Opinion on Farming Subsidies

[dax00]

I personally have been boycotting goods with corn ingredients (excepting the nearly unavoidable high fructose corn syrup) out of principle.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Both, in that we're subsidizing the wrong types of farms and the wrong types of crops. I don't know where this obsession with trying to make American agriculture a corn (or in some places soybean) monoculture as a matter of fundamental policy came from, but it's so tiresome.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Both, in that we're subsidizing the wrong types of farms and the wrong types of crops. I don't know where this obsession with trying to make American agriculture a corn (or in some places soybean) monoculture as a matter of fundamental policy came from, but it's so tiresome.

It doesn't help that first in the nation Iowa  is deeply interested in continuing the aggressive policy of subsidizing corn. Nobody with aspirations for to be president, and that realistically is just about everyone in Congress, is going to be seen opposing corn subsidies.

[Mr.Phips]

Get rid of them all.  I thought "free market" Republicans believed that if an industry isn't profitable on its own, then it shouldn't exist?

If I decided to make widgets that are not profitable, will the government come in and subsidize my business like they do farming?

[Classic Conservative]

Get rid of them, Ted Cruz was exactly right on this one.

[Free Bird]

Get rid of ALL subsidies. It isn't a free market when you pick winners and losers by force of government.

[dead0man]

Get rid of ALL subsidies. It isn't a free market when you pick winners and losers by force of government.

[Goldwater]

Get rid of them all.  I thought "free market" Republicans believed that if an industry isn't profitable on its own, then it shouldn't exist?

If I decided to make widgets that are not profitable, will the government come in and subsidize my business like they do farming?

I can't speak for everyone, but I personally oppose farm subsidies for that very reason.

[Santander]

I support farming subsidies only to stabilize prices.

Both, in that we're subsidizing the wrong types of farms and the wrong types of crops. I don't know where this obsession with trying to make American agriculture a corn (or in some places soybean) monoculture as a matter of fundamental policy came from, but it's so tiresome.

Soybean production in the US is largely tied to corn production, as it is planted in rotation with corn to increase yield.

[Bismarck]

Direct payments were ended by congress in 2010 for corn and soybeans. The biggest thing the government does for farmers is insurance and the RFS, both of which are considerably more complicated. The farmers i know would be devastated if those programs were ended, although at least philosophically I'm not a big fan of the government creating a market that doesn't exist (RFS)

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I support farming subsidies only to stabilize prices.

Both, in that we're subsidizing the wrong types of farms and the wrong types of crops. I don't know where this obsession with trying to make American agriculture a corn (or in some places soybean) monoculture as a matter of fundamental policy came from, but it's so tiresome.

Soybean production in the US is largely tied to corn production, as it is planted in rotation with corn to increase yield.

Huh. I've mostly seen alfalfa used for that purpose.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I support farming subsidies only to stabilize prices.

Both, in that we're subsidizing the wrong types of farms and the wrong types of crops. I don't know where this obsession with trying to make American agriculture a corn (or in some places soybean) monoculture as a matter of fundamental policy came from, but it's so tiresome.

Soybean production in the US is largely tied to corn production, as it is planted in rotation with corn to increase yield.

Huh. I've mostly seen alfalfa used for that purpose.

Depends on the area.  Around here alfalfa doesn't grow well so it makes more sense to use soybeans.  In areas where both grow well, it probably depends on how much forage is needed for animals in the immediate area. Soybeans are easier to transport than hay bales.

[Intell]

A good thing, and helps the economy. Don't give two s about the free market. Though we should be subsidising more small business and essential farms, as well as small farmers and local farmers.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Government spending is morally neutral; as is always the case it depends entirely on who you give the money to and why. Farming subsidies geared towards (ultimately) maintaining historic landscapes and functioning agricultural communities? Easy to defend. Farming subsidies geared towards PRODUCTIVITY? (and we all know what that means) Impossible.

[Torie]

Government spending is morally neutral; as is always the case it depends entirely on who you give the money to and why. Farming subsidies geared towards (ultimately) maintaining historic landscapes and functioning agricultural communities? Easy to defend. Farming subsidies geared towards PRODUCTIVITY? (and we all know what that means) Impossible.

One protects landscapes through zoning, not ag subsidies.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Government spending is morally neutral; as is always the case it depends entirely on who you give the money to and why. Farming subsidies geared towards (ultimately) maintaining historic landscapes and functioning agricultural communities? Easy to defend. Farming subsidies geared towards PRODUCTIVITY? (and we all know what that means) Impossible.

One protects landscapes through zoning, not ag subsidies.

Mmm... no. Thing you need to understand about landscape is that nature is not a passive player. Certain landscapes - often of high environmental value - require a certain degree of human activity in order to survive.

[Torie]

Government spending is morally neutral; as is always the case it depends entirely on who you give the money to and why. Farming subsidies geared towards (ultimately) maintaining historic landscapes and functioning agricultural communities? Easy to defend. Farming subsidies geared towards PRODUCTIVITY? (and we all know what that means) Impossible.

One protects landscapes through zoning, not ag subsidies.

Mmm... no. Thing you need to understand about landscape is that nature is not a passive player. Certain landscapes - often of high environmental value - require a certain degree of human activity in order to survive.

Come to Columbia County, and savor the beautiful landscapes of abandoned farmland reverting back to nature. It's gorgeous. And of course the subsidies will go to those who would keep in production without the subsidies. Indeed, those folks would, and do, get most of the subsidies. In many places, ag land is taxed at a much lower rate than land devoted to other uses. That is certainly the case in Iowa. That I guess is a form of subsidy, but it seems less obnoxious to me, in part because it reduces the political pressure for rezoning from ag to other uses.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Come to Columbia County, and savor the beautiful landscapes of abandoned farmland reverting back to nature. It's gorgeous.

A view that confirms you as a townie, I think. Actually it could very well be very pretty, but a landscape that is the product of human abandonment is no more 'natural' than a landscape produced by human activity.

In any case landscapes in much of Europe are rather older than in the United States - when I was little I used to play in a wood that has an earth bank boundary that is at least a thousand years old - and even if we ignore the historic meaning of them (and we shouldn't), many of those that are maintained as a result of human activity are of immense importance environmentally; heathland landscapes in particular.

[Torie]

Come to Columbia County, and savor the beautiful landscapes of abandoned farmland reverting back to nature. It's gorgeous.

A view that confirms you as a townie, I think. Actually it could very well be very pretty, but a landscape that is the product of human abandonment is no more 'natural' than a landscape produced by human activity.

In any case landscapes in much of Europe are rather older than in the United States - when I was little I used to play in a wood that has an earth bank boundary that is at least a thousand years old - and even if we ignore the historic meaning of them (and we shouldn't), many of those that are maintained as a result of human activity are of immense importance environmentally; heathland landscapes in particular.

Well perhaps we should take it on a case by case basis then. Often marginal farmland is subject to erosion, and there are subsidies actually not to farm it, and plant it with natural plants that retard erosion, precisely to preserve the environment. In any event, you are not making a very persuasive case for crop (or dairy animal or whatever) subsidies just given to anyone that grows the crop (husbands the animals) in my opinion. One size does not fit all. If for some reason ag activity is really necessary to preserve something important in the landscape on a given parcel, OK. But that is an empirical issue.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well perhaps we should take it on a case by case basis then. Often marginal farmland is subject to erosion, and there are subsidies actually not to farm it, and plant it with natural plants that retard erosion, precisely to preserve the environment.

Local environments differ immensely and what sort of activity is or is not appropriate (and what role the state should take in encouraging or preventing any sort of activity) must also differ immensely.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not defending any specific programme but the general principle.

But, again, when a landscape is (and this is a real issue here) the product of thousands of years of human activity and when that landscape has some value (be it environmental or social), then the case for preservation (from both the more commercial forms of agriculture - which dear God have caused untold ecological damage over the past sixty years - and from abandonment-and-woodland-succession) then the case for incentivising activities that maintain it is overwhelming.

[RINO Tom]

Support.

[Asian Nazi]

Support strongly.  Agriculture is the backbone of modernity and our farmlands should be cherished. 

[dead0man]

Agriculture is the backbone of modernity

what the hell?

[Asian Nazi]

Agriculture is the backbone of modernity

what the hell?

Without industrial agriculture, modern society would collapse.

[dead0man]

Sure, but that's true of several things.  If you can't move that food, modern society would collapse.  So clearly Teamsters are the backbone of modernity.  Or the current Chicken Little's favorite song, An Electromagnetic Pulse is going to Kill Us All.  Without magic juice coming out of little holes in our walls modern society would collapse.

Factory farming is very important to our continued easy survival, but it's not the only pillar holding us all up.