More handpicked essays just for you.
The problem with farm subsidies
Problems of agricultural subsidy
Advantages and disadvantages of agriculture subsidies
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Farm Subsidies
I believe that farm subsidies should only continue to be provided by the government if modified to target smaller, local, family farms as opposed to large-scale farms. However they should slowly decrease in the amount of dollars spent going towards agricultural production, thus allowing a smaller segment of tax dollars to go towards these small farms. The subsidies should be pulled form large farms gradually over a set number of years. Farm subsidies allow many farms to stay in business however they cause problems for many that are not in the farming business. By still providing them in moderation and gradually decreasing them, farmers will be given the chance to find other means of income.
Farm subsidies provided by the government are very important to the success of many modern day farmers both big and small. Without these subsidies a multitude of farms would quickly fall out of business. While the fall of many farms would be unfortunate, it is crucial that subsidies be slowly decreased, if not completely removed. It is extremely unfair that farmers are given subsidies while other businesses are forced to figure things out on their own. “Farmers are not the only people whose businesses have ups and downs” (The Farm Bill). Various businesses in the United States and the world have tomes of hardship, yet they receive little or even no special treatment. While these tax dollars are being provided to farmers as subsidies, other businesses are suffering.
Subsidies are expensive and burden the American taxpayer. About $44 billion is spent each year on farm support payments in the U.S. and all of this money comes out of the pockets of American families. While many American families are struggling themselves, mon...
... middle of paper ...
...llow the countries that rely heavily on agriculture to begin producing locally. Poverty in these countries could then begin to decrease and their economies will increase. The growth and distribution of illegal crops will also decrease once farmers are given the option to make an income off of what their land was originally meant for.
By modifying subsidies to support smaller farms we will be able to decrease the amount of tax dollars spent on supporting large-scale farms that do not actually need the extra money. Gradually taking away subsidies from these large farms over the years will allow the businesses to weigh their options and modify their crops to produce only what is needed. Providing smaller subsidies to local, family farms will allow us to use those tax dollars elsewhere and also give us the chance to purchase higher quality foods at a lower cost.
...nergy from an acre of Iowa farmland. Unfortunately, for more than fifty years, farm policies is designed to encourage the overproduction of this crop and hardly any other. It simply because the government subsidize high-fructose corn syrup in this country. While the surgeon general is warning the epidemic of obesity, our government is still signing bills encouraging the river of cheap corn flowing. It is clearly shown that food production in America is partly a mixture of politic, economic and morality.
...einvestment in the community and more stable. This mirrors the decentralization vision because it values smaller economic entities that are locally owned . The farm subsidy debate also reflects this vision. Farm subsidies often go to large agribusiness firms rather than small farmers. This forces independent farmers out of the market and concentrates economic power which limits self-government.
The Farm Bill is legislation that affects many different industries, but it’s purpose is to set policy regarding agriculture, nutrition, conservation and forestry (Committee Agriculture). About every five years, a bill regarding this same issue is passed by Congress (Committee Agriculture). In 1933, the Agricultural Adjustment Act was passed to deal with commodity surpluses that individuals could not afford during the Great Depression in rural America during the Franklin D Roosevelt presidency(Hagstrom). The Food Stamp Act was passed in 1964 under the The Lyndon B. Johnson’s presidency (Hagstrom). By 1977, the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program(SNAP), became part of the Farm Bill (Hagstrom). This is the history preceding the time period of the most recent Farm Bill, which has undergone the policy process to modernize the bill.
Richardson, J. ( 2011). Are All Farm Subsidies Giveaways to Corporate Farmers? Nope, Here's a
Sugar growers continue to benefit from favorable economic conditions provided by the U.S. government. Yet empirical data reveal a decrease in the aggregate support for sugar legislation in recent years. In 1978, there were 9,187 full or part owners of sugar cane and sugar beet farms, compared to 7,799 farms in 1987. The level of sugar subsidy allocated to the farmers, however, has increased and even favored certain sugar growers disproportionately over others. Such empirical findings suggests that politics, as much as economics, affect the level of sugar subsidy. This paper examines why an increasingly smaller number of sugar farmers receive a steadily larger government subsidy.
Philpott, Tom. “How Farm Policy Affects Us All.” Mother Earth News. 01 Jun 2007. 80. 21 Feb 2008.
The Affordable Care Act is projected to have a net cost of $1.2 trillion over the next ten years, even though we were told it would save money once implemented. The Agricultural Act of 2014, a/k/a the “Farm Bill,” was originally estimated to cost $956 billion over the next ten years [$756 billion dedicated to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly known as Food Stamps), which has nothing to do with farming], however, several news sources are already stating the Congressional Budget Office projections are too low. The list of programs continues to expand, both in size and scope, as we get further and further away from our founding principles. Our nation is becoming more and more liberal. Our government, more and more secular. The removal of our founding principles and Judeo-Christian values have permeated not just the government but most industries, especially entertainment and academia, and thereby have the ability to affect most public policy decisions. There are those who believe:
... sell their product at a lower rate due to the transportation, storage, and marketing costs. Having the food sold through private markets, cuts out the middle man, and allows more money to end up back into the farms, which helps the farmer put money back into their business and other businesses. Money that goes back into local businesses then increases the local economy through a process called the multiplier effect. The multiplier effect is an economics term that is used to describe where a small investment of money is circulated back into the economy, it sets off a chain reaction that increases exponentially. For example, if a consumer gave the farmer $20 for his goods and the farmer spends three fifths of his income ($20 + (.06x$20)), $32 would be the amount of money available in the market from the initial $20 investment (Krugman, Paul R., and Robin Wells).
In 1919, farmers from thirty states, including Missouri, saw a need. They gathered in Chicago and formed the American Farm Bureau Federation. In 1919, they had one goal, they wanted to speak for themselves with the help of their own national organization. Since 1919, Farm Bureau has operated by a philosophy that states: “analyze the problem of farmers and develop a plan of action for these problems” (Missouri). In the past 94 years, the A...
Farmers everywhere in the United States during the late nineteenth century had valid reasons to complaint against the economy because the farmers were constantly being taken advantage of by the railroad companies and banks. All farmers faced similar problems and for one thing, farmers were starting to become a minority within the American society. In the late nineteenth century, industrialization was in the spotlight creating big businesses and capitals. The success of industrialization put agriculture and farmers on the down low, allowing the corporations to overtake the farmers. Since the government itself; such as the Republican Party was also pro-business during this time, they could have cared less about the farmers.
Agricultural subsidies is a very complex and controversial economic topic today. It will continue to be a hot topic as government continues it. It is largely debated in the United States as well as in other countries. The reason it is so largely debated is because it literally have an effect on the entire world market. Not to mention that the farm has been booming the last 5 to 10 years. This topic also tends to draw strong opinions in our area in particular due to the large agricultural community in our region. However, even within different states there are many supporters as well as opponents to these government subsidies.
...struggling to earn any income at all and sometimes do not even get the opportunity to eat. Another issue that Raj Patel did not touch on is the lack of care consumers have for the farmers. It seems that consumers care about farmers about as much as the corporations do, which, in my opinion, is not a lot. When consumers only care about low prices and large corporations only care about making a profit, the farmers are left out to dry. Many consumers believe “food should be available at a bargain price, a belief that relies on labor exploitation and environmental exhaustion at multiple points along the commodity chain.” (Wright, 95) Corporations as well as consumers generally tend to be selfish and I think Raj Patel is afraid to mention this. If only these people cared a little bit more about each other I believe the hourglass of the food system will begin to even out.
Reduce the cost of vegetables and fruits and bring local farmers into the equation over large corporations.
As agriculture has become more intensive, farmers have become capable of producing higher yields using less labour and less land. Growth of the agriculture has not, however, been an unmixed blessing. It, like every other thing, has its pros and cons. Topsoil depletion, groundwater contamination, the decline of family farms, continued neglect of the living and working conditions for farm labourers, increasing costs of production, and the disintegration of economic and social conditions in rural communities. These are the cons of the new improved agriculture.
The financial burden of farm operating costs is substantial and many small family farms suffer when years of produce are lean. For example, my grandfather was farmer of Red Delicious apples from about 1957-2007. He did well for many years. A couple of years past when his crop didn 't produce enough because of frost damage, and almost simultaneously, it seems a change in how the apple industry functioned. Farmers were taking out their trees and planting different varieties such as Espalier trees. New assortments of apples hit the market and were gaining