Try the political quiz

666 Replies

@ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...9yrs

@ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...11yrs

@ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...9yrs

@4SCHFFXfrom Ohio  answered…2yrs

Commercial companies paid farmers to plant what they wanted or not plant at all. Thus, instead of real farming where there is a rotation of various crops, which would always re-nourish the ground, the ground is now like the dust-bowl of the early 2oth century. So, if the government were to pay the farmer it should be to first nourish the ground and then to plant a rotative selection of plants that would continue the helping and enriching of the soil.

@4QJ4ZM4from Florida  answered…2yrs

No, instead the government should buy the crops that would otherwise not have been grown, and should give these crops to feed the hungry (in place of foreign aid and domestic food stamps).

@4SVM8YTfrom Pennsylvania  answered…2yrs

We need to realize that most unhealthy and uncontrollable condition occur within large factory farms and also realize what their unfair size advantage means to small business. This is a case of survival of the greediest not fittest. "Greediest" also referring to its over consuming American customers. We all consume way more than needed making us the cause in so many ways as well

@4Q7W7C2from California  answered…2yrs

Factory Farms are unethical and should never be subsidized by the government. They should be regulated though.

@5792F64from New York  answered…2yrs

This is a stupid question. Humanity as a whole should be invested in the idea that no one should ever be hungry...ever.

@4R5G9W2from New Jersey  answered…2yrs

Yes, and give power back to farmers and away from big food corporations and deny subsides to farmers who don't grow any crops

@4Q2QYFYfrom Wisconsin  answered…2yrs

Yes, and bring back the strategic grain reserve in a growing program to buffer exports, humanitarian aid, and our own food supply against climate disaster.

@4VBZP9Cfrom California  answered…2yrs

No because it politicizes nutrition which is why Americans are all overweight.

@4PYJ89Qfrom Arizona  answered…2yrs

No reason why farmers can not grow food all year long. There's people all over the world in need of food. The children can not eat money, but they can eat fresh produce, and their Country pay's Our Farmers to grow it!

@8WPPZ8YLibertarian from Iowa disagreed…1yr

First of all, there is this thing called winter, farmers can't grow year long and as far as I know almost always have a single crop a year. Throwing money at farmers does give incentive for increased production, however that is not necessarily a good thing. Competitive markets, such as farming, will produce the most beneficial output without government intervention, assuming farmers are taxed based on their contribution to pollution and deforestation.

@4PPMZ96from District of Columbia  answered…2yrs

Yes, but only to the extent that those farms provide foods and grains to third world countries, where children and the elderly die from hunger and starvation.

@5367WJVfrom New York  answered…2yrs

@4RBR3VKfrom District of Columbia  answered…2yrs

Small, organic vegetable farms to provide close, safe farms to every community. Stop subsidizing Corn! Increase seed variety by reversing patents on nature.

@4QRTPKLfrom California  answered…2yrs

On one hand, the government has no right to play favorites, on the other hand, it sounds like it could ruin the US agriculture industry.

@4RHV2TWfrom Kentucky  answered…2yrs

It's hard to form an opinion on this because of corporate/government involvement, and the extent they have killed independent farmers.

@56G5G4Lfrom Texas  answered…2yrs

Pay farmers to NOT grow food while people in the US go to bed without food? That sounds unAmerican and just plain retarded.

@4PG2S44from Colorado  answered…2yrs

Regardless, we (as a country) should be working toward not producing food in so much excess. We should be producing and stocking stores with food based on supply and demand rather than constantly having everything fully stocked. This will reduce food waste and will reduce the amount of subsidies needed by farmers in the first place as they will not have to supply nearly as much product on a regular basis.

@4RKFP64from North Carolina  answered…2yrs

@4PLFG4Ffrom California  answered…2yrs

I think the answer lies in between a lot of these answers. Yes give the farmers an incentive to bring on new methods, such as organic farming, or using wind technology, or drip irrigation rather than irrigation canals as they do in the San Joaquin Valley, where I grew up. Also, make it where there is a food bank to give away food that is not sold and is going to go bad to poor people. I live below the poverty level and would love to have more fresh fruit and vegetables, especially organic

@4SF4664from Colorado  answered…2yrs

Yes, and invest in development, and poverty alleviation, in rural areas.

@4Q832DCfrom Missouri  answered…2yrs

Yes, but subsidize more crops that are conducive with more healthy lifestyles. Try to cut back on so many simple sugars.

@4PPZ4MSfrom Texas  answered…2yrs

We need to promote the use of plant-based diet! When people eat more plant-based foods, farmers will likely be more successful.

@4QJT245from Rhode Island  answered…2yrs

Yes, but only to incentivize environmental friendly strategies, not income support.

@4Q6KCB2from Pennsylvania  answered…2yrs

@4S3XX79from California  answered…2yrs

All long standing subsidy programs should be abolished - and a new "blind" program instituted based on what important crops require government subsidy

@4RBBG3Qfrom Indiana  answered…2yrs

@4V6HC69from New York  answered…2yrs

@danhughesfrom North Carolina  answered…2yrs

Government should stimulate / support business when needed. Food security is a nation security issue and should be considered as such.

@4TN4SZPfrom Pennsylvania  answered…2yrs

No. Governments should offer different alternatives to help thrive the agricultural process. such as introducing bees to raise instead to help pollinate for stronger and healther crops, along with helping to reduce water consumption

@dnilasorfrom Illinois  answered…2yrs

Only Black and Hispanic Farmers. Real Hispanic and not people that look White.

@97YBR4Pfrom Guam  answered…1wk

Yes, but only through welfare and a universal basic income to help the small local farms.

@97XQ83B from Kansas answered…2wks

@97XJPK8 from Missouri answered…2wks

As long as we are a capitalist market, small farmers are going to be at a disadvantage. I believe in subsidizing small farmers as necessary to keep them afloat, and to keep healthy competition so that large agribusiness does not totally dictate available product, prices and policies.

@Ashley65Constitution from California answered…2wks

Yes, but only small local farms instead of large corporations, and no strings attached as to what to grow and when

@97VRQ32 from Pennsylvania answered…2wks

Yes, and the subsidy should be greater for farms that DO use non-patented/copyrighted GMOs

@97T8QLP from Ohio answered…2wks

Yes, but small, local farms should be prioritized over large corporations


The historical activity of users engaging with this question.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 


Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...