Should the U.S. end agricultural subsidies?

Set as news: False

Set as news: True

Farmers would want to "increase" them. 

I am okay either way.

I don't think we need to have the option "increase subsidies," because no one is seriously advocating that. 

Would it be less framing to say, "Should the U.S. continue agricultural subsidies?" I could live with it either way, but it's clearly a really big issue in large parts of the rural U.S.

WAPO

This Is Not Reform
Will the Democrats keep wasting money on farm subsidies?

Orlando Sentinel

EDITORIAL
A wasteful program

Our position: Farm subsidies need to be replaced with a more worthwhile alternative.

What approach?

-Increase subsidies
-Decrease subsidies
-End Subsidies

I guess this way we will not forfeit any evidence.  This covers all possible positions. 

i thought this issue was framed because it asked whether the subsidies should be ended.  i preferred opening it up to:  What approach should the U.S. take with agricultural subsidies? That way the issue is not leaning toward ending or continuing the subsidies - it would be the most neutral way to phrase the issue but i'm fine with wording it this way if everyone else is.

I don't see anything wrong with the current wording of this issue. It's a legitimate question. Many would support an end to subsidies, and many would not. I think it's a good issue.

This issue moved from another topic. The original issue can be found here

Should the U.S. maintain its agricultural subsidies?

This is more "U.S. Domestic Policy," or "Agriculture." 

CFR.org

One of the most hotly contested aspects of U.S. trade policy is the program of subsidies the United States provides its farmers. Trade partners object to U.S. farm subsidies, saying they unfairly block out foreign competition—this has been one of the primary sticking points in the stalled Doha round of trade negotiations. The counterargument holds that U.S. farm subsidies are necessary to prop up the U.S. farm industry, particularly given the role President Bush has assigned to corn-based ethanol in his energy security plan.

Daniel T. Griswold, director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Trade Policy Studies, and Bob Young, chief economist for the American Farm Bureau, debate whether the United States should be subsidizing its farmers.

I'm confused about where there's framing here.  Unless you'd rather call them price supports or something.  What were your categories going to be, Jacki?  Maybe that'd clear it up for me.

With that said, this might be more appropriate under agriculture, rather than trade.

I feel like the issue is framed.  Can we open it up:

How should the US approach agricultural subsidies?

i'm not thrilled by the "approach" business.