Last answered 4mins ago
Distribution of answers submitted by America.
Data includes total votes submitted by visitors since Dec 12, 2011. For users that answer more than once (yes we know), only their most recent answer is counted in the total results. Total percentages may not add up to exactly 100% as we allow users to submit "grey area" stances that may not be categorized into yes/no stances.
Choose a demographic filter
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- North Carolina
- North Dakota
- Rhode Island
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- Washington D.C.
- West Virginia
- Fox News
- Google Plus
- Project To Restore America
* Data estimated by matching users to U.S. Census data block groups via the American Community Survey (2007-2011)
3 months ago by net.au
4 months ago by singularityhub.com
5 months ago by bbc.co.uk
6 months ago by net.au
7 months ago by nationalgeographic.com
8 months ago by wesupportorganic.com
9 months ago by net.au
10 months ago by globalnews.ca
12 months ago by heritage.org
1 year ago by huffingtonpost.com
1 year ago by theconversation.com
2 years ago by westernjournalism.com
Data based on 30-day moving average to reduce daily variance from traffic sources. Totals may not add up to exactly 100% as we allow users to submit "grey area" stances that may not be categorized into yes/no stances.
More stances on this issue
Our food quality needs to improve and subsidizing agribiz seems to be the path to lowered quality and questionable food. My tendency is to say "no subsidization" yet I realize the market can swing wildy and a farm can go out of business due to some bad years or urbanization pushing up land prices. We need to consider how to keep the price of food reasonable for people who don't earn much. So possibly more selective subsidies that are clearly linked to national goals to provide reasonably priced, healthy food. 10mons ago from a Democrat in San Diego, CA.
Yes to the extent that US Farmer remain competitive in the global market but the subsidies programs should be reassessed and modified not to promote over production of corn and soy and also to include more programs for medium/small scale agriculture that is not single-crop driven. 10mons ago from a Democrat in Fort Harrison, MT.
If they tell any farmer where what and how to farm the farmer should be subsidized for it. 10mons ago from a Democrat in Jupiter, FL.
Farmers are being paid to grow nothing and when they do grow crops, they grow corn for fuel, animal feed and etc. We need to implement a three field crop rotation in order to keep the soil rich and not have to use manure. 10mons ago from a Libertarian in Middlesex, NY.
The government should not pay farmers NOT to grow crops. Subsidies should only be allowed to help the farmers grow different types of crops. (ex: If there is little demand for corn, they can grow some crop more in demand.). 10mons ago from a Republican in Huntsville, AL.
Yes, insofar as subsidies serve to smooth price fluctuations. But subsidies should never be put in place to artificially exclude other valid safe supplies (ie sugar). And ultra large corporations and factory farm operations need to be more accountable in terms of environmental impact, wages, and practices if they are to receive subsidies. 10mons ago from a Democrat in Ivy, VA.
Ambivalent. I am for it because small farmers need to be supported, but against it because said support often leads to the destruction of farming lifestyles and agrarian economies in smaller countries that engage in trade with the US. 10mons ago from a Green in Dayton, OH.
Yes, but not as much and not for corporate farms except in a narrow set of circumstances and we should move towards paying the actual cost of food produced. 10mons ago from a Libertarian in Yuba City, CA.
Yes, but when farmers are paid to not farm, they should have to sell their land rather than continually earn 'rent' on it. 10mons ago from a Green in Slingerlands, NY.
As long as grain prices and embargoes o grain sales are used as tools for economic war and barging chips in foreign political manipulation US farmers are owed compensation. Leave American agriculture alone and farmers wont need subsidies. 10mons ago from a Republican in Alexandria, IN.
Yes, but have the subsidy be a function of a combination of a) the health benefits the subsidized crops provide and b) the amount of those type of health benefits currently on the market (in other words, use gov't subsidies to produce a balanced meal of crops). 11mons ago from a Democrat in San Francisco, CA.
Yes, but not for major cooperations. 11mons ago from a Green in Potwin, KS.
Yes, as a means of temporary stabilization of wider market swings. There is no truly free market as government policy can often affect markets for years. Even small scale farming can be capitol intensive, and farming is a business with a much longer commitment timeline than most. Also there should be more, quicker and smaller levels assistance in times of need, pulling money away from large programmed entity support, especially for multiple entities. The goals of government intrusion should be to level the market, due to it's own policies or not, to provide for safe, dependable and inexpensive food and fiber. Those should be the effects of the policies for today, and give birth to and guide the new farmers of the future. 11mons ago from a Democrat in Cedar Rapids, IA.
Perhaps, if the subsidy can be structured to help farmers run their farms at enough profit to keep them in the family. The concept of paying farmers to not grow certain crops is like feeding bears, it encourages dependency. Most farmers are bright enough to not grow crops for which there is no market. 11mons ago from a Democrat in Boca Raton, FL.
Farms and ranches, especially family operations, are barely profitable enough to say in business as it is. Although I generally disagree with government interference in business matters, it is the government's business to ensure that the country is producing enough food to feed its people. As such, I feel that farms and ranches should be subsidized to the point that people continue to operate their businesses for the benefit of society. 11mons ago from a Libertarian in Norman, OK.
Yes, if they are organic, if it is to stabilize prices and encourage more people to farm as an occupation, and if the support they give to farmers is in proportion to the size of the farming company. For instance, the government shall not be allowed to "support" larger companies more than small companies that do an equal or greater quality of work on a smaller scale. 11mons ago from a Democrat in Minneapolis, MN.
Not giant corporate farms unless they pay the fed minimum wage or greater. 11mons ago from a Democrat in Bainbridge, OH.
Small family farms only. Say with a net income of $ 2 million per year and less. Not large corporations. 11mons ago from a Republican in Montgomery, AL.
Yes by subsidizing crop insurance and allowing more market response. Something similar to national flood insurance. 11mons ago from a Democrat in Medina, OH.
Only small non-corporate farms. 11mons ago from a Democrat in West Fargo, ND.
Allow the farmers to grow what they choose to and sell as much as they can. Don't subsidize them. They can sell or give to foreign nations that need the food and be able to write off what they would possibly give. 11mons ago from a Republican in Wimberley, TX.
Cur factory farm, add small and organic. 11mons ago from a Democrat in Duluth, MN.
Yes for small and organic farmers. The huge farms and their owners need no more subsidies. 11mons ago from a Green in Ely, MN.
Yes, but lower subsidies on large farm produces, and subsidize organic farms more. 11mons ago from a Democrat in East Sandwich, MA.
Yes, but only for CREP programs and with a gross income cap, to leave out agribusiness. 11mons ago from a Democrat in Champaign, IL.
Only those small privately owned farms. Corporate farms should not get any subsidies!. 11mons ago from a Green in Boyle, MS.
Subsidize crop insurance to guarantee a reliable food supply. 11mons ago from a Republican in Beresford, SD.
Only those farms below an established net profit, who do not export out of the country. 11mons ago from a Republican in Phoenix, AZ.
No. But they private farmers should get tax breaks not saddled with government regulations. 11mons ago from a Green in Louisville, KY.
Only when there is a problem like drought, etc. 11mons ago from a Democrat in Spokane, WA.
There should be no subsidies for the crops that are adding to our obesity problems such as wheat and corn. If something must be subsidized it should be vegetables and other healthy crops so healthy foods will be cheaper. We don't need subsidies for crops that are going primarily for potato chips, sodas, cereals, bread etc. 11mons ago from a Republican in Thomaston, GA.
Subsidize small,organic and American farmers not corporations and foreign owned. 11mons ago from a Republican in Lonoke, AR.
Farmers should be able to grow as much as they want. There are hungry families who need that food. And other countries that could use the food too. If we can grow it and feed a hungry person then why shouldn't we?. 11mons ago from a Libertarian in Potwin, KS.
Yes, but allow small and organic farmers to remain under private control. 11mons ago from a Socialist in Hayward, CA.
Only the small farmers not the big business farms who are making huge profits. 11mons ago from a Democrat in Medford, NY.
Yes, but not if those farmers grow crops or raise animals for BigAgra. 11mons ago from a Republican in Houston, TX.
Family farmers... yes, conglomerate farms...no. 11mons ago from a Green in Sioux City, IA.
This issue is way too complicated for a simple answer. It is not an either or question. 11mons ago from a Democrat in Santa Rosa, CA.
No … the government should let them sell their crops … not pay them not to grow .. 11mons ago from a Green in Camden, ME.
Depends. Should be need by need bases. Not across the board subsidies. 11mons ago from a Republican in Rotterdam Junction, NY.
Yes, but there should be a way to monitor farmers who use the system for fraudulent reasons. 11mons ago from a Democrat in Saint James, MO.
We should subsidize that which we are actually using. 11mons ago from a Libertarian in Terrell, TX.
No, but allow them to grow what they deem neccessary to survive. 11mons ago from a Republican in Jonesborough, TN.
Yes but lets stop paying them not to produce!!!!. 11mons ago from a Democrat in Geneseo, NY.
No subsidizies for tobaco or very large farms. Help the small farmer and small family farms. 11mons ago from a Republican in Pismo Beach, CA.
Yes, but set an income ceiling for farmers, making large corporate farms ineligible. 11mons ago from a Democrat in Alexandria, VA.
Yes, but only to small and organic farmers. Not to corn and factory farms. 11mons ago from a Democrat in Aumsville, OR.
No, this would help big business and capitalism. Instead, we should end capitalism and supply the farmers with what they need. 11mons ago from a Socialist in Portland, OR.
Not sure - need to do more research. 11mons ago from a Republican in Margaretville, NY.
Limited subsidies to all including organic farming. Too many GMO's are getting the wealth of the subsidies. 11mons ago from a Democrat in Saint Petersburg, FL.