Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (184495)	3/12/2004 7:08:29 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575859

I am all for cutting subsidies to them but not to the traditional, mom-and-pop farmers. Would you have supported all the mom-and-pop farmers that we had 100 years ago, or 50 years ago? What about all the makers of wagon wheels and horseshoes that went out of business? But if we did indeed stop subsidizing agribusiness it probably would result in a reduction of subsidies so your plan might be better then what we have now. OTOH agribusiness might get creative in how it qualifies for the subsidies, making itself look like a lot of mom and pop farms, perhaps by not owning the land but having controlling it through contracts that "mom-and-pop" farmers sign in exchange for getting farm land and equipment. Not only would this undermine the "don't let the subsidies go to agribusiness" idea but it would also make the agribusinesses less efficient. Another problem I have with the idea, is that not all small farms are "mom-and-pop" farms. I've read stories about news anchors and politicians who received agricultural benefits because they owned a farm or a ranch that existed just to get the benefits. Tim