1. Sjl

    Most politicians own farm land due to the farm subsidies. It won't get changed by them. It will be interesting/ sad to see how it turns out.

  2. Michael Snow

    So does this mean that corporate welfare and lobbyist go hand and hand because it looks like that $45 million is payoff money for getting them $20 billion? Social programs don't have this kind of kickback or return, so they don't want them.

  3. t Smith

    Food production is subsidised to keep down the cost of food to the U.S. consumer.Food production provides millions of jobs all across America.

  4. L Mar

    I have one question.
    My family has never accepted any form of farm subsidy monies, even during ol' rosies' democratic years and what ww2 did to America.
    We have existed and maintained for over 90 years in America and under her demands. We have been productive (and even overproductive) over 80% of those years.
    Being Native American and performing good is never spoken of.
    obama came along and it simply grows worse….another FDR

    Where and when are each of us resposible?

  5. t Smith

    U.S. farmers do not get subsidies. It is food production that is subsidised in order to provide everyone in the U.S. with a cheap and  reliable food supply.It  is a cheap food policy.Every farm is a business and every farmer a businessman.

  6. Brad Wilson

    The New Deal (Depression) farm policies gave farmers fair prices, which served as a private sector economic stimulus, (i.e. 1942-1952) with no need for subsidies.  They were totally ended in 1996 for most crops. Prior to that they were severely reduced, and subsidies were invented to hide these facts.  Farm income has been reduced by about $8 for each $1 in subsidies.  US, farm prices have been below our full costs for more than 30 years, almost every year for cotton, wheat and 3 other major crops, (+1981-2006 for corn, soybeans).  We chose to lose money on exports to secretly "subsidize" the multinational buyers (not US farmers).  The Buyers made repeated record profits.

  7. madass888

    Since New Zealand ended their farm subsidies their farm industry has been booming. And the percentage of family farms has actually risen. Obama is a fraud.

  8. Brad Wilson

    The facts here are wrong. There were no subsidies in Depression era farm programs & those programs do not continue today, they ended in 1995. The basic programs don’t bail out failing farm businesses, they bail out hugely successful grain buyers by keeping prices below farmers costs most of the time. We lose on exports for them. After years of this, farmers got subsidies for covering of the losses. Your ideology of free trade makes you antibusiness, pro corporate welfare (below cost gains).

  9. Ederik Schneider

    Agriculture Subsidies represent something like 40B$ a year out of the Federal Budget. Which comes directly out of general Tax Payer Revenue. If we forced farmers to pay Farming Insurance then we could save 40B$ a year off of our Debt.

  10. Javier Armendariz

    A study by the University of Michigan found that if all trade barriers in agriculture, services, and manufactures were reduced by 33% as a result of the Doha Development Agenda, there would be an increase in global welfare of $574.0 billion.[47] A 2008 study by World Bank Lead Economist Kym Anderson[48] found that global income could increase by more than $3000 billion per year, $2500 billion of which would go to the developing world.

  11. Brad Wilson

    The Depression era farm programs have been weakened since 1953, and were ended in 1996. The original programs had no subsidies for crops like corn, rice and wheat.

  12. alek syd

    but some farmers are successful and in a way you end up taxing them to give their profits to unsuccessful farmers. its largely the perspective from which you look at it that matters.


    usa doesn't want to be totally dependent on other countries for agriculture goods.usa is dependent on oil on middle east,we all know how much problem they are facing to control price of oil.

  14. Emily Tanner

    Small farms are inefficient; hence why they "need" subsidies. We don't need small farms, though, when we can have large farms do the same thing at a much lower cost, eliminating the need for a subsidy.

  15. manyleaves

    Another note. I'll be damned if as a libertarian, I'll ignore the threat of islamofascism coming my way. If Sharia Law takes affect in this country in the future, you won't be subject to the same abuses I will have under it. My daughter and I could be tortured and killed and mutilated by these dogs. I agree; we should stay away from other country's issues and business as much as we can, but you can't have your head in the sand and not see the threat. We don't need to turn into France.

  16. manyleaves

    Go back to my favorites and watch my latest videos favorited. Watch, "What Islam is Not." Also watch, "Violent Oppression of Muslum Women". If we have a non- interventionalist attitude toward these men that want to rape women, kill women and have utter control of the whole world, then we will be screwed both literally and figuratively. Please., Please watch these videos. I refuse to wear a burka and refuse to be subserviant to any man and treated less than a dog. These men are pure evil.

  17. Leetist

    You don't think cannabis should be a criminal offense, good we are on the same page. I always scoff at the cannabis vs. tobacco comparison, one cannabis use is not associated with an increased cancer risk when tobacco use is controlled in numerous studies done by reputable institutions. 2nd the amount of cannabis typically smoked is about the size of a piece of popped corn, typical tobacco user uses half a pack to two packs a day. Also tobacco contains nicotine, the most addictive drug.

  18. manyleaves

    I'll check it out. But you have to know that the lazy and weak will abuse pot just like they abuse alcohol. This will just open a different can of worms.

  19. manyleaves

    You may have a point, but pot is just another form of high for people; like alcohol. It's not particularly good for the lungs just like cigarettes. I don't think people should go to jail just for smoking pot. If people used it in moderation, I wouldn't care less. But the idiot's in this world, would take it to the extreme just like alcohol. If we legalized pot, it may take away some power away from murderous drug gangs in Mexico. Did u hear about a Mexico gang throwing 300 people in acid baths?

  20. manyleaves

    I have great respect for libertarian & I'm very close to it. However, I am a Conservative who believes in our Republic. – a country established with a small group of set laws whose goal is to keep the government small. Our founding father's established a Republic, not a complete Democracy. Look where mob rule got us so far in the 2008 election. The mob didn't bother to research who they really voted for. They were too lazy to do their homework & vet the guy. That's the media's job also-Failed

  21. Leetist

    Could it be that people who have no motivation to succeed, are drawn to use pot? Could it be that people in positions that are stereotypical/superficial standards of success like CEOs, Presidents of companies, independent business owners etc. are not as open about their cannabis use because they have so much to lose? Also why should someone be arrested for how they live their life as long as they allow others the same freedom?

  22. manyleaves

    Yep, that's it bro. About all pot is good for is medicinal; for nausea (cancer pts)and maybe for some neurological problems etc. If you don't have a medical problem, your just getting high and wasting your money just like alcoholics and heavy recreational drinkers…..just escaping from reality. Time for people to grow up and stop acting like teenagers; selfish and stupid. Time for people to suck it up and focus on the here and now.

  23. manyleaves

    hemps ok. I have a relatives who smoke on a regular basis. Their motivational drive to succeed is shot to hell. Therefore, I would not agree with legalizing pot.

  24. texichan

    democrats are much more likely to perpetuate these subsidies, i would say. more money to the republicans because they need more incentive to vote for continuing subsidies.

  25. zzx2847

    Good video. It's an archaic system that we have, that stifles growth and competition, while costing taxpayers enormous amounts of money. If we didn't have these subsidies we would see technology advance in farming techniques that would benefit the world, but instead we are just shooting ourselves in the foot.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *