Taxpayers heavily subsidize corn and soy, two crops that facilitate the meat and processed food we’re supposed to eat less of, and do almost nothing for the fruits and vegetables we’re supposed to eat more of. They are trying to buy our land to make houses or factories. This problem started to occur all the way back to 1930's when farm raised livestock and grew many different types of crops, including syaple crops, (corn, wheat, oats, barley). They also would call they specialty crops, but we know those things as vegetables. Usually, when you buy something, you pay for it just once. But if you’re a US taxpayer, you’re paying twice for the food system you’re “buying” with your hard-earned tax dollars.
An example: today’s massive federal farm subsidies encourage farming practices that lead to toxic algae blooms, drinking water pollution, and other costly problems we have to pay for again downstream. By contrast, modest investment in just one proven alternative farming system would achieve annual savings—in the form of water pollution averted—of $850 million. This year, US farmers increased corn and soybean plantings, despite the fact that the crops are expected to lose money because of dramatic price drops. As a result, the farmers are expected to receive nearly $14 billion in crop insurance payouts—the most since 2006.
Do you think that this is a good or bad solution?
Would you let the Taxpayers try and take over your land?
Replies
Glad that you got this done Troy! Good topic choice but your summary is a bit brief. Also be sure to comment more frequently as well. -10 late.
I would personally not enjoy having someone take the land I own. It's my own land and I feel as if though you should be the final decision maker if you keep it or not (granted government is not involved in it). Land is the bread and butter of a farmers economic status, without land they cannot grow crops for obvious reasons.
I would not let the taxpayers try to take my land. its my land so I can do whatever I want to do on my land. I also think that it was really big in the 1930s because back then land was power and still till today land is still power even if you dont see it, it is.
I think that this is a bad solution because people could lose their land. This is the first time I've heard of this. I don't own any land, but I would still be mad at my landing being taken. I would try to do as much as I could to stop them from taking my land.
yes I agree with you like even though I dont own any land even really but still like you said its a bad solution because people can lose there land and if they are dependent on that land that could mean that they could end up poor.
In my opinion it sounds like it is a bad situation because people might lose their lands and farming is something that a lot of people do as living and there is no sense on making them pay twice.
The government must always support our farmers because without them we would never be able to function as a nation. Every year, farmers take many risks and the price of corn and beans falls, they will lose a lot.
sounds like a bad situation but I don't understand how we are paying twice. I think we should help farmers and make sure that they can still keep farming. No I wouldn't let taxpayers take over my land especially if that is how I made a living.
I think that this is a terrible idea and will cause the majority of people with land to lose their land. This will also cause less crop growth. I would not let taxpayers take my land because it's not theirs but mine since I bought it, I would defend the land regardless of whether they pay taxes or not.
I think that it is a bad idea because people aer gonna loose their land and they will not have as much area to grow crops on. Most farmers only farm and that is how they get their income and if some land gets taken away money will be taken away too.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next