Why I think America needs to keep its farm subsidies:
ByI know, the title alone probably has some of you falling out of your chair considering it’s coming from me but before I’m accused of being a hypocrite let me make my point.
For several years now a battle has raged around the world on what to do with farm subsidies by rich nations. Developing countries have continuously cried foul on their inability to compete because of cheap farm goods from America and Europe thanks to our subsidies and the tariffs we but on their agricultural products when coming into the country. Many will recall when President Bush first came into office he signed the largest farm subsidy bill in history giving over $170 billion to American farmers over the next decade. Now it can be argued that allot of the reason behind it was to secure votes across the farm states and on that they have a point. However I believe subsidies are much more important to America then votes for politicians.
Currently one of the biggest crises we face is over our dependence on foreign oil. America though the second largest oil produce in the world, still only makes enough to support half our needs. One has to wonder what our policies toward the middle east would be if it weren’t that oil was a matter of national security.
With that said, what would America’s national security be like if we had to all of a sudden depend on foreign countries for our food source like we do with oil. It is safe to say that if the American government didn’t subsidize our farms many would close, shifting production offshore to places like Latin America. Without subsidies the economic rule of Comparative Advantage would takeover, as it would no longer be to someone’s advantage to farm in America.
At that point with the majority of America’s food source in foreign hands the chances of being held hostage to them increases like we are currently with oil producing nations. Worse in every major war since the Roman Empire, natural resources were generally one of the biggest issues in deciding its cause and victory. Just because it’s been 60 years since the last world war, it doesn’t mean another one can’t happen. If it does I want as a nation to be assured that we’re making our own food no matter how much the cost to tax payers. When it comes to national security and free trade, farming off the production of t-shirts is one thing, having someone else make my vegetables is another.
It's the end of the post, now what?
Bookmark and share to spread the word, we'd really appreciate it:
|
||
|
ReTweet: |
Join our email list: |
Subscribe to our feed: 
|
8 Comments
January 27th, 2006 at 11:57 pm
You want to keep farm subsidies because you want to keep their votes.
January 28th, 2006 at 1:00 am
Did I miss something?
I said the farm bill was an attempt to get votes. I said I’m for farm subsidies as a matter of national security.
Did you read the whole thing?
January 28th, 2006 at 2:14 am
Unfortunately I read it. Your motivation is still the votes. Framing this as National Security is the answer to everything the Republicans want to do, without coming across looking like hypocrites or xenophobes.
Last week it was close the borders because of National Security – when the last ten years all the Xenophobes in the Republican party wanted to close the borders because they didn’t want their white towns or neigborhoods overrun by Mexicans.
Nothing has changed. Just now you can cry national security for everything to exploit 9/11 and have a more politically acceptable argument.
Farm subsidies for National Security! It’s all about the votes and giving your self a politically acceptable argument within the Republican frame for a program you know you need for votes, but is inconsistent with Conservative ideology. – Meghan
January 28th, 2006 at 3:33 pm
It’s amazing at how narrow you view the running of this country.
Take your liberal hat off for a second and view the world as the way it’s been for thousands of years.
I’m not trying to make a political statement and it has nothing to do with getting votes. My comments are on the line with what any think tank would suggest, whether it is RAND, CFR, etc… Have you ever heard of the concept “situational planning”, it is when a company, government or even a person thinks of all things that could happen and what the possible outcomes could be and how we might be able to best handle them. From a person’s perspective, “situational planning” would be like my family coming up with a plan if a terrorist attack were to occur in Manhattan or even on my block, during work, off work, etc…
Based on “situational planning” what I’m saying is that if we were to first remove farm subsidies a possible effect could be the outsourcing of our food source. If that were to happen then what could be possible consequences if other things then took place like a world war. If a world war took place America could be in a difficult spot if we’re not in control of our food source. Based on that it is my opinion that in order to manage such risk, farm subsidies could be a necessary evil.
If you can’t grasp the idea of someone sitting around brainstorming about all sorts of possibilities, then I have to really wonder about where you’re coming from. Are you that consumed with your political beliefs that you can’t intelligently brainstorm about life’s unfortunate possibilities? Have you ever pleasured yourself with white papers from a think tank like the CFR? If you can’t grasp what I was saying then obviously not.
January 28th, 2006 at 7:52 pm
–Have you ever pleasured yourself with white papers from a think tank like the CFR?–
I pleasure myself often, just not with white papers. You Republicans even make me laugh when you are trying so hard to sound intellectual. Almost as funny as you screwing up Eh in your Canada post.
-Meghan
(who is still laughing her ass off after reading Nick’s comment)
January 29th, 2006 at 11:55 pm
I don’t really see what’s so funny. When I look up pleasure in the dictionary I get 1. Enjoyment or satisfaction derived from what is to one’s liking. 2. A cause or source of such feeling. 3. A person’s will or desire.
When used as a verb like “pleasured” it can relate to sexual pleasure as I assume your taking it but also as to take pleasure in something like reading a “white paper”.
January 30th, 2006 at 7:47 am
Oy vey you really are thick.
No one pleasure’s themselves with white papers (I can only imagine the papercuts). The only people who cite them are University students or professors, and none of them use pleasure to describe the sensation garnered from reading them. C’mon, for real.
Take your new ‘situational planning’ college/continuing education text book word for the day, and your love affair with white papers, and have loads of fun pleasuring yourself with them.
I know you think it makes you look smart, and surely does wonders for your male ego.
XX OO
-Meghan
(Who wonders how half the guys heads in here fit through doors.)
January 30th, 2006 at 5:06 pm
We turn sideways and hold our breath.