Agricultural Subsidies are a waste

"it is also true that subsidies are given to farmers as a cushion for when they had a bad year or when their are disasters like floods, hurricanes, or a freeze that kills the crops. The subsidies are used to control the market if their is a surplus then the farmers don't need to plant. When their are shortages then subsidies are still given to farmers so that they can plant even more."----------------------------------------------------So my opponent concurs that taxpayer money is given to citizens who do nothing. He states when "their is a surplus then farmers don't need to plant". He is supposing that crops are currently being produced to point where they are worthless if sold. This is completely incorrect. Currently if there was a "surplus" and farmers decided to produce to their maximum, the price of the goods would simply fall. Not to zero. It's self evident. People are starving in other countries. A higher supply of crops would merely mean more consumption at a lower price. it's a simple shifting of the supply curve to the right.Furthermore, let's suppose that by some divine miracle, the US was producing so many crops that the price of crops was nearly at zero. Instead of paying the farmers TO DO NOTHING, we should be paying them nothing, allowing them to find new jobs that provide utility to the economy that would be profitable.What we are doing is essentially using taxpayer dollars for someone to dig a hole and then fill it. Someone sitting on their butt and doing nothing provides absolutely no utility to the populace as a whole.Not only is the US government paying for absolutely nothing, but even if they were producing crops, it is still a waste of taxpayer dollars, because the crops produce no extra utility outside of their business transaction. Farmers are already compensated for their services through the payment of the customer. If this is not profitable then workers should find a new industry that is profitable to work in.-------------------------------------------------------------"I assume the word farming refers to crops my opponent equivocates crops to producing methane however as he pointed out that methane emission comes from livestock.""Agricultural" or "farming" are a general terms used to refer to things that are produced on a farm. Agricultural subsidies also go to purely dairy farms as well as farms that produce purely crops. $295 Million dollars are appropriated toward diary farms in the US. These farms produce the methane gas and water pollution that was mentioned in the opening round, thus they are relevant in the statement that agriculture can be a negative externality.In addition it is not only livestock that produce pollution.According to 1998 EPA data, agricultural pollution is the leading cause of water quality impairment in lakes, streams and rivers. Agricultural pollution is the fifth leading cause of water quality impairment in estuaries.(Source: U.S. EPA brochure - PDF)Nutrients from fertilizers and manure travel from Midwest farm states down the Mississippi River to the Gulf of Mexico, causing a massive "dead zone" on the Louisiana coast. The nutrients, including nitrogen and phosporous, trigger a process whereby excess algael growth and decomposition reduces oxygen levels in the water, killing fish, shrimp, crabs and other sea life in an area nearly 8,000 square miles in size. Farm fertilizers contribute 50 percent of this nutrient pollution. Livestock manure contributes another 15 percent and municiple and industrial sources account for 11 percent.(Source: American Rivers) "I concede to this but I must point out that you are talking about industry (corporation) an entity almost completely free from gov't interference."A corporation is not completely free from government interference (See: the FDA on literally every medication on the market produced by corporations)My opponent has this view that livestock are kept in farms and by decreasing the number of farmers livestock should decrease as well however that is false the number of livestock is not dependent on the number of farmers. Livestock are usually kept nearby factories unless he is talking about dairy farms; however I have dismissed this because my opponent has used the term "livestock" referring to domesticated animals like cows,pigs,horses,chickens, etc.I do not have that view, I don't know how you came to think that. By eliminating agricultural subsidies, the taxpayer will not have to pay for something that is not only not a positive externality (fireworks, public water fountains) but really is a negative externality (pollution).I negate that agricultural subsidies are a waste of taxpayer dollars they are in fact necessary making them the opposite of a waste. While my opponent can argue that they are a negative externality he must also ague that agricultural subsidies are in fact a waste.Paying for something that has no benefit and is actually harmful is a waste. They are not necessary for anything and my opponent has not given even the smallest amount of evidence that they are necessary for anything. If the use of land was left up to the "free market" there wouldn't be food or grain left to the community.I want to see a mathematical proof or logical reasoning how people would rather have a house than eat.