Abolishing Farm Subsidies In The United States

agricultural products, which might end Mexican crop subsidies. They argued that this would significantly reduce the income and affect the living standards of many southern Mexican farmers. They would not be able to compete with the subsidized, artificially fertilized, mechanically harvested, and genetically modified imports from the United States.

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.

Plenty of benefits have steamed from the implementation of subsidizations in the agriculture industry. First, farmers are receiving a more consistent income than they were before the government’s subsidies were enacted. As stated by Connect Us Fund, subsidies allow

Farm subsidies ARE horrible. Americans can first do themselves a favor and save money by abolishing farm subsidies and trading with developing nations for lower-cost, higher-quality food. This not only puts tax money back into our hands, but we are then able to buy cheaper food, and at the same time help boost an economy of a developing nation. US farm subsidies DO benefit foreign consumers as they get to eat cheaper food that are subsidized by the American taxpayers. While I am all for free market and abolishing subsidies, people need to be more careful in arguing against farm subsidies. Subsidies are wrong because they are paid out of the (unwilling) taxpayers' pockets. Americans are actually doing the rest of the world a great favor by subsidizing them to eat our food.

There are many small farms and farmers that cannot make a living today by growing and selling their beloved crops. In other words, when large agricultural crop producing competitor increasing in sales, it impacts the lives of famers and their farms in a negative manner. In the article Don’t Let Your Child Grow Up to Be a Farmer by Bren Smith, published in The New York Times in August 2014, Smith elaborates that “Nighty-one percent of all farms households rely on multiple sources of income”. Jim Rowe a local corn farmer just got done farming and placing his tools away in his shop. He then, travels home to clean up from a 9-hour day on the farm. After cleaning up Mr. Rowe is off to his second job as a UPS driver. It is important to realize;

At one point I feel farm subsidies were justified. However, as technology has advance, so has the ability for farmers to facilitate better yields from their land. With the unknown effects of climate change on the agriculture industry, it may be beneficial to the country to maintain these subsidies. There isn’t a problem until the cost of produce skyrockets. If subsidies for farmers disappear there will certainly be a spike in the price of produce. We as a country should do anything possible to maintain that all citizens have access to reasonably priced agriculture

2Some farmers wonder they should sell their farms and find an easier way to make a living. They are not sure what they should do.

It relies heavily on expensive fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides. The cost of food could be significantly lower with the reduction of monocropping. Monocropping increases the cost of food by having a large area of land producing only one type of crop, this means that only that crop will be readily available in that area and all other produce will have to be shipped in. Monocropping is beneficial for the farmers growing heavily subsidized crops like corn, wheat, or soy. Farmers are able to turn a profit on commodity crops, no matter how much is bought and what price the crop is sold for. Farm subsidies are known to benefit the larger farms the most. Agricultural subsides inflate the price of farmland. Most US citizens don't see the true cost of their food, from 1995 to 2012 the US Government spent $18,563,609,563 on corn subsidies. The Government has spent $9,508,633,852 on wheat subsidies and $8,179,977,437 on soybeans. From 1995-2012 there has been $57,592,341,340 spend on food subsidies and there has been 35,789,071 policies passed regarding food subsides. The US population was 361.1 million people in 2012, in order to pay for the cost of the food subsides each person would need to pay $182.20, that number includes unemployed individuals, children, and those below the poverty line. In addition to the ludicrous amount of tax dollars spent on farm

The two most costly programs for the federal government are spending on nutrition assistance and farm subsidy programs, both governed in the Farm Bill which is re worked every five years (Wallinga,2015). Agricultural concerns are huge in the nutritional value of the food the country consumes because some government interventions in agriculture influence the quantities of food produced and the price of food as well. Farmers growing commodity crops, such as corn or soybeans, benefit the most from government support, but commodity crops do not offer important nutrients that other crops could. (Hefferson,2014). The Farm Bill also authorizes funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and in addition to SNAP, our government has the Women Infants and Children program (WIC), which provides healthcare and nutrition to pregnant and breastfeeding women, and their children under age

The Farm Bill is a multi-year law that governs a multitude of food and agricultural industries that gives lawmakers the ability to address current concerns in the food and agricultural industry. “Since the 1930s, farm bills traditionally have focused on farm commodity program support for a handful of staple commodities such as corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, rice, dairy, and sugar. Yet farm bills have grown in breadth in recent decades” (Johnson & Monke, 2017). The law has been able to help farmers over the years with crop and livestock loss, insurance and subsidies.

There are around 20,000 American sugar growers. For years the price of sugar has been at least 50% to 100% higher than the actual world price of sugar. The reason for this is that the Federal Government price program and the high quotas limit the foreign import of sugar. The result is that the American sugar growers gain about $85,000 per grower, or $1.7 billion overall. On the other hand, the consumers of sugar pay between $2.9 and $3.5 billion for sugar each year. The American people are losing so much money. If the trade restrictions, tariffs, quotas, and price controls didn’t exist, we could trade for sugar at a very cheap price.Somehow congress continues to gain support for their sugar programs. How? Well, given the large amount of money gained by growers,they have an obligation to support the politicians who vote in these programs that benefit them. Billions of taxpayers money are spent to keep these programs in place. Money and valuable resources are wasted in the process. It would be increasingly better for our economy if these programs were done away with. On of the covers for this program is that it helps build jobs by keeping the sugar grown in the U.S. The truth is that these programs are wasting time and money. It would be better if we traded for the sugar so that more jobs could be created elsewhere for the production of more valuable and cheap goods and

McDonald explains how, under the neoliberal policies, farmers are expected by the government to compete with the global economy with little government intervention. (McDonald 321)

Small American farmers in their function of managing their farming businesses have realized reduced economic benefits as the profits of large farm entities continue to grow. This results in a polarization of wealth that in turn erodes the position of smaller farmers within society and creates greater social and economic inequality within the United States (Smith, 2010). Farming has provided a steady source of income for millions of Americans from the late 16th century to the present. Historically, as many as a fourth of Americans have been farmers, although this figure has approached 3-5% in recent years (Alston & Pardey, 2014). For much of this history, smaller farmers dominated American farming. The emergence and dominance of larger

“If the farmer is poor, then so is the whole country.” This is a quote by an anonymous author, and it is very true. Farmers produce food for the world. Without farmers, there would be no food. Agricultural subsidies help keep farms running by providing them with a consistent income. Subsides also promote advances in productivity and help manage the food supply.

The Agriculture sector has changed monumentally over the past century in response to vast economic change and technological advancements. Farm subsidies are various forms of payments from the federal government put in place in an effort to stabilize prices, keep farmers in business, and ensure quality of crops. The federal government currently pays $20 billion in cash each year to US farmers and spent an estimated $250 billion between 1995-2005. Presently, a new farm bill is passed every five years