Survivalist Forum banner

Should there be Farm Subsidies

  • Yes, farm subsidies should be given by the federal government

    Votes: 10 10.5%
  • Yes, farm subsidies should be given by the state government

    Votes: 5 5.3%
  • Yes, farm subsidies should be given by the local government

    Votes: 1 1.1%
  • No

    Votes: 79 83.2%
1 - 20 of 37 Posts

·
Por la gloria!
Joined
·
539 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Question: Should there be farm subsidies?

Definition of subsidy:
A direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,755 Posts
I voted no. Subsidies are so prone to misuse and politically-motivated manuvering and dealing, it's just better imo to leave it alone and let the market run things. They're slower than christmas in any discussion on if they're no longer deemed needed,
they have been seen to sometimes be over-generous to the point of sheer waste and costing production of something else, and other times they can be just a pointless fluff that doesn't affect much of anything. Then you have your politic'ing that happens in the making, to win votes by stuffing in most unrelated pork and ect.

Far as non-federal subsidy, I say that's up to those particular states and counties. I wouldn't want it, but if a state or county figures they want to do it, let the results be on them. Will most likely always be more trouble and drama than they're worth.

My opinion, there's just ten times more crookedness and buying-off for vote and contribution involved in the whole package, than there is good intents when it comes to subsidy.
 

·
off-grid organic farmer
Joined
·
23,954 Posts
Neighbors have told me that I qualified for Farm Subsidies. I checked it out and sure enough I do qualify.

I have never applied to receive it, I do not intend to ever apply.

I do know farmers who do take the subsidy. In their model of doing business it is the only 'profit' they earn, as their farming just breaks even.

I also know other farmers who earn a living without any subsidies, and they are doing fine.



A lot of it has to do with your business model.

Take the corn-to-ethanol debate. Using the modern corporate Ag system it is argued that producing a gallon of corn ethanol uses a lot of petroleum. By the time you pay for the petroleum, the ethanol ends up being expensive.

However there are others who produce corn ethanol without using any petroleum. Their corn ethanol is cheap. So which side do we focus on?

:)
 

·
Never Give up
Joined
·
7,579 Posts
No way if they cant make it they should shut down. We wont even put our property as farm land like some of our friends even though you get the lower taxes you also get to have all sorts of extra guest come over and check out your land.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,034 Posts
The goverment has NO money, that's your money they are giving away. Yes, your money. We have the best goverment that money can buy. Pops
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,757 Posts
I'm a 4th generation Kansas farmer.

As was mentioned, a lot of farmers break even farming and make their profit on subsidies.

Federal Crop Insurance has been invaluable, however. But it's insurance and you pay into it.

Subsidies in any form, for any industry, does more harm to the general welfare of the individual and the market than good.

The CRP program is a perfect example. It was conceived to try to raise the price of grain commodities. All it served to do is allow wealthy to buy land without maintaining it. It's kept younger farmers from starting because people who would never put in the work to farm buy the land to let it set idle. As it is, the vast majority of farmers are >60 years old. That can't last forever. If not for programs like CRP (and other subsidies) we would have a lot more small family farmers and younger generations starting farms.

In principle, and in practice, subsidizing industry is a form of socialism (legal plunder), which serves to steal from a majority to give to a minority.

Frédéric Bastiat said:
How is legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law — which may be an isolated case — is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system.

The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending what he sees as acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor workingmen.

Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder into a whole system. In fact, this has already occurred. The present-day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of organizing it.
The sad fact of the matter is, without subsidies a LOT of farmers would go out of business. The government's manipulation of the commodities markets has kept grain prices down so low for so long that it's virtually impossible for an operation to profit. Expenses have risen exponentially in the last 20 years, while prices have stayed pretty stagnant. Just 5 years ago the price of wheat was the same as it was back in the '70s. But the price of fuel (one of the largest expenses on a farm) sure wasn't.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,798 Posts
Wondering how many of you lefties, that voted against subsidies, are perfectly ok with handing out more & more welfare to those poor suffering society misfits?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,757 Posts
Wondering how many of you lefties, that voted against subsidies, are perfectly ok with handing out more & more welfare to those poor suffering society misfits?
I'm fairly certain you'll find that the vast majority of those who voted "no" for farm subsidies are against all types of federal welfare programs.

Eliminate the law...
...if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
381 Posts
As a farmer myself I see both sides of the issue. Large farmers can typically get by without the help of farm subsidies. Smaller farmers on the other hand count on the help in order to make it.I think everyone would agree that we need to cut as much spending as possible but as long as the government is handing out money to large failing companies they might as will help out farmers and ranchers since they are the back bone of the economy. The farm subsidies help more people than just farmers, most farmers use the money to buy new equipment and buying new equipment keeps people working to continue to manufacture the equipment.
 
1 - 20 of 37 Posts
Top