Job-loss from what? The shifting of subsidies? That would simply cause them to grow different crops. I think the farmers will be fine.
Subsidized corn, and the products made from it are a massive culprit behind the current state of multiple American chronic health epidemics. This is simply factual.
A shifting of subsidies will help this. There are many examples throughout literally everywhere where this has gone down hitch-free. Big-Agra lobbying is a real ****ing thing though, so legislations involving subsidy shifting will simply never occur as long as financial interests dictate American legislations.
No one is proposing this.
Lol. Bruh. I live in a more northern, more cold climate than you do, and it is beyond ****ing easy to grow an absolute array of different fruits and vegetables. Maybe not bananas and pineapples-- but we currently have cucumbers, apples, cherries, apricots, plums, cabbage, kale, squash, carrots, shallots, onions, spinach, potatoes (list continues) growing in our garden. We can pickle the excess, and eat it over the span of winter. Turn some of the fruits into preserves. This is what families have done for centuries. Many farms have the means to either store these crops over colder seasons or simply grow them in their greenhouses. Subsidizing these farmers will only bring the cost of this produce down.
We should. Otherwise, there will be poor people without healthy food. This is something I find ethically troublesome, and revolting.
No **** they're crime-ridden-- so what do we do? Just ****ing ignore it? Let those communities live off of taquitos from 7-11?
The job loss comment was from the elimination of choices discussion we had when you said we could get rid of BMW or Honda as examples. You can re-read my posts on them, too lazy to write it out on a phone again.
Again, corn is healthy, producers made from it are not always healthy. I could say that about any crop, but carry on. Fwiw, I'm ok with taking away subsidization and have been vocal about it. The money farmers get just props up farmers who aren't good enough to make it on their own. They go out, larger farms then buy their ground reducing thr amount of farmers and increasing the size of family owned corporate farms and people bitch. Let it happen.
I'm well aware lobbying exists in agriculture Dala, my family is involved in it. We had to lobby against the First Lady last year. If you think we're able to lobby people to get the government to pay for our equipment, you're nuts. Do you even know the costs involved? Let's say we want more people to grow potatoes. They'll need a combine and a wind rower. That's about $600k for a decent pair. They'll need storage. Building will run a minimum of $700k, and that's just for one, they'll probably need more. It's a more labor intensive crop, need more hired hands. Probably need another tractor, that's $200k. Lots of other equipment that will total around $500k. That's just one farm Dala. What kind of subsidy is going to pay that? I don't know how much you know of subsidies, but we don't get anywhere close to that much.
Perhaps you've never heard of climate zones, but they predicate what you can grow. I can assure you that I cannot grow cherries here for example. Anyways, I'm not going to argue that because it's pointless, what you can grow in your garden isn't the same as what your neighbor a mile away can grow. You have a complete lack of understanding of agriculture, which is fine, I don't know much about molecular biology, but it might help to listen to somebody who does know just a little. Continuing, you said fresh, local produce. While I'm well aware of how to preserve crops, preserved crops aren't fresh. I mean, we can't be eating canned vegetables! I know roughly 4-5 farmers here who have their own greenhouses. They use them for disease purposes. They cannot be used to grow other crops in the winter for that purpose. There are tons of other farmers who don't have greenhouses, and even if they did, no way to water them. Water is expensive. It's also not realistic to store vast amounts of produce during the winter, farmers don't have little one acre plots man, we have a lot of land. That requires vast amounts of storage, which is expensive, and most farmers are pretty cash poor. I suppose we can get the government to pay for it though! It's an ideal thought, but it's just not realistic.
As for the last points, I just don't think we should force people to put a business where they don't want to. Give them incentives. Tax breaks for putting a building up and selling groceries, absolutely. Legislating them, forcing them, I don't think so. You also didn't answer my question, would you do it? Would you put up your hard earned money to start a business in a crime infested zone? Be honest. Remember, it's your lifestyle, your family at stake. I think this issue is more complex than you're willing to admit.
