#Article First Release Challenge#Do you agree that the poverty alleviation industry and all the agricultural subsidy funds will be changed to the pension money of the old farmers? Most of the poverty alleviation projects in the rural areas have failed, and such a large amount of money has not blinked an eye, and most of the agricultural subsidies have not really reached the farmers. If this money is turned into a pension for old farmers, which is raised to 800 yuan per person per month, this method is also a way to revitalize the countryside, and the old farmers will naturally drive more consumption when they have money.
Looking back on history, China's rural revitalization is the main content of the No. 1 document of the central government every year, which is enough to see the importance of the central government to the three rural areas, from hundreds of billions of yuan per year to several trillion yuan of financial investment per year. And this support is still increasing, it can be said that there is no one before and no one after it.
Over the past few decades, the financial support has been so great, but the effect of rural revitalization is still not satisfactory, the income of farmers is still not high, and farmers are still not rich. This is a well-known basic fact.
A large number of government-supported agricultural leading enterprises, as well as industrial poverty alleviation projects, are basically nine times out of ten, these are the real money of all taxpayers, so it went down the drain, of course, these money does make some people rich, but the farmers really benefit very little.
There are also many beautiful villages and characteristic town projects, which are basically half-dead, and they can only barely survive through blood transfusion by the local government, and basically have no own hematopoietic function.
Can we change the way of thinking, take the village collective as the center, send money to the farmers, let the farmers build their own and let the farmers really participate in it, instead of the government in the vigorous rural revitalization, the farmers are watching from the side, completely outsider, no participation, no contribution, no play to the wisdom of the people. It seems that rural revitalization is only the government's rural revitalization, and farmers are excluded.
Regardless of whether a black cat or a white cat catches a mouse, it is a good cat, and the purpose of rural revitalization is to make farmers rich and let farmers have something to rely on and support for their old age. On the surface, a lot of money has been spent on rural revitalization, but this money has not really entered the pockets of farmers, which is a problem worth considering. If this road is far away, why should it go all the way to the dark?
The two major problems in the rural areas must be resolved as soon as possible, otherwise it will really be too late. One is the problem of low prices for peasants' agricultural products, and the other is the issue of providing pensions for rural peasants.
On the whole, peasants' agricultural and sideline products are surplus and unsalable. In the case of overproduction, vigorous production should no longer be encouraged, and peasants should be helped to establish their own channels for selling agricultural products and vigorously develop secondary and tertiary industries. Farmers not only know how to plant and raise, but also sell them, so that farmers can participate in the distribution of sales profits. In this way, the peasants can have money, and if the structure of single cultivation and breeding is too simple, the risks borne by the peasants are huge.
The issue of old-age pension for old farmers in rural areas has always been a cliché, but it still can't change the status quo of more than 100 million yuan per month for these hundreds of millions of old farmers. If each old farmer over the age of 65 is 800 yuan per month, it will be about 1,000 billion yuan per year. This money is much better spent than those poverty alleviation projects and agricultural subsidies. Giving profits to the old peasants is, to a certain extent, revitalizing the countryside. As long as it can achieve the goal, it's fine.
For rural revitalization, the local government should make systematic adjustments and self-review. There has to be improvements, and there have to be some new initiatives.