<p>I tried participating in the last debate, but it got way too heated for my personal taste. So, let's just stick to one thing for this debate.</p>
<p>The United States spends over 16 billion a year on farm subsidies each year. Do you agree with the government supporting American agriculture in this way? Yes or No? GO!!!!!!!</p>
<p>Yes, because where else are we going to get our food? Cambodia?</p>
<p>16 billion pales in comparison to the entire budget.</p>
<p>I disagree. That's a common misconception. First off, most farm subsidies are going to "factory farms." These are farms owned by large companies that are already profitable. American agriculture is characterized as being small family farms, but in actually, these subsidies are making the agriculture industry more industrialized, thus hurting the environment and killing other competition. </p>
<p>These farm subsidies are incredible supporters of agriculture. It's not like farm subsidies make up 5-10% of most farms' profits. In most cases, these subsidies make up over 40% of a farms' profits! It's not like the large farms are struggling either. They are already profitable, and they are receiving gobs of money to become even larger and more powerful.</p>
<p>Many politicians advocate these subsidies because they want to help farmers keep their prices low so that they can compete better in an international market. </p>
<p>As to your question: "Yes, because where else are we going to get our food? Cambodia?"</p>
<p>It depends. Either American farms produce goods at a reasonable price that competes in the international market or they go out of business. Period. </p>
<p>If I can get food at a decent price and it's from Mexico or China, what do I care. That's capitalism. If you can't cut it, then you go out of business. Why should The U.S. baby "poor 'ole" farmers when small businesses go out of business all the time? Why do they get the special treatment?</p>
<p>16 billion dollars is ridiculous. Think of how education and other government programs could improve with this money. It's massive!</p>
<p>It would be way too hard to regulate the flow of food into America. Think of all the diseases that could potentially be admitted into our food supply. Also, at a time when people are complaining about outsourcing jobs, this would be one of the biggest outsourcing of jobs ever.</p>
<p>Here is the reason why Congress supports agriculture:
They passed the Freedom to Farm Act in 1996. This act let farmers receive subsidies while planting whatever they wanted, rather than what the government told them to. In return, Congress mandated that the government would, over time, stop supporting America's farms.</p>
<p>However, agriculture prices plummeted so Congress had to intervene again to save the farms. I agree with you that the large farms are getting way too much money. Most of this money is used to buy smaller farms, thus becoming even bigger. I think it is a good idea to help agriculture out because it makes up a large part of the national economy, but obviously something needs to be reformed.</p>
<p>wow. i am surprised to see uc_benz chicken out of Debate 1 to 2. It seems that you are really intimidated by primitive's arguments.</p>
<p>Get a life primitive/concealed. It's obvious because you have the same screen name. And the fact that you refer to primitive in three different posts.</p>
<p>So anyways...</p>
<p>I dont think that Bush did not have a coherent justification for invading Iraq</p>
<p>concealed_agony:stay on topic!</p>
<p>Regarding Bush's spending on farm subsidies, its just about 0.03% of Bush's military spending.</p>
<p>A source, please.</p>
<p>No problem. Read this:</p>
<p><a href="http://english1.people.com.cn/200302/04/eng20030204_111125.shtml%5B/url%5D">http://english1.people.com.cn/200302/04/eng20030204_111125.shtml</a>
<a href="http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/feb2004/budg-f14.shtml%5B/url%5D">http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/feb2004/budg-f14.shtml</a>
<a href="http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php#outlays-graph%5B/url%5D">http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php#outlays-graph</a>
<a href="http://english1.people.com.cn/200302/04/eng20030204_111125.shtml%5B/url%5D">http://english1.people.com.cn/200302/04/eng20030204_111125.shtml</a>
<a href="http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp#USMilitarySpending%5B/url%5D">http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp#USMilitarySpending</a></p>
<p>How hypocritical!! </p>
<p>the military spending is too low. you want to have few casualties without strong cruel attack of iraqis. no matter civilians, or not. they must feel blood, or will be destroyed, no other way to stop all this.</p>
<p>if you want to debate, provide a coherent argument and support it with a proof/support please!!</p>
<p>You regurgiate all those silly and useless information like robot. I am much more intelligent not to do it. I'd rather like to express my opinion. I have said nothing to be proved with facts.</p>
<p>If you listed some links that doesn't mean anything. Just remembering, and regurgiating, like the computer with 100 MHz processor.</p>
<p>Stardragon, you NEED to start using sources. All good debators, journalist, or researchers use sources to support their opinions. Otherwise, their arguments could be incorrect or biased. If you don't have proof of something, I don't bye it.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>... in your retarded mind.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>i see you have NOT mind AT ALL, even retarded.</p>
<p>You have good nick name "primitive..". Exactly, like caveman.</p>
<p>About sources. I don't want anybody to think the way i do. So, I express my opinion and the most of Americans supported it, as they elected bush again, not that girlish Kerry.</p>
<p>Primitive go support the enemy's rights over the lives of our own soldiers.</p>
<p>Primitive go support the enemy's rights over the lives of our own soldiers.</p>
<p>Why would I? i respect them as much as you do. I hate Bush because they are figting with poor intelligence. IAM AGAINST BUSH!!</p>
<p>You'd rather side against them in Abu Ghraib right? You'd have those detainees in Guantanamo Bay released right? </p>
<p>I'm drawing assumptions based on the rhetoric of your previous posts. If I'm wrong, tell me.</p>