>>>Darn. You just reminded me that I missed something Fri nite. A PBS show had a documentary Fri nite that was about the massive handouts given to farmers to grow cotton and the problems that have ensued because of it.
>>
>>I saw it. It was on on Sunady morning here.
>>
>>The subsidies really do hurt other countries' pricing, making it tough for them to make even a subsistence living.
>>
>>On the other hand, while there are big corporations sucking up the subsidies, there are also family farms who get some too (hold-outs from corporate buyout attempts, I'd bet). These have come to depend on the subsidy. They get a tiny piece of the overall pie, but it is vital to them.
>>Maybe subsidies could be restricted to family-owned production only. But the corporations would likely just sue their way back into them too.
>>
>
>I wonder how much of the agricultural subsidies go to family farms. I suspect very little of it does. Family farms, along with cowboys, are one of the iconic images in this country, but there are fewer and fewer of them. Agriculture has become dominated by huge companies who are not a whole lot different from General Motors and CBS. Should taxpayers really be subsidizing them?

You know my answer - NO!!! < s >
The corporations wouldn't even be in the "business" if it wasn't for the subsidies. Wherever the is government money to be sucked in, corporations will be there.

The flip side is that the corporations happily promote the "we can't afford all these 'entitlements'" tripe that is growing these days. Why?... because that is money they cannot get their hands on, that's why!

I've said before, and I repeat - let the corporate handouts stop and then assess where 'entitlement programs' really stand as a percentage of the economy.
PerryF also raised an interesting point - there are (urban) families poor and starving yet these farm subsidies go to corporations and a few real family farmers!