Subsidy Farming

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Jan, 4 2004 @ 08:50 PM
link   
You know, the US government pays farmers a ton of money to not grow anything. Our nation has the capabilities to feed the world, but in order to prevent massive deflation of foodstuffs' prices, they pay farmers to not grow anything...

I have a better idea for this. What if that whole program were canceled. However, from the farms that are getting subsidy funding, the government, instead, buys their crops. Then they can send them to third world countries like Ethiopia, and feed their populace at no cost. The US would look like heros, feeding nations which can't feed them selves. The money would be spent on people doing something, instead of paying people to do nothing, and starving people no longer are.

Just a thought, any comments on this idea? Is there a hole in my logic?




posted on Jan, 4 2004 @ 09:02 PM
link   
As a friend of too many farmers and ranchers to count, I have to say that I cant see that... The government DOES pay them when they DONT, or CANT produce (droughts and the like). Farming is by no means an easy way to make a living. If the government did not aid the farmers and ranchers in times of hardship, they would just quit doing it. Then who would grow wheat. Who would grow barley. Who would grow hay. Who would grow everyting? The government by no means "pays farmers a ton of money to not grow anything", but they do pay them when they cant, or when prices are so low, that they cannot make the money to support the farm. I would like to know where you get your information. Do you have a source, or are you just elaborating off of something that you heard on the radio or saw on tv? I promise you, I have never met a "rich" farmer. They would on the otherhand get rich if the government decided to "buy" the crops. Buying the crops would be much more expensive than the costs of supporting the farmers. That is most likely why your suggestion hasnt been done. Another way of looking at it, is that then the government, and not the industry, would be in control of the price of the product. They want to spend as little as possible on them, so, why not lower the price that they will pay for it... Before you know it, the farmers are in trouble again because the government wont pay them enough for their product, so they start loosing money on the crop, and need government aid. I believe it would be an endless cycle.



posted on Jan, 4 2004 @ 09:08 PM
link   
When I said a ton, I ment to the whole, not to the individuals. And in times of hardship, when they CAN'T produce the goods, keep up the practice. I wasn't aware of that aspect of the program.

My info came from my US history teacher 6 years ago. I was just thinking about it and looking at a map of Africa, because I don't really know the geography of Africa. While looking at Ethiopia, the idea dawned on me.

Also, I'm not saying the government pays what the crops are going for when the other farmers sell them. Perhaps they could pay for the seed, and... (sorry, I don't know farming well enough to know all of the costs in starting it), but something to keep the farmer going, while making a bit of money. Something to make the labor worth it. I do know that farming is really hard work.

And they would only do it with a select farms, which may rotate, or depend on what isn't needed on the market. If there's an excess of lima beans, some lima bean farmers are targeted. The farmers wouldn't choose to sell the government, the government would choose the farmers.



posted on Jan, 4 2004 @ 09:12 PM
link   
LOL... Isnt there always an excess of lima beans?



posted on Jan, 5 2004 @ 01:34 PM
link   
And that while in Europe farmers have to be given money to make sure they make enough to survive.



posted on Jan, 5 2004 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by amantine
And that while in Europe farmers have to be given money to make sure they make enough to survive.


That is exactly what they do here... I was trying to explain that...



posted on Jan, 5 2004 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
You know, the US government pays farmers a ton of money to not grow anything.


Interesting.. got a link about that



posted on Jan, 5 2004 @ 04:28 PM
link   
I'm not really having much luck finding links to a site with all the information, but here a few that give an idea:

desmoinesregister.com...

sustag.wri.org...

www.ruralfinance.com.au...



posted on Jan, 5 2004 @ 07:08 PM
link   
One of the problems is that the equipment used to farm crops is so expensive. A new combine costs over 200,000 dollars.
There's just way too much overhead for the money you get from selling your crops. Land, Equipment, Herbicide, etc...

It's a no win situation.



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 02:50 AM
link   
Great minds think a like, I thought of this last year and hubby and me discussed it at length, some tobacco farmers are going to be paid not to raise tobacco here in our area. We know dairy farmers who are paid not to have dairy cows so I said the same as you, why not expect something in return for that money such as a crop that could be used to feed the poor and hungry worldwide. Each farmer could produce so many acres of vegetables and for everyone that did this, instead of just taking the subsidizing, they would also receive a tax credit. Many of the worlds hunger programs could foot the bill through donations for cannerys which would also serve to create additional jobs. I think with a little tweaking and organizations and governments this could work and be good for everyone involved.



new topics
top topics
 
0

log in

join