Why aren't republicans talking about cutting Farm Subsidizes?
@thegreatdebater (7316)
United States
September 3, 2011 8:11am CST
Republicans like Eric Cantor have been calling for cuts in "entitlement" programs, but only the programs that effect the people that DON'T vote for them. One of the most useless "entitlement" programs in our budget currently is the ever growing subsidizes that farmers receive. Some farmers are paid NOT to grow on their land. The ones that do, have seen crop prices go through the roof because of subsidizes on Ethanol and Bio-Diesel. If farmers have a bad year, they have government subsidized crop insurance. Not to mention all of the state programs that are out there to help farmers. This is another example of our government taking to good of care of one group, while not enough to others. Farmers are doing so good right now that they actually are struggling to find ways to spend all of their money.
However, you haven't heard republicans on the campaign trail say one word about eliminating these subsidizes. We all can understand Michele Bachmann's reluctance to talk about this seeing how her family receives farm subsidizes, but what about the rest? Why do you think this has been ignored
4 people like this
7 responses
@suspenseful (40193)
• Canada
3 Sep 11
I would say that they cut some subsidies, the ones that subsidizes Ethanol and Bio-Diesel and that is because it raises the price of corn and consequently not just that you have to pay more for corn at the groceries, but also impacts feeding cows, pigs, etc. I wold think that subsidies should be just to increase food production and that is all.
I also think that farmers should have their own crop insurance that they pay into.
I also think the entitlement programs that encourage laziness like welfare given so that unwed mothers can have as may children as possible and so that their husbands and boyfriends should be stopped or made harder.
1 person likes this
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
3 Sep 11
Suspenseful, I have no problem with welfare reform, but I do have a problem with people looking at subsidizes and welfare as different things. If you are paid because you have kids, or you are paid not to work isn't that the same thing? You NEVER hear anyone point this out, but they are the same thing. I actually don't have a problem with the Ethanol and Bio-Diesel subsidizes, I just have a problem with all of the others on top of those. Right now we shouldn't have ANYONE paid not to plant crops, but we still do.
2 people like this
@suspenseful (40193)
• Canada
4 Sep 11
We have problems with our farmers , It is either too hot, too cold, it rains too much, or it did not rain enough. I figure they would never be satisfied. I do not think you should be paid for having kids. I can see getting payment because you had to the time off work or were a full time homemaker but here the payments are taxable and if you go over a certain income they are clawed back. As for the drilling, it is the EPA. I do not think the governors have any control over the situation, but the ePA has so many radical members in it that want America to live on wind power. Besides when those states had Democrats, did they allow drilling then?
With ethanol, it take crops out of food production so therefore you may have import crops and put more land into crop production and since we are talking about corm, maybe the farmers will be offered more to put that in fuel production. Then there are those wells that were capped inside of America and not on the coasts. They could use them rather then relying on OPEC like those protesters want.
1 person likes this
@suspenseful (40193)
• Canada
4 Sep 11
I did check that one about republicans and the only one I saw referred to the Florida Everglades. I did see some where Democrats were opposed drilling. I went on a further search and it seemed to do with drilling in a national park. I do think that you can drill and not disturb the national habitt and then put it back to its original shape. Animals are very adaptable and we even had animals here in the city that you would not expect to.
1 person likes this
@BalthasarTheRat (656)
• United States
3 Sep 11
Boy, what farmers are you talking to. Some giant conglomerate producers may be "struggling to find ways to spend all their money", but American farmers are still on the down slide. The possibilities for profitability (the only reason to run any business) are dismal. Subsidies to keep production down are silly when expansion of markets and new uses for corn and soybeans would accomplish the same thing, but insurance for farm related disasters is paramount to ensure we keep some farmers in business.
But why has any of this been ignored? Attacking farmers has always been a politically bad idea.
1 person likes this
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
3 Sep 11
Balthasar, I can tell you I start dealing with farmers in 2007, and they were all complaining about everything. Today, they go three weeks without rain and they are still talking about what they are going to by in December. I had one of my customers tell me that if you can't make money farming right now, than you much not be trying. One of my best customers makes farm equipment, they can't keep up will all of the demand, they have expanded onto both of their locations, and are looking to add on more.
I am not attacking the farmers, I am attacking all of the subsidizes that they are receiving. I am surprised that no one is calling out the republicans for their one sided attacks, and their stead fast support for what is clearly welfare that isn't even needed.
@gewcew23 (8007)
• United States
6 Sep 11
Republicans do not mind subsidizing their voters and supporter. That is why they will subsidize farmers, oil billionaires, and war profiteers. Now ask them to give one cent for an African or Latino American to go to college and the Republicans will oppose this kind of spending because those Americans will probably not vote Republican. Kind of sad now isn't it?
@urbandekay (18278)
•
3 Sep 11
I don't know about US but here in UK agriculture is the biggest dependency culture going
all the best urban
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
4 Sep 11
For the same reason Democrats are screaming about "shared sacrifice" while insisting that 51% of Americans shouldn't have to pay a dime in federal income taxes. All these people just want votes and they're more than willing to sell out their supposed values if it nets them more votes and/or political campaign contributions.
So which republican IS talking about Farm subsidies? The one who get ignored by the media of course.
http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-06-02/sowing-more-big-government-with-the-farm-bill/
@ladybugmagic (3978)
• United States
4 Sep 11
Bachmann also has a record of standing against stimulus programs publicly, balking at the idea that the funds will help with job growth. Then behind closed doors, she requests those funds for her district, detailing just how many jobs it will help create.
1 person likes this
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
4 Sep 11
Taskr, if you increase taxes on that 51% of Americans you will see our GDP go down, which no one wants. But, every talks about "middle class" tax cuts. If we don't pay taxes, than how do you cut our taxes? I see that Ron Paul is which is good.
Michelle Bachmann got into a lot of trouble over this because she has voted against farm subsides, but than received farm subsidize checks from a family farm. She doesn't like to talk about that.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/1209/Antisocialist_Bachmann_got_250k_in_federal_farm_subsidies.html
@mythociate (21432)
• Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
11 Oct 11
I don't know all the ins-and-outs of the government and farming-industry, but the base of the argument would be 'farmers produce more, "the entitled" not so much.' They give the subsidies to people who produce---it doesn't matter what they do with the money (GIVE IT TO MEEEEEEEEEEEEEE 
!), as long as they keep producing (or not-producing in order to let others extract something valuable from the land).
!), as long as they keep producing (or not-producing in order to let others extract something valuable from the land). @andy77e (5156)
• United States
4 Sep 11
If you mean republicans as in the party, it's because the party is full of individuals known as "politicians" and politicians inherently want votes, and tons of people who vote, get subsidies.
If you mean republicans as in citizens, hundreds have. All the political commentators have. And granted I am not a republican, I am right leaning, and I have for years.
