We do not to artificially make food cheap, our waistlines are enormous.
Subsidizing farmers can sustain bad businesses. If you think giving money to gigantic unwieldy mega-banks is a bad idea, you have no business advocating farmer subsidies.
If a farmer develops a good method for growing a cash crop, why shouldn't he buy out farmers who use inferior methods?
Progress is somebody having a better idea.
You shouldn't try to stop progress.
All of our food and basis of living comes from farmers and taking these subsidies would harm us and our food industry. These farmers need this money to buy equipment and more plant seeds for crops. They need to provide for their families just like you and I do, just because they have a farm doesn't mean they don't mean they have enough money or food for them to live especially when that food is for selling and it's a bad crop season. So all you naysayers obviously don't know what a financial struggle is.
For one, subsidized farming stabilizes the agricultural commodity markets overall. Granting agricultural workers these funds ensures that there will not be price spikes in general necessities (food, clothing, etc.) because the subsidies can compensate for poor yields for reasons including poor weather (an uncontrollable force). Not only that, but this money would also make for a predictable farming system. Farmers would have the ability to stay up-to-date with farming systems and equipment, and, consequently, increase productivity.
Secondly, agriculture holds a large portion of economy; therefore, ending these subsidies would only hinder the economy. Looking at the U.S., agriculture accounts for $789 billion of our GDP (but this isn't the entirety of agriculture's effect on the GDP because this number does not take relying industries - like forestry, fishing, food, apparel, leather, etc. - into account. Agriculture also accounts for 16.9 million jobs in the U.S. (9.2% of U.S. employment). This being said, removing the subsidies would deter and push workers away from agriculture.
Lastly, agriculture in and of itself is a growing science that could benefit people and the environment. Alternative fuel sources like ethanol and bio methane are both produced through agriculture. Ethanol, although it is not a fully developed method, makes use of the gasses omitted from plant material (corn, sugarcane, grasses) and there has been a recent increase in usage (1.7 billion gallons in 2001 to 13.2 billion gallons in 2013). Biomethane makes use of the gasses from animal byproducts and agricultural waste. Both of these alternative fuel sources would reduce our dependence on oil (so from a U.S. perspective, our dependence on foreign countries; and from an international perspective, increase energy security by offsetting non-renewable resources), decrease the amounts of greenhouse gasses being emitted, make for a cleaner environment (by reducing landfill waste and producing nutrient-rich fertilizer).
Overall, ending agricultural subsidies only hinders people overall. Maintaining them, on the other hand, has the potential to maintain a stable market for necessities, maintain (or perhaps benefit) the nation's economy, and provide alternative fuels (increasing energy security and decreasing some greenhouse gas emissions).
I believe that the government should not stop subsiding farmers. Subsidizing is needed to sustain farmers to the point where they can break even. Food prices are contained by subsidizing. Family budgets will be kept reasonable as well. To sustain the quality of life of the family farm it is very important for government subsidies.
Farming and agriculture is very important for the sustainability of our country. Growing food ourselves helps the economy by providing jobs and work while keeping our funds internal instead of sending them overseas to purchase food stuffs externally. As it stands, helping farmers through a rough patch is healthier than simply outsourcing.