<p>sigh.. some of the posts really need to be deleted now. What the hell is wrong with you people? Now you take your BS to another thread and kill it.</p>
<p>wow, you made much more personal attacks than primitive. if you read this post you will see that only PRIMITIVE provided arguments and backed them with sources.</p>
<p>We dont care of your involvement or not. You totally cant make valid arguments and you just make personal attacks if you vant win. thats the truth.</p>
<p>Stop bickering like children. It really bothers me that people are yelling for others to be banned. What are we...in the 3rd grade?</p>
<p>So, back to the debate. While walking down the street one day, if a stranger offered the average American a million dollar check, what would he or she do? Most likely, he or she would accept the check. In comparison, the United States government has granted billions of dollars to huge industrial farms each year. With a struggling economy, how can the government afford to spend tax dollars on subsidizing these farms? Why are farms being granted massive amounts of money, and not the thousands of other struggling businesses around the country? Why is it acceptable for the United States to keep poor African nations unable to compete in the world economy? The United States government has continued to subsidize farms, a practice that grants huge amounts of money to wealthy farms. These subsidies manipulate voters, damage the environment, cost taxpayers billions, and harm other nations.
Many supporters of subsidies argue that only 4.4 percent of the USDA budget goes to subsidizing farms. While that percent might seem small as a part of a whole budget for the United States, agricultural subsidies still comprise 4.4 percent of the national budget. 4.4 percent of the budget comprises the 16-20 billion dollars spent each year on farm subsidies. This very large amount of money, no matter what percent of the budget it comprises, is still a waste and should not be spent in the first place. The money could be spent on be repairing the struggling United States economy, pay for scholarships, benefit environmental protection, or pay for better medical care of the elderly.</p>
<p>In addition to factory farms, what about corporate welfare? THAT is a disgrace.</p>
<p>And bigjake, don't even try to defend abu ghraib. you won't get anywhere with that.</p>
<p>Hoo, no offense, but if you want a debate on politics, with all the social and international issues around today, there is a very limited amount of interest that "farm subsidies" will generate.</p>
<p>Try me.....</p>
<p>"Hoo, no offense, but if you want a debate on politics, with all the social and international issues around today, there is a very limited amount of interest that "farm subsidies" will generate."</p>
<p>16 Billion isn't worth debating? Politicians need to stop wasting money and start paying back our debt.</p>
<p>The small family farm, along with the other factory farms, is a business, just like any other business. Giving government money to farms is just as unfair as giving money to any other struggling business around the country. Neighborhood meat markets, buggy whip manufacturers, and small dairy farms have died out with society not even noticing. Why do small family farms deserve special treatment by the government and society? When will they face the economic reality that they are no longer able to generate a decent profit. If a farm is unprofitable and unable to sustain itself economically, it is not deserving of subsidies. Just like if a restaurant, gas station, or retail store, the small farm does not deserve any extra money from the government. It does, however, deserve a level playing field with the other mega-farms that receive billions of dollars each year.</p>
<p>And no offense, bigjake, but you are free to start your own thread if you don't like mine.</p>
<p>If the USA can spend 4.4 % of its annual budget on subsidizing agriculture,then it should not expect other countries to stop subsidizing their own agriculture sectors.</p>
<p>However,what we observe is that USA and the EU always raise a hue and cry about "Global Free Trade" at every economic forum and yet are curiously reluctant to free up their own economies by resorting to such trade-distorting practices.</p>
<p>My 2 cents-Fine,go ahead with subsidies,but then dont expect other less developed nations not to do the same.</p>
<p>Exactly. I've seen on the news lately that the Bush is upset that Europe might increase subsidies for manufacturing airplanes(Airbus in particular). How hypocritical when the US does the same for agriculture!</p>
<p>The subsidies placed on American goods have particularly affected struggling African nations. The Bush administration has placed protectional subsidies on American goods, making them cheaper than other nations goods in the world market. In many of these African nations, farming is still a popular source of income. When the African farmers try to compete in world and local markets, they are unable to contend because of the cheap American goods placed in the market. Developed countries like the United States should allow the poor and struggling countries to have higher production levels, making sure that the impoverished and landless farmers can sustain themselves and afford food.The CNE, a Brussels-based center for a New Europe, finds that 6,600 people die each day because of the trading rule of the United States. Not only do the starving, rural farmers of Africa have to deal with American competition, but also they must compete with the worlds richest countries, France, Britain, Japan and the European Union (<a href="http://www.reason.com/rb/rb091003.shtml%5B/url%5D">http://www.reason.com/rb/rb091003.shtml</a> and <a href="http://www.reason.com/rauch/051802.shtml)%5B/url%5D">http://www.reason.com/rauch/051802.shtml)</a>. This is an unacceptable number of deaths that is a direct result of the agricultural subsidies of the United States. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has chosen to overlook the large number of deaths and chosen to profit from the African nations losses, deaths, and deprivation.</p>
<p>Thats a good point Hoo. i wonder why the US gives Africa so much money for AIDS when they could just let off the pressure of subsidies. Well i looked this up.</p>
<p>"Allgeier said the United States is willing to negotiate with the EU and other trading partners a plan to achieve more global agricultural market access"
<a href="http://tokyo.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-20040520-05.html%5B/url%5D">http://tokyo.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-20040520-05.html</a></p>
<p>I believe they are planning to change this policy from wat ive read.</p>
<p>Awesome! I'm glad we're actually considering stopping subsidies, but Congress and the President just reinstated the farm subsidies recently, so I don't know if that's completely true. Also, Japan's embassy didn't really give any proof that The US was actually wanting to stop subsidizing agriculture.</p>
<p>The US does give money to prevent aids, but that's a worthy cause. When diseases spread in Africa, they can spread to The US.</p>
<p>Another point(slightly off topic) I would like to raise is that how sacroscant should Intellectual Property Rights be on certain subjects like Aids treatment?</p>
<p>The US gives aid to Africa for Aid ,but in what form?Basically funding in a form which ensures that they can buy very expensive drugs from pharmaceutical MNCs.In fact,the treatment costs about 10000 dollars a year per person.
However,as soon as another company,in this case Cipla from India,offers to sell the same drugs of the same quality at a much lesser price of only 300$,then there is a major uproar and it is charged with violating Intellectual Propety Rights.</p>
<p>So what happens in effect? The US claims it is a oh-so-benevolent nation whose doing such a wonderful job of provinding succour to AID victims,while all the time actually promoting its large corporations at the expense of the hapless victims</p>
<p>"The US does give money to prevent aids, but that's a worthy cause. When diseases spread in Africa, they can spread to The US."</p>
<p>Oh i know i know i was just saying why give them money when we can let them earn it themselves and save ourselves money from the subsidies so that way we win both ways. 1) no subsidies 2) We still donate but not as much since they earn it from farming. Or we donate the same and they earn more.</p>
<p>Yeah, Bush is actually going to trim the budget towards agricultural interests. But its gained alot of opposition and has the potential to create problems. Read this:
<a href="http://www.globalaging.org/pension/us/socialsec/2005/billion.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.globalaging.org/pension/us/socialsec/2005/billion.htm</a>
<a href="http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/printer_020605Y.shtml%5B/url%5D">http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/printer_020605Y.shtml</a>
<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6908656/%5B/url%5D">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6908656/</a>
<a href="http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/02/06/news/budget.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/02/06/news/budget.html</a></p>
<p>In conclusion, I do not think its a good idea to reduce farm subsidies.</p>
<p>And as for bigjake, you can NEVER defend Abu Ghraib. Just look at the pictures and read the sworn statements here:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444%5B/url%5D">http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444</a>
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/iraq/abughraib/swornstatements042104.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/iraq/abughraib/swornstatements042104.html</a>
<a href="http://www.rotten.com/library/crime/prison/abu-ghraib/%5B/url%5D">http://www.rotten.com/library/crime/prison/abu-ghraib/</a></p>
<p>You made a huge mistake mentioning Abu Ghraib. Lets see how you get out of this one!</p>
<p>Sorry Hoo, but the debate on farm subsidies isnt going anywhere.why don't we debate over a broader topic such as Bush's economic policy?</p>
<p>mk(ten character limit)</p>
<p>What the hell? Do you think i care about your pictures? How will i get out of this one? I will NEVER side with terrorists over my own troops. Thanks for showing me your dumb pictures. Why don't you go look up how your friends beheaded innocent American workers and other internationals. If they're so uncivilized as to commit such acts, our troops don't have to be kept to a higher standard. This is a war. You treat dogs like dogs.</p>
<p>"You treat dogs like dogs"</p>
<p>I am shocked. This is a debate. If you can not defend your opinions then it is not valid. </p>
<p>If you can't differentiate between dogs and humans (i am concluding this from your quote) then you have a big problem. So are you trying to say that it was right for our troops to do such barbaric activities? I know that terrorists did terrible acts. But WE are fighting against terrorism, and such acts as Abu Ghrail shows that we are hypocrites.</p>
<p>I do not want to offend your opinions (regardless of how ridiculous they are) , but please support them!!</p>
<p>Assuming what bigjake said is has no rhetorical statements, i can conclude that he believes that if our soldiers do barbarics acts (see the pictures) then that is right but if the terrorists do it, then that is wrong.</p>
<p>IF YOU COMMIT ANY BARBARIC ACT IS WRONG REGARDLESS WHO YOU ARE!!!</p>
<p>I would never treat my dog like that. Dogs deserve the same treatment as humans.</p>
<p>First of all, for the record, i have no problems with killing terrorists. They're not innocent people...unlike our workers they beheaded. </p>
<p>Second, even if i did feel that this is wrong, i would recognize that war is not some humane piece of cake. And if it is, then BOTH SIDES MUST BE HELD TO THE SAME STANDARDS. If one side acts out of line to instill fear, which is what the Iraqi terrorists are all about, then we can take steps to put the same fear in them. THAT is how you beat terrorism.</p>
<p>How do you expect to achieve anything when you let people commit terrorist acts, and then all they get is a stay at a nice comfortable jail. And on top of that, you got the Supreme Court upholding THEIR rights. The world is laughing in our face. What kind of country takes such steps to go against itself? </p>
<p>These terrorists don't value life. To stop them, we need to make them just as scared and just as aware of the consequences. Invading Iraq was the first step...they saw that the United States will not shy away from international conflict for the first time in a long time. But, harder times call for harder measures. </p>
<p>Even if this was a little out of line, i am ashamed that you would side against your own troops, people who protect you. These terrorists are not civilized troops being held to some international standards. If they were, then by all means they have to be treated humanely as prisoners-of-war.</p>