Will US politicians ever take a stand against agricultural subsidies?

[deflY]

Unfortunately, this problem is not limited to the US.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
"The U.S. Agricultural Department is required by law to subsidize over two dozen commodities. Between 1996 and 2002, an average of $16 billion/year was paid by programs authorized by federal legislation dating back to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, the Agricultural Act of 1949, and the Commodity Credit Corporation, among others."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy

That is a riduculous amount of money being spent on a program that virtually any intelligent person realizes is [censored].

It is amazing that this program has survived for so long without virtually any opposition. This seems like an issue that both Democrats (help poor people in Africa) and Republicans (free market) should in theory be able to unite against. Is there a large portion of the population that is strongly in favor of agro-subsidies? Or do the vast majority of people just not know or care?

I guess lobbists are just that strong. It's really sad, because I think this issue could be solved with a lot of popular support if a couple of politicians were willing to take a principled stand against it and bring the issue to the forefront.

[/ QUOTE ]

Midwest states are almost all republicans, farming subsidies pour money into these states and no republican presidential candidate could get past the primaries pushing against farm subsidies. Likewise for senate and house representatives.
Once you hit the realization that a politicians job is to get elected, not to do good correct things, then you will be on the road to ACland.

[clowntable]

Isn't any politician supplying service in return of votes. Sounds like a market to me.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
"The U.S. Agricultural Department is required by law to subsidize over two dozen commodities. Between 1996 and 2002, an average of $16 billion/year was paid by programs authorized by federal legislation dating back to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, the Agricultural Act of 1949, and the Commodity Credit Corporation, among others."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy

That is a riduculous amount of money being spent on a program that virtually any intelligent person realizes is [censored].

It is amazing that this program has survived for so long without virtually any opposition. This seems like an issue that both Democrats (help poor people in Africa) and Republicans (free market) should in theory be able to unite against. Is there a large portion of the population that is strongly in favor of agro-subsidies? Or do the vast majority of people just not know or care?

I guess lobbists are just that strong. It's really sad, because I think this issue could be solved with a lot of popular support if a couple of politicians were willing to take a principled stand against it and bring the issue to the forefront.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you calling for other nations to end their agricultural subsidies as well and are you equally as critical of those countries subsidizing their agricultural products out of curiosity?

EU Common Agricultural Policy

Here's one example of how these things go alot. The U.S. has offered to make concessions to the EU regarding subsidies to certain of it's agriculural products if the EU is willing to open up it's markets to various U.S. farm products. So far there hasn't been that much agreement and thus certain farm subsidies remain in existance. Basically trade agreements between countries are negotiated and when trade agreements can't be reached countries resort to subsidies in battles over trade. Certainly some subsidies in the U.S. are directed towards special interest groups solely. However, to believe that the U.S. is the only country subsidizing it's agricultural products is completely naive.

[goodsamaritan]

I'm against all such subsidies. I never suggested that the US is the only culprit. My post only mentioned the US because I happen to live in the US as do most of the people who post here.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't any politician supplying service in return of votes. Sounds like a market to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

The service politicians provide is funded with ill-gotten funds, so it isn't legitimate.

[clowntable]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Isn't any politician supplying service in return of votes. Sounds like a market to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

The service politicians provide is funded with ill-gotten funds, so it isn't legitimate.

[/ QUOTE ]
What's your suggestion. What should happen to companies that were built on "ill-gotten funds".
Actually, please define "ill-gotten funds" for me. I don't see how any funds obtained in a functioning market can be "ill-gotten". Or are you saying that it is possible to obtain said funds outside of a market, if so I'd be interested to hear why said entity is not a market.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Isn't any politician supplying service in return of votes. Sounds like a market to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

The service politicians provide is funded with ill-gotten funds, so it isn't legitimate.

[/ QUOTE ]
What's your suggestion.

[/ QUOTE ]

To not claim that such activity constitutes legitimate market activity.

[ QUOTE ]
What should happen to companies that were built on "ill-gotten funds".
Actually, please define "ill-gotten funds" for me. I don't see how any funds obtained in a functioning market can be "ill-gotten". Or are you saying that it is possible to obtain said funds outside of a market, if so I'd be interested to hear why said entity is not a market.

[/ QUOTE ]

I mug you. I get some money in exchage for the "service" of not stabbing you. Is this a "functioning market"?

[Bremen]

blah

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't any politician supplying service in return of votes. Sounds like a market to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

A market isn't in the business of preventing people from getting what they want. Politicians also get voted in for one area (say like a part of Iowa) but they get to make decisions for all of america (Say like the other 49.5 states). Thus they get into the business of serving X people at the expense of all other people.