Is this welfare or national security?

[furface]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...nst-obama.html

Landowners such as Loepky who rely on the federal safety net are less fond of the man who heads the government offering it. Gaines voters backed John McCain -- who voted against reauthorizing farm payments in 2008 -- over subsidy-supporting Barack Obama by 83 percent to 16 percent, the most lopsided margin among the top 10 aid-receiving counties in the U.S.

“Republicans understand business better than Democrats,” says Loepky, 47. “We need strong banks, low taxes. We need a safety net for farmers, but we need other things too.”

"We need a safety net for farmers." Why? I see the argument that some think it's bad for countries to not have a stable agriculture sector. However, the same or even bigger argument could be made for almost every other economic sector.

[Zippyjuan]

Weather causes instability for farmers. A couple bad years can wipe them out and they you lose food production in the future if your farmers are closing down. That could be seen as a national security issue. This is not to say that all of our farm subsidies are desirable.

[enoch150]

It's welfare, no question.

The perceived national security issue is that the country isn't producing food and has pissed off enough foreigners that they won't sell any to us. But, a government bailout of farmers during a drought does not produce food, it just keeps the momentarily unproductive farmer paying his taxes and phone bill. And a few years of bad weather does not destroy the farm - it only destroys the finances of the farmer. The farm will still exist and be productive when the weather improves. The farm may be bought by someone with savings, in the mean time.