U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-13-2018, 11:33 AM
 
8,297 posts, read 3,460,242 times
Reputation: 1588

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey2k View Post
US Taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidize any industry. If there isn't enough demand for it and it can't stand up on its own, it shouldn't be artificially propped up.
Unless a matter of national security. Energies might be ones to support. Steel and aluminum might be some others. And yes IMO foods as above.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-13-2018, 11:55 AM
 
Location: Nebraska
323 posts, read 202,395 times
Reputation: 678
Quote:
Originally Posted by LifeIsGood01 View Post
How does it not, are they not buying food and they just buying bottled water with food stamps?

Crops are subsidized and sold to corporations that turn those crops into food, that food is sold and paid for in part by food stamps. That food stamp money helps the economy by paying store owners who sell that food.

So only feeding the rich is national defense?

You have no idea what you are talking about. Most farmers produce feed corn, corn, cotton, soybeans, etc, most of which are then exported, ethanol, methanol, sugars, oils, used in industry, etc. USA has more than enough food supply. Food stamps are free money for those that don't wish to work to provide. This is THE agricultural budget. Most of this "food" is not even food anyway, it's processed garbage. It is my wish that the "food stamp" program would be it's own entity and not in anyway connected to the farmer. There is no connection. Food stamps do not supplement farmers, it's welfare. From your logic, it's corporate welfare.



Not even sure what to make of the rich/national defense comment. Who cares about rich people anyway. Yes, farmers produce what makes this country great, at a small cost to you Mr. taxpayer. Perhaps we should just close the farms down, give them to the government, or perhaps just sell all the land and let it go to seed.



Just like the OIL embargo, where would the US then get it's best national resource...from imports. Thus, to keep the whole thing running, there are "programs" that help support the farmer. It's too bad that corporations, rich, etc take advantage of it, seems just like US industry.


We could end the food stamp program and the nation's farmer wouldn't make or loose one cent, it does not effect farmers.


Last time, food stamps should not be associated with farmers, there is no connection.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2018, 12:08 PM
 
8,297 posts, read 3,460,242 times
Reputation: 1588
Quote:
Originally Posted by krug View Post
You have no idea what you are talking about. Most farmers produce feed corn, corn, cotton, soybeans, etc, most of which are then exported, ethanol, methanol, sugars, oils, used in industry, etc. USA has more than enough food supply. Food stamps are free money for those that don't wish to work to provide. This is THE agricultural budget. Most of this "food" is not even food anyway, it's processed garbage. It is my wish that the "food stamp" program would be it's own entity and not in anyway connected to the farmer. There is no connection. Food stamps do not supplement farmers, it's welfare. From your logic, it's corporate welfare.



Not even sure what to make of the rich/national defense comment. Who cares about rich people anyway. Yes, farmers produce what makes this country great, at a small cost to you Mr. taxpayer. Perhaps we should just close the farms down, give them to the government, or perhaps just sell all the land and let it go to seed.



Just like the OIL embargo, where would the US then get it's best national resource...from imports. Thus, to keep the whole thing running, there are "programs" that help support the farmer. It's too bad that corporations, rich, etc take advantage of it, seems just like US industry.


We could end the food stamp program and the nation's farmer wouldn't make or loose one cent, it does not effect farmers.


Last time, food stamps should not be associated with farmers, there is no connection.
I do believe that food stamps are used to purchase stuff generated by farming. So due to simple demands, they are connected to many farmers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2018, 12:16 PM
 
10,274 posts, read 6,510,807 times
Reputation: 10855
Quote:
Originally Posted by krug View Post


Last time, food stamps should not be associated with farmers, there is no connection.
Wrong,

Hypocrites think farmers should get government welfare but poor Americans who don't earn enough to feed themselves should go hungry.

America gives tax money to farmers to put dangerous and cancer causing chemicals into out foods.

Most farming are big conglomerate corporations now anyway. A small farmer who thinks he has skin in the game is only fooling himself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2018, 01:08 PM
 
1,481 posts, read 595,024 times
Reputation: 3769
If food is not subsidized it costs more. And if food is not subsidized the government will divert those tax funds to something else, they won't refund them to the tax payer.
So taxes will not go down but the grocery bill will go up. After housing, groceries are our largest monthly expense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2018, 01:22 PM
 
3,561 posts, read 2,000,887 times
Reputation: 6167
I can see both sides but before making an informed choice I think it's good to have perspective.

What initially started out as a necessary and well meaning policy has been bastardized into a very corrupt and political football. Going back to the world wars and the great depression/dust bowl the food supply "bread basket" was viewed as an issue of strategic national security. That if we were attacked we need diverse (geographically and species) of food production capability so that we didn't have to rely upon imports. At the end of the day it was deemed that a nation's ability to feed itself through war or economic despair was just as important if not more so than bullets and bombs.

This likely still holds true today given the current environment.

With that said what started out as a pure national interest issue how been corrupted by money and politics and lobbying just as almost everything. It has started to become a profit tool for be corporate agra to maintain price-supports, output, and profit targets and not bare any of the cyclical risk. It rains or shine stock markets up or down the corn growers still get the same amounts. Regardless if it's a big corporate corn grower or a small family shop the industry is insulated by government fat. It also leads to overproduction and inefficient allocation of capital for corn. Then we have all sorts of dirt cheap corn byproducts as a result that are a byproduct of an unintended policy.

As an example U.S. Sugar & Lykes Bros. Inc has received hundreds of millions of $ in sugar subsidies for decades. They grow sugar primarily in central FL south of the Orange groves but north of the Everglades. The nitrates and other fertilizers have heavy runoffs which seep into Lake Okeechobee. When central FL receives heavy rains which it does frequently the state will let out the water leavies in Lake O through which it drains into 2 river tributaries: Caloosahatchee & St. Lucie rivers which drain in to the city of St. Lucie and Fort Myers area. As this fresh water rich with nitrates hits the salt water they release large algal blooms called red tide. The red tide kills almost all fish and wildlife that it hits as it takes the oxygen from the water. The dead fish end up on the beaches and it kills tourism. There are also severe health effects for those swimming and breathing in the fumes.

# unintendconsequences

seen here:
https://earthjustice.org/sites/defau...?itok=uEj3h3Yn

https://www.news-press.com/story/new...bee/651908002/

https://www.ussugar.com/releases/



Government picks winners and losers when they shouldn't be. Money corrupts all in the long-run but I would still argue we need to protect our food supply as a national policy just in a more informed and effective manner.

Last edited by SWFL_Native; 06-13-2018 at 01:52 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2018, 05:26 PM
 
10,711 posts, read 20,145,414 times
Reputation: 9864
Quote:
Originally Posted by LifeIsGood01 View Post
Wrong,

Hypocrites think farmers should get government welfare but poor Americans who don't earn enough to feed themselves should go hungry.

.
My grandparents were farmers. They did more work in a day than someone on welfare does in a year.

Funny thing, going hungry is a pretty high incentive to go to work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2018, 05:57 PM
 
Location: Ohio
18,035 posts, read 13,255,239 times
Reputation: 13840
Quote:
Originally Posted by unit731 View Post
"As a result, taxpayers have spent billions of dollars over the last 30 years subsidizing the production of corn ethanol, while at the same time creating unintended costs for consumers and the environment.

To start, the farm bill, a massive piece of legislation covering topics ranging from nutrition assistance to broadband internet, provides government subsidies for the now-mature ethanol industry, including corporate agribusiness giants such as Archer Daniels Midland."

Should US taxpayer money subsidize (pay) Archer Daniels Midland and others in 2018 and beyond?


And what are the unintended costs associated with these subsidies?
The cost is higher food prices.

Diverting corn from the market for use as ethanol was a stupid move enabled by the government, which not only soaked tax-payers, it soaked them again with higher food prices. Instead of using corn, they should have used sugar beets, which have double the yield for ethanol than corn. In other words, one acre of sugar beets is equal to two acres of corn. Not only are sugar beets more efficient, they cost less to grow than corn, and there would be no impact on consumer food prices.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2018, 08:13 PM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,794 posts, read 13,589,390 times
Reputation: 7921
Quote:
Originally Posted by unit731 View Post
"As a result, taxpayers have spent billions of dollars over the last 30 years subsidizing the production of corn ethanol, while at the same time creating unintended costs for consumers and the environment.

To start, the farm bill, a massive piece of legislation covering topics ranging from nutrition assistance to broadband internet, provides government subsidies for the now-mature ethanol industry, including corporate agribusiness giants such as Archer Daniels Midland."

Should US taxpayer money subsidize (pay) Archer Daniels Midland and others in 2018 and beyond?


And what are the unintended costs associated with these subsidies?


A thousand times no. If you remember the 2016 presidential primaries, President Trump supported the subsidies. As I remember it, he never gave a reason except to say that he wanted to win Iowa. Ted Cruz took a principled position against, and actually won Iowa. I voted for Cruz in the primary and did not vote for Trump in the general. Note that Hillary Clinton also supported the subsidies, albeit claiming that she wanted to tweak and improve them. Kind of another 'I supported it before I was against it' formulation a la John Kerry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-14-2018, 12:23 AM
 
Location: Kuwait
3,043 posts, read 1,183,633 times
Reputation: 2332
Quote:
Originally Posted by unit731 View Post
"As a result, taxpayers have spent billions of dollars over the last 30 years subsidizing the production of corn ethanol, while at the same time creating unintended costs for consumers and the environment.

To start, the farm bill, a massive piece of legislation covering topics ranging from nutrition assistance to broadband internet, provides government subsidies for the now-mature ethanol industry, including corporate agribusiness giants such as Archer Daniels Midland."

Should US taxpayer money subsidize (pay) Archer Daniels Midland and others in 2018 and beyond?


And what are the unintended costs associated with these subsidies?
No we shouldn't especially now that we know the harmful effects of corn.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top