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.
To really begin to understand this complex topic a person really needs to understand the basics of agricultural subsidizing. A subsidy is defined as a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public (Mish, 2003). More specifically, in the agricultural industry the government provides financial assistance to producers in the farm industry in order to prevent decline in production. The government does this by providing financial assistance to farmers and by managing the cost and supply of certain commodities. There a few reasons for this. One reason is to provide assistance to family sized farm owners who have trouble competing with commercial farms. This is supposed to maintain an efficient market balance. Another reason is to control the prices of commodities and keep the global food prices low. There are two main ways that payments are made. The payments may be made directly based on historical cropping patterns on a fixed number of acres. Or they can also be made depending on current market prices. Farmer’s may be guaranteed...
... middle of paper ...
...heir policy. Whether you believe this subsidizing is good or bad may depend on if you are a producer or consumer. No matter what this policy has a large effect on the food market as well as spending of taxpayer dollars. Either way most people in the U.S. maintain an opinion on one side or the other.
Works Cited
Mish, F. C. (2003). Subsidy. Retrieved from
http://www.lmerriam-webster.com/dictionary/subsidy
Vogel, S. (2001, February 14). Farm income and costs: farms receiving government payments. Retrieved from:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/farmincome/govtpaybyfarmtype.htm
Farm bill resources. (2008, August 20). Retrieved from
http://www.ers.usda.gov/FarmBill
Steinhauer, Jennifer. (2011, May 7). Farm subsidies become target amid spending cuts. New York Times, p. 1.
Riedl, M. (2011, March 30). Farm subsidies ripe for reform. Washington Times, p. 1.
Corn subsides began around the time of the Great Depression, which was intended to save the American farmer. Now the subsidies are destroying the very thing they set out to protect. Corn subsidies have grown into an over-burdensome crutch that enables affluent growers and financial institutions to thrive at the expense of taxpayers and local farmers. The subsidies allow farmers to overproduce corn in an effort to artificially maintain low prices.
The idea would cause people to use their health care and everyone would be able to afford healthier foods. “Direct subsidies to farmers for crops like corn, soybeans keep the prices of many unhealthful foods and beverages artificially low,” Bittman stated (page 37).... ... middle of paper ... ...
In the New York Times article “When a Crop Becomes a King”, author Michael Pollan argues there is an overproduction of corn that does more harm than it does good. He writes this in response to a farm bill signed by then President Bush to increase the budget for corn production which caused much controversy. Pollan uses an infuriated and frustrated tone in order to convince American consumers that corn has taken over their environment and economy. Michael Pollan uses rhetorical strategies to challenge conventional views of corn and to argue against additional corn production.
Many families and people have become too dependent on food stamps. “Critics of food stamps and government spending, however, argue that too many families have become dependent on government aid.”(NoteCard #1) But if they did not have this program people would go hungry. “11.9 million people went hungry in the United States”... “that included nearly 700,000 children, up more than 50% from the year before.”(NoteCard #2, Point 2) The program does good and helps people but it also spends a lot of money to get people food stamps. “..food-stamp recipients has soared to 44 million from 26 million in 2007, and the costa have more than doubled to $77 billion from $33 billion.”(NoteCard #5) But in the end, is it worth it? People need the assistance. It does help people from going hungry and keeps them at least with a little food in their stomach to that keeps them from starving. A lot of people who could not get jobs, were eligible for the program because they did not have a source of income. “Critics of food stamps and government spending, however, argue that too many families have become dependent on government aid.”(NoteCard #1) Since not everyone could get work, the government changed the requirements and it went for the better and for the
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.
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:
U.S. Farm Policy plays a crucial role for availability of unhealthy food for millions of Americans. The food stamps (SNAP) under the U.S. Farm policy is not good for the poor communities
... In fact, they would like to see more reporting of these issues. They only ask that it be balanced and fair. Their concern is that individuals promoting some philosophy or private agenda will dupe the news media and entertainment figures into spreading lies about food product and farm prices.
A. “Farm Policy.” CQ Researcher 10 Aug. 2012: 693-716. Web. The Web. The Web.
Health habits formed in childhood are incredibly hard to break as they grow into adults, and an unhealthy child population equals an unhealthy adult population before too long. The farm bill’s specific catering to such a small number of crops cuts down on what readily available products there are to feed to the population, especially as the farm bill “…offers little, if any, support to the California farmers who produce nearly half of our nation’s fruits, nuts, and vegetables, despite the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s nutritional guidelines calling for a diet rich in all three” (Farm Bill Should Focus on Healthful Foods, 31). I agree that by ignoring these extremely important farms in the face of making money we are only hurting ourselves in the long run. Most of our population is not a wealthy one, and to remove healthy choices from our reach and yet still expect us to be a healthy, thriving class of people is not only impossible but also
People against the corporate farming system want to say that large farms are putting the small farms out of business. This is absolutely not true. The main reason I feel family farms are struggling is because farming is labor- intensive industry. You never have a break from it. Everyday farmers have to feed the animals, maintain their crops, and maintain their facilities, all while worrying about the weather and their finances. People don’t want to work as hard as necessary to run a farm on a family level.
...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.
The government must have a say in our diets. Because the issues of obesity have already reached national scales, because the costs of obesity and related health issues have gone far beyond reasonable limits, and because fighting nutritional issues is impossible without fighting poverty and other social issues, the government should control the range and the amount of available foods. The cost of healthier foods should decrease. The access to harmful foods should be limited. In this way, the government will be able to initiate a major shift in nutritional behaviors and attitudes in society.
Farmers have no specific amount of money that they are going to receive each year. This unreliability upon income causes financial problems when a family is involved.