide for food banks
@4S3XX795yrs5Y
All long standing subsidy programs should be abolished - and a new "blind" program instituted based on what important crops require government subsidy
@9F23T882yrs2Y
Yes, and do as much as possible to encourage local farming
@9DHJ6332yrs2Y
Not enough knowledge on the subject matter to give an informed response
@9D8G35C2yrs2Y
Yes, but only in the form of tax breaks. Grant subsidies have caused too many problems in the past
@AAbattery444Progressive 3 days3D
I'm open to government subsidies for all farmers, including large corporations, as long as these are strictly tied to ethical conduct. I believe any subsidized company must avoid anti-consumer tactics and practices harmful to public health. For me, receiving subsidies means they also have to commit to genuinely equitable and responsible business operations, unlike the harmful practices I associate with companies such as Monsanto.
@B2LQQG64mos4MO
Yes, but only ones that use sustainable methods such as putting multiple plants together, not tearing apart topsoil, and not using pesticides.
@B2DG6HV4mos4MO
Yes I think they should cause farmers are one the most important part of society cause if we didn't have farmers how we get supplied with food livestock breed other animals to keep the food we eat alive for a long time
@B29P2KC4mos4MO
The government says every year we’re gona give u 10k to help ur farm grow but we as the government has determined that this is a area where we wana kill peoplr so if you sell we’re gona take ur Money- my dad
@james.jones3 6mos6MO
Yes, farmers should receive subsidies based on the crops they grow and sell, in order to influence the cost and supply of certain products.
@9ZMY4RR6mos6MO
Government should not interfere with farmers, but it is necessary hard working farmers should make profit, as many I know are farmers and struggle.
@9YF4S6J7mos7MO
Yes, but for products other than wheat, corn, and rice. The depression-era subsidies that continue to this day have created an over-production of products that are proven to hurt the health of consumers and make a variety of produce financially inaccessible to people.
@9Y395ZKLibertarian7mos7MO
Subsidize regenerative farms, and other crops, not just unicrops and genetically modified crops like corn.
@9XSRKDW7mos7MO
Yes, but they should also implement much more regulations regarding the health and safety of the animals and of the chemicals and medicines used on the animals.
@9X747QDIndependent7mos7MO
Normally no, but in instances of widespread crop loss due to disease, weather or acts of God should allow farmers to be compensated to stay in business.
@9W7B4BR7mos7MO
Subsidies should be used when new equipment is mandatory for production but too costly compared to the income they generate from their farm.
@9VYPY7C7mos7MO
It should be given to independant farmers or smaller corporations who make less than a certain amount of money in a year
If the farmer is producing plants that they then send to grocery stores and such yes, but only if they want aid from the government.
@9TNQQ4Q8mos8MO
Lower the amount given because the other farmers except the 2,300 are working hard and trying to grow crops
@9TKN26D8mos8MO
No, the root problem is that they are under a monopolistic company, John Deere, which causes unprofitability, causing a need for subsidies.
@9D66V72Republican 9mos9MO
small and organic farms. People need healthy fruits and veggies. As well as natural fed cattle, chickens and pigs. No chemicals or un -natural feed.
@9SLTTLVAmerican Solidarity9mos9MO
There is a massive difference between farmers and corporate entities. Only small local farms that produce crops to feed their communities should receive financial aid. In fact, they should receive more to help solve children going hungry within the United States.
@9QXGWP9 9mos9MO
Yes, but only state and local governments in times of crisis for farmers and times of food shortages.
@9RX2F35 10mos10MO
Yes, but not give subsidies to large agribusinesses. Instead, give tax relief to agribusinesses to maintain prices.
@9RTZDRH10mos10MO
I don’t think the government should dictate how a farm is ran when it’s a mom and pops farm but support them to make a living but not by adding all these requirements/demands
@9RRDL4D10mos10MO
Yes, but increase subsidies for environmentally sustainable goods and decrease subsidies for unsustainable goods
@9RPWKD310mos10MO
Remove the ultra large conglomerate control of farms and let the market actually have a chance to regulate
@9RLLH8S10mos10MO
Yes, but provide incentives for big corporate chains like Walmart to sell local produce over international produce.
@9RK9NPC10mos10MO
Yes but only to those who diversify. Growing monocultures that aren't useful or healthy for for feed needs to stop. Corn and soybeans are only useful for so much and are used as unnecessary fillers and sweeteners because of high supply. We should be growing more of the fruits and vegetables we eat closer to home to cut down on transportation costs.
Yes, but close loopholes that currently allow "owners" who play no part in the management or work to receive those subsidies
@9R9362210mos10MO
The government should stop all subsidies to dairy products as humans were not meant to drink cow breastmilk and it is making us SICK. The government should subsidize all other food farmers equally, giving preference to organic farmers and farmers growing health sustaining crops.
@9PKDM7Y11mos11MO
Yes, but at a much smaller scale to stablize the ag platform. Not programs like PPP and "covid relief" programs. This money has flooded the economy and now were paying for it with inflation.
@9NBDGY412mos12MO
Yes, but should fluctuate the amount of aid based on the success of the specific farm or corporation.
@9M47C6W1yr1Y
Let the free market have a go and the government needs to remove the unnecessary government regulation on farmers so that smaller local farmers can thrive again.
@9LHVNVD1yr1Y
Yes, but only for small farms instead of large corporations and as a temporary measure to stabilize prices
@9LCQP89 1yr1Y
Regardless, they should not subsidize farmers to NOT produce food. Only subsidize them TO produce food.
@9L7R77L 1yr1Y
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.
@9KT467Q1yr1Y
Subsidies should be provided to stabilize prices, and should primarily be directed towards smallers farms, instead of larger corporations.
@9JZ64J2Independent1yr1Y
Yes but only in times of decline and only to farms that either grow crops and or raise animals for farming purposes.
@9JVRWQW1yr1Y
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.
@JakeV922 1yr1Y
No, but I’d allow subsidies for the transition to organic since I support a law that all farms would need to be organic.
@9JD7BZ5Republican1yr1Y
yes, but only to farms in need like new or up-and-coming farms. Or farms that need money to start up again after a drought or other natural disaster.
@9J2FDBJProgressive1yr1Y
Yes, but put funding into hydroponic and/or aquaponic farms. Traditional farming is destroying the ocean.
@9HSGSGP1yr1Y
Only for necessary medication and emergency feed for animals. However the government should also offer to be a buyer of last resort.
@9HPGNWT 1yr1Y
we should stop subsidizing feed corn farms and start subsidizing farms that grow actual produce naturally.
@9H4HP4C2yrs2Y
Depends on the agricultural situation. The government should subsidize farmers if the sector - and the millions of jobs and the internal food supply associated - is at risk.
@9GVL2ZGIndependent2yrs2Y
Do not decrease current subsidies on farmers. However, increase subsidies on organic farms to a greater amount.
@9G9YGH2Republican 2yrs2Y
No, farmers should continue working on their farms, but if their crop dies then they should be paid so then they do not lose their farms.
@9FVLHSF2yrs2Y
We should be subsidizing only the best farming practices. Conventional industrial farms have devestating environmental impacts and produce food that likely contributes to our ongoing obesity crisis. Research (see Rhodale Institute) that regenerative farming produces more crops at a lower cost long term and is carbon negative. It’s also done on a smaller scale so it benefits local farmers over large corporations. This is a no-brained that will never pass though as long as the farm lobby gets its way.
@Yaunti2 2yrs2Y
Yes, and it should eliminate private farms
@9FNXD672yrs2Y
They should provide assistance to those who aren't bringing in enough money in order to provide.
Yes, but only For Organic small local farms instead of large corporations
@9FHGJC82yrs2Y
Yes. But I think they also need to help support animal support for those that don't pass animal care regulation stuff.
Yes, but only temporarily to stabilize prices and not for corporate farms.
@9FF5C55 2yrs2Y
Yes, but it should be restructured
@9D9TMQ2 2yrs2Y
Only for those who grow crops
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
