Arguments against agricultural subsidies: 1) subsidies discourages competition and an efficient production; 2) very rich farmers receives subsidies, which funds are originated in the taxes payed by regular, non-rich people; 3) Cuts to subsidies would help reducing the federal deficit.
<span>Agricultural subsidies are supposed to lower food prices and help farmers. However, they don't always do either. Moreover, lower food prices and more farmers have their own social costs.
The truth is that all across the world farmers are getting more efficient and can grow and harvest more crops with fewer people. That isn't about to change any time soon, and there's very little government can do about it.
There are several ways you can go about subsidizing agriculture, for example: <span>Direct cash payments to farmersQuotas and production controlsLabor lawsTax creditsProviding water and electricity at reduced prices</span>And so forth.
The problem is that, as time goes on, everyone gets used to the system and it gets out of whack with actual demand. For example, tobacco use has been steadily dropping, but tobacco farmers still get subsidies (either to grow or not to grow) and the Western nations grow tobacco to export (along with the health detriment, which is now hitting Africa and China).
As another example, corn is cheap, but the U.S. produces about five times as much now as it did in 1940, although the population has only doubled. As such, a lot of it is just fed to livestock. More problematically, a lot of it is exported to Mexico, where corn can be grown more cheaply, but can't be sold against subsidized American corn, which costs less.
Here in Canada, there is a quota system for dairy which means we don't produce much surplus. However, at retail, milk cost about twice here what it does in the U.S. We can't figure out how to dismantle the system so at least milk will cost about the same as it does in other countries. Trying to dismantle the system might be more expensive than leaving it in place. It might also mean more milk is produced than is consumed, which would again push the market out of whack.</span>
The legislative branch is the principal law making body of the United States. A local version of this branch is like a city council. The judicial branch is the principal court of the United States, so a local version of that would be something like a city or county court. They are both part of two different systems. The legislative branch will be making regulations and laws while the judicial branch will be seeing if laws are constitutional and if what someone is doing is justified under the law. These are very different things, but they are tied together by the Constitution of the United States. The legislative branch creates laws that are constitutional to the best of their ability and the judicial branch interprets these laws and applies them to current cases.
well i could be wrong since the question has to be more specific but i think this is a trick question, once you enter the garden of the 34 people you make it go up by 1 so 5. however it could also be 4 since you said there are 34 people AFTER you already entered the garden. so who knows, be more specific. or maybe im just way off
<span>Supremacy Clause </span>the US Constitution and federal laws and treaties made in accordance with the Constitution are the <span>supreme law of the land.
