5 ms·

Sounds like someone's been watching a bit too much Fox Propaganda. Farms are already subsidized by the government. Imports are already subject to tariffs preci

Sounds like someone's been watching a bit too much Fox Propaganda. Farms are already subsidized by the government. Imports are already subject to tariffs precisely to protect farmers. Who do you think pays for those subsidies, and who pays for the tariffs? Yeah, the "coastal elites" that you've been trained to hate. In farmers stopped benefiting from the largess of the coast, _they_ would starve to death, and everyone else would have cheaper food.

CountDrewku 5y ago
Just FYI if they starve to death there's no one to plant or harvest the food. Also, if your argument is that the subsidies are unnecessary that would indicate that farming is profitable and they would in fact not starve to death. The point you're trying to make kinda collapsed on itself bud.
- hackyhacky 5y ago
  Your reading comprehension skills are terrible. 1. In this hypothetical situation, the cheaper food comes from abroad, now that there are no import tariffs. 2. I never said subsidies aren't necessary: I don't know how you can infer that point from what I wrote. I said that subsidies exist to protect American farmers, so American farmers should stop complaining about those who fund them. American farming is as profitable as it is now precisely due to those subsidies.
  - CountDrewku 5y ago
    I think you need to read up on why the subsidies were started in the first place because you're obviously clueless. The rest of your argument is laden with all sorts of cognitive dissonance. Subsidies are given for things like food because if a society doesn't of have food it's a really bad thing so the government props up the industry in bad times (in this case during the Great Depression) and we don't starve. It's not an altruistic handout, it's way of keeping you from starving to death genius. The fact that you think it's a generous handout from the "elites" and government indicates that you think it's unnecessary which means the farmers are profitable on their own and your entire asinine "hypothetical" comment about them starving to death without it gets thrown out the window. The subsidies cannot be both necessary and considered a generous handout from the coastal elites. Pick one. We import about 15% of our food supply right now. Good luck making up the other 85% with cheaper imports. Relying on external food supplies is a massive security risk and disadvantage as well.
    - light_hue_1 5y ago
      Yeah, you should definitely read up on how farming subsidies came about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_policy_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_policy_of_the_Uni... Food got so stupidly cheap it makes no sense to grow it in the US anymore. So farmers demanded that people in cities pay for their lifestyles out of our taxes. And then they go around being entitled about it. I've had enough of farm welfare queens. Get farmers off of welfare and let us import food from places that can grow it competitively. If we can't make up the other 85% from somewhere else, that's great, then US farmers will show that they can grow food at a reasonable place without welfare. These hateful people that survive on the welfare handouts from cityfolk and then turn around and vote for Republican idiots like Trump have gone too far. Time to cut them off.
      - arrosenberg 5y ago
        Even though I understand your outrage, it's a terrible idea to move our food chain abroad instead of subsidizing farmers. That's a huge national security risk. It would be better if the subsidies were limited to smallholders on ~100 acres or less, which would resolve the rural depression issue.
      - autokad 5y ago
        the government pays farmers (subsidizes) based on a lot of planning. this is done because special aspects about food (go read an economics 101 book - inelastic demand, prefect competition). in short, its meant to stabilize the system such that we don't all starve next year due to surpluses this year. its not because we can just get it cheaper from other countries (sometimes that may be true, but not true on a macro scale). if the US stopped growing food, hundreds of millions of people would die just from the famine. many governments would be toppled, probably even a few first world countries.
        halostatue 5y ago
        Not so much on the famine bit, except perhaps in the U.S. and Canada. The unfairness of farm subsidies is that there’s also essentially no _controls_ on the output. The government can’t turn around and mandate particular growing practices, in part because farming companies and larger farmers have gotten used to the subsidies and how they work. In Canada, at least, subsidies are also tied to production controls and standards. Don’t get me wrong: I am in _favour_ of most farm subsidies; there is a lot of benefit to it. But the taxpayer should get a bit more control on what’s being spent on. IMO, small farm subsidies should probably increase so that more people have opportunities to work the land if they wish to do so and pay their seasonal workers a living wage so that they don’t have to use undocumented workers. It wouldn’t be a bad thing to see a couple of F35 fighters scrapped in favour of fair farm wage payments.
  - lief79 5y ago
    Have you considered just how much of the international surplus the US produces, and how much of the total production it currently consumes? I suspect running the numbers would indicate a clear international need for the US breadbasket, and not a decrease in overall cost due to a large drop in supply.
    - aeternum 5y ago
      The US is only the world's largest producer of corn, and of that, 40% is turned into fuel (ethanol) and 36% is fed to animals. 20% is exported, where again a significant amount is used for animal feed & ethanol. So meat and maybe gas would become slightly more expensive but the world would most certainly not starve.
    - intended 5y ago
      Agriculture is one of the more subsidized and protected industries around the world. Sugar from the desert levels of subsidies. Farmers and Food are a voting group and commodity that will always be catered to and protected, no matter what the economic cost.
- threatofrain 5y ago
  By “they” are you talking about the enormous masses of uneducated immigrant workers, frequently derided as illegals, who work in the dirt on the farms and meat production lines of the US? Those that constitute the supermajority of agricultural labor, and who see almost none of the fruits of their labor? Or are we talking about those who Own things?
  - CountDrewku 5y ago
    Are you arguing that indentured servitude is a good thing? It sounds like you're siding with the employers here.
swordsmith 5y ago
> Imports are already subject to tariffs precisely to protect farmers. I think you got these backwards. Subsidies are provided because other countries imposes tariffs on US farm products.

CountDrewku 5y ago

Just FYI if they starve to death there's no one to plant or harvest the food. Also, if your argument is that the subsidies are unnecessary that would indicate that farming is profitable and they would in fact not starve to death. The point you're trying to make kinda collapsed on itself bud.

hackyhacky 5y ago
Your reading comprehension skills are terrible. 1. In this hypothetical situation, the cheaper food comes from abroad, now that there are no import tariffs. 2. I never said subsidies aren't necessary: I don't know how you can infer that point from what I wrote. I said that subsidies exist to protect American farmers, so American farmers should stop complaining about those who fund them. American farming is as profitable as it is now precisely due to those subsidies.
- CountDrewku 5y ago
  I think you need to read up on why the subsidies were started in the first place because you're obviously clueless. The rest of your argument is laden with all sorts of cognitive dissonance. Subsidies are given for things like food because if a society doesn't of have food it's a really bad thing so the government props up the industry in bad times (in this case during the Great Depression) and we don't starve. It's not an altruistic handout, it's way of keeping you from starving to death genius. The fact that you think it's a generous handout from the "elites" and government indicates that you think it's unnecessary which means the farmers are profitable on their own and your entire asinine "hypothetical" comment about them starving to death without it gets thrown out the window. The subsidies cannot be both necessary and considered a generous handout from the coastal elites. Pick one. We import about 15% of our food supply right now. Good luck making up the other 85% with cheaper imports. Relying on external food supplies is a massive security risk and disadvantage as well.
  - light_hue_1 5y ago
    Yeah, you should definitely read up on how farming subsidies came about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_policy_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_policy_of_the_Uni... Food got so stupidly cheap it makes no sense to grow it in the US anymore. So farmers demanded that people in cities pay for their lifestyles out of our taxes. And then they go around being entitled about it. I've had enough of farm welfare queens. Get farmers off of welfare and let us import food from places that can grow it competitively. If we can't make up the other 85% from somewhere else, that's great, then US farmers will show that they can grow food at a reasonable place without welfare. These hateful people that survive on the welfare handouts from cityfolk and then turn around and vote for Republican idiots like Trump have gone too far. Time to cut them off.
    - arrosenberg 5y ago
      Even though I understand your outrage, it's a terrible idea to move our food chain abroad instead of subsidizing farmers. That's a huge national security risk. It would be better if the subsidies were limited to smallholders on ~100 acres or less, which would resolve the rural depression issue.
    - autokad 5y ago
      the government pays farmers (subsidizes) based on a lot of planning. this is done because special aspects about food (go read an economics 101 book - inelastic demand, prefect competition). in short, its meant to stabilize the system such that we don't all starve next year due to surpluses this year. its not because we can just get it cheaper from other countries (sometimes that may be true, but not true on a macro scale). if the US stopped growing food, hundreds of millions of people would die just from the famine. many governments would be toppled, probably even a few first world countries.
      - halostatue 5y ago
        Not so much on the famine bit, except perhaps in the U.S. and Canada. The unfairness of farm subsidies is that there’s also essentially no _controls_ on the output. The government can’t turn around and mandate particular growing practices, in part because farming companies and larger farmers have gotten used to the subsidies and how they work. In Canada, at least, subsidies are also tied to production controls and standards. Don’t get me wrong: I am in _favour_ of most farm subsidies; there is a lot of benefit to it. But the taxpayer should get a bit more control on what’s being spent on. IMO, small farm subsidies should probably increase so that more people have opportunities to work the land if they wish to do so and pay their seasonal workers a living wage so that they don’t have to use undocumented workers. It wouldn’t be a bad thing to see a couple of F35 fighters scrapped in favour of fair farm wage payments.
- lief79 5y ago
  Have you considered just how much of the international surplus the US produces, and how much of the total production it currently consumes? I suspect running the numbers would indicate a clear international need for the US breadbasket, and not a decrease in overall cost due to a large drop in supply.
  - aeternum 5y ago
    The US is only the world's largest producer of corn, and of that, 40% is turned into fuel (ethanol) and 36% is fed to animals. 20% is exported, where again a significant amount is used for animal feed & ethanol. So meat and maybe gas would become slightly more expensive but the world would most certainly not starve.
  - intended 5y ago
    Agriculture is one of the more subsidized and protected industries around the world. Sugar from the desert levels of subsidies. Farmers and Food are a voting group and commodity that will always be catered to and protected, no matter what the economic cost.
threatofrain 5y ago
By “they” are you talking about the enormous masses of uneducated immigrant workers, frequently derided as illegals, who work in the dirt on the farms and meat production lines of the US? Those that constitute the supermajority of agricultural labor, and who see almost none of the fruits of their labor? Or are we talking about those who Own things?
- CountDrewku 5y ago
  Are you arguing that indentured servitude is a good thing? It sounds like you're siding with the employers here.

swordsmith 5y ago

> Imports are already subject to tariffs precisely to protect farmers. I think you got these backwards. Subsidies are provided because other countries imposes tariffs on US farm products.