Is McCain right? Are farm subsidies a bad idea?

[ladiesbballcoach]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080502/D90D6PAG0.html

 

Congress, struggling to finish a farm bill that can survive a threatened veto, passed another extension and sent it to President Bush, who, like McCain, says it is bloated with subsidies for wealthy farmers. The nearly $300 billion bill would pay for farm and nutrition programs for the next five years.

 

Negotiators on the bill agreed to cut an ethanol tax credit previously considered off-limits because of its popularity in Iowa. And they cut $1 billion in support for blending ethanol, bringing the per-gallon credit from 51 cents to 45 cents.

[Habib]

Are farm subsidies a bad idea? I think so. I may be more detailed later.

[ladiesbballcoach]

Are farm subsidies a bad idea? I think so. I may be more detailed later.

 

Than are tax breaks and subsidies to businesses a bad idea, too?

[Habib]

Than are tax breaks and subsidies to businesses a bad idea, too?

 

I am a proponent of free trade. Non-tariff barriers like subsidies hinder free trade. Americans are doubly, often triply, taxed by funding the subsidies, paying a higher price in some instances, and funding foreign aid to developing countries whose agricultural sector can’t compete with ours. It is also hypocritical of the U.S. to push for reduced subsidies in other countries while continuing our own. The WTO is not legitimate enough to rule against America regarding subsidies; change in that regard will be internal and I don’t think we are there yet. America and the world would gain from reducing our subsidies and opening up competition. However, the EU has been as bad, even worse, than the U.S. with regards to subsidies; we are by no means the only country who does it.

 

There are certainly instances where subsidization would be prudent, but in general I do not support them in any industry.

[MoreheadEagle]

I asked my farmer father in law this question. His answer was "No". I'll stick with that.

[HHSDad]

Without subsidies, most farmers wouldn't make a living, would quit farming and food prices would go throught the roof.

[AcesFull]

I have mixed feelings on this question. I generally oppose subsidies, but maintaining a strong agricultural base is a matter of national security. If subsidies ensure that the US can feed its own people in the event of a global disaster, then I can live with them. I am opposed to using food for ethanol production and I am against ethanol subsidies.

[HHSDad]

I have mixed feelings on this question. I generally oppose subsidies, but maintaining a strong agricultural base is a matter of national security. If subsidies ensure that the US can feed its own people in the event of a global disaster, then I can live with them. I am opposed to using food for ethanol production and I am against ethanol subsidies.

Good point and I agree. I'm hoping ethanol in America dies a quick silent death.

 

I saw a special the other night about corn in America. It was a real eye opener. The farmers were basically saying that the more corn they can get out of an acre, the more nutrionally worthless the crop is. On top of that, corn is now being blamed for much of the obesity in this country. The stuff or its byproducts is in almost everything.

[cch5432]

According to Walter Williams:

A panhandler is far more moral than corporate welfare queens....The panhandler doesn't enlist anyone to force you to give him money. He's coming up to you and saying, "Will you help me out?" The farmers, when they want subsidies, they're not asking for a voluntary transaction. They go to a congressman and say, "Could you take his money and give it to us?" That's immoral.

 

There are many farm handouts; but let's call them what they really are: a form of legalized theft. Essentially, a congressman tells his farm constituency, 'Vote for me. I'll use my office to take another American's money and give it to you.'

[cch5432]

I have mixed feelings on this question. I generally oppose subsidies, but maintaining a strong agricultural base is a matter of national security. If subsidies ensure that the US can feed its own people in the event of a global disaster, then I can live with them. I am opposed to using food for ethanol production and I am against ethanol subsidies.

 

Agreed, except I think we have way too many subsidies. I can agree that it is national security, but right now it is too much. Also, the people who receive the subsidies are often some of the wealthiest farmers-

 

The main losers in 2001 were the bottom 80 percent of farm subsidy recipients, including most family farmers, who saw their collective share of the subsidy pie shrink from 16 percent throughout the previous five years to 12 percent in 2001. This represents a decline of 25 percent in the share of subsidies received by these farmers.

[AcesFull]

Agreed, except I think we have way too many subsidies. I can agree that it is national security, but right now it is too much. Also, the people who receive the subsidies are often some of the wealthiest farmers-

I don't really feel qualified to debate the point with you and Dr. Williams. :lol:

 

Driving a few miles through corn and soybean fields in this area bears out the fact that large companies are reaping the benefits of farm subsidies. I need to study this issue further but I am uneasy watching us lose thousands of acres of prime farm land each year to development. I am just not sure yet whether subsidies are a necessary evil or strictly pork barrel spending.

[cch5432]

The national security argument is the only legitimate argument ever to barriers for free trade IMO. But subsidies are quite ridiculous, it's just another form of welfare for the most part.

 

Another problem with subsidies that I have is that it hurts developing countries. By artificially keeping agricultural foods low (because the bill is payed by US taxpayers), 3rd-world countries, who normally have a comparative advantage in agriculture, can't compete. Here is a good article on that topic

[ladiesbballcoach]

The national security argument is the only legitimate argument ever to barriers for free trade IMO. But subsidies are quite ridiculous, it's the Republicans form of welfare for the most part.

 

Are you saying the Democrats did not vote for them. Cause the Republican in the Presidential race is the one I am hearing saying get rid of them.

[cch5432]

Are you saying the Democrats did not vote for them. Cause the Republican in the Presidential race is the one I am hearing saying get rid of them.

Yes, as soon as I typed it I was unsure if it was true. I am going to look around and may have to edit that. Thanks for pointing it out :thumb:

[Habib]

Without subsidies, most farmers wouldn't make a living, would quit farming and food prices would go throught the roof.

 

Is that entirely true? If farmers couldn't make a living it would be because the prices would be too low to support them. Supply would remain constant. It's an interesting discussion though, especially with regards to this point and national security. I guess farm land would certainly be in danger if its value was reduced to aesthetics.