Talk Elections

Just wondered what the Democratic view was on the cutting of farm subsidies? Do they support Mr Bush on this one or not?

With my limited knowledge of American politics, I assume that most of the rural "farmer's vote" tends to go Republican......therefore just wondered what the farmer's view of lower subsidies is likely to be.....will the cuts have any effect on the Republican vote in states like Iowa?

I appreciate that it may be unlikely that Mr Bush's reforms will get through congress 100% intact...but I would be interested to know what the view of the farming communities is to this proposal.

Why should we pay farmers to grow nothing? That's never made much sense to me whatsoever.

^^^^^
I'm not a Democrat either but it seems to me that the honorable Senator from Florida is quite correct.

Not really arguing whether subsidies make sense....just assumed that most farmers vote Republican....and wondered whether this policy is likely to put states like Iowa firmly back in the Democratic column

It depends where they're from and what faction they belong to. There isn't one big monolithic view on everything in the Democratic Party or the GOP.

Generally though more Democrats are in favor of farm subsidies than Republicans.

I'm strongly in favor of them by the way.

Couldn't care less, except that it is wasting money on rural types who vote Republican. 

Maybe they'll wake up and vote in their best interest for change if the Presidnets budget proposal is fully approved.

I have a feeling by the time the typical midwesterner wakes up to his economic interest he will be homeless.

Personally I'm in favour of slashing them for big agri-business type farms (like in California) while increasing them (often by a lot) to smaller farms out in the MidWest

I find it funny when farmers bitch about welfare but have a cow when they can't get subsidized.

ROFL.   That is hilarious - 'farmers have a cow'!

The farms in the mid-west are big argi-business too.

To stabilize the price on the market dumbass.

But I'd rather have them retrained to do something else.

Do you have a problem with cheap food?

Could farmers be kept in business by selling food at a loss?

I'd rather simply retrain a third of our farmers to do something else and conserve the land, or, on the other side, have the government do a better job at buying up surplus food (on the market, to increase prices) and sending it to poor countries.

Then again, since the world has a food surplus anyway, I think the first option makes more sense, economically and ecologically.

It's time to give the Mojave Desert a rest from agriculture.

Isn't it the subsidies that keeps more farmers in business than is required to produce enough food?

I'd rather retrain them to do something else.

They wouldn't sell food at a loss.

Of course they would; if every farmer produced food, we'd have a massive surplus of food that would drive down prices.

Resulting in cheap food, not farmers operating at a loss.

Cheap food will cause a loss.

They wouldn't grow food at a loss.

I don't really know enough about this stuff to fully form a comprehensive opinion, but from what I do know, I'm marginally opposed to farm subsidies.  The more I learn about economics, the more I become in favor of a free market.  If left to its own devices, the farming industry would reach an equilibrium where exactly as much food is being sold as people want to buy.  Subsidies artificially keep an inflated number of people in business and uses taxpayer money to do so.

MWAHAHAHA, our insidious plan is working...errr...I mean...pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

Hah.

Well, I doubt I'll ever be totally libertarian... I personally think that the government can do good things (mainly centered around rectifying market failure), just not as much as hardcore economic liberals do.

Not in the same way and you know it.
Slave agriculture in California is disgusting.

Funny, California gets back 78 cents on the dollar.
Here's how the midwest does:
Iowa $1.06
Kansas $1.13
South Dakota $1.49
Nebraska $1.06

Of course the blue states in the midwest also get back less than their share.

get rid of 'em.

Don't dodge my point: the system of de facto slave agriculture in California is disgusting

From an Aussie viewpoint, US Farm Subsidies are the DEVIL.


We follow you into every war-except Grenada-for 60 years and you repay us by giving us an FTA that ignores half our agrcultural community, and gives yours an even footing here (whilst keeping them at an advantage over there).

Damn farm lobby.

So you only want to end subsidizes to states that are already ed by the feds? Great plan.

i hear complaints about the disparities in the receiving of subsidies in that family farmers get less than major agro-businesses....  since i don't live in rural America, how exactly does it work in practice for those who actually make a living from it?  throughout this forum, we are hearing comments from people who don't know the first thing about farming (and, for that matter, neither do i).  is there anyone out there who is a farmer, or has family that are who can educate us on how exactly the process works in real life? 

What the hell are you on about?
Why exactly should some slave driver in California who turns over a huge amount of money every year get subsidised by the Government? Why should he get more federal money than a wheat farmer in North Dakota struggling to make ends meet?

Like Mr Dibble, I am delighted to hear of your shift toward market economics. Possibly I can give you a little further push in that direction. You mention government rectifying market failures, but take a look at the numbers Jfern published with regard to how much states get back for their dollar. Is the government really rectifying market failure, or just oiling the squeeky gear, or carrying out some bureaucratic redistribution scheme, or rewarding political allies? The Federal government has no business being involved under our constitution.

Both parties are pro-farm-subsidy. Why? Farm vote is big in the swing midwest.

Wow, now this is a blast from the past.

Wasn't Scorpiogurl the TexasIndy of 2005? Couldn't handle the pressure of political discussion, created a thread about that and deleted herself?

It seems to me that the reason we need farm subsidies is to keep America's foodsupply domestic. Without price supports, we'd be importing the majority of our food, which could be catastrophic in a war or other emergency.

We already import a TON of food and vegetables from Mexico and Canada. When it comes to food, their is only so much you can actually import that won't spoil by the time it reaches the buyers -> warehouse -> store.

Without subsidies we'd be importing a lot more staple grain products that are quite resistant to spoilage. I think the best way to ensure that I can still get bread if the unthinkable happens is to keep wheat production in the US.

Well... in that case... yay for North Dakota????

If things reached the point where war against the US was massive that you couldn't get food from anyone, you'd have the things to worry about, like the nukes flying over your head.
Farm subsidies are nothing but disgusting protectionism, and inflate the price of food in an outrageous way, while at the same time condemning to death thousands of farmers on the third world. Know why drugs are such a popular crop in third world countries? Because it's the only thing they can sell that isn't outpriced by subsidized farmers from the first world. This is all to benefit a minuscle percentage of people.

There are also at least some small farms in the Midwest. My aunt and uncle farmed one in Illinois for decades until they retired to the northern coast of California a few years ago.

Realistically, though, small farms are not economically viable in the modern world, and we shouldn't keep clinging to old farming techniques and small farms merely for the sake of preserving past traditions. Large, consolidated farms like those of the Midwest and Plains are the plan for the future, and they don't need subsidies.

I'd have other things to worry about besides food? There's not really anything more important to me. While food subsidies do make food more expensive with taxation, lower income people (the ones who need help paying for food) pay far less because they pay little in income taxes. Millions of poor people, not just farmers, benefit from sunsidies.  I'm willing to pay a little more in taxes to keep the price of food low (whixh eliminates a lot of other hunger-related problems) and  not have to worry about America being a major importer of food (being a major importer of oil is bad enough) I also think that the demand is such for drugs that growing coca or poppies will always be more profitable than growing food, especially when the government keeps reducing the supply by destroying all that it can find.

Screw farm subsidies.