[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd be more favorably inclined if they could guarantee these subsidies only went to small farmers. Much of the subsidies are received by large agriculture conglomerates that definitely dont need the subsidies or by people "playing farmer" in order to receive the subsidies (surprise surprise).

[/ QUOTE ]

These two sentences are completely contradictory. It *is* the small farmers who are only "playing farmer" in order to receive the subsidies. They cannot compete without handouts. Hence they are only playing. They should get out and go do something productive instead of wasteful.

This is like saying you think the government should give subsidies to thousands of people who build kit cars in their garages becasue they can't compete with GM, Ford, and Toyota.

[/ QUOTE ]

I happen to think there is a societal benefit that isnt easily quantified by keeping small, family type farms afloat. I'm pretty sure you know what I meant by people "playing farmer", but let me know if you'd like me to spell it out. The car maker analogy isnt really relevant because the individual car maker has never been a part of the American tradition and communities arent built around groups of individual car makers, whereas many communities exist in the USA that are.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, what you are saying, is that hundreds of millions of people should be made poorer, so that a few tens of thousands of people can continue to live in a play-pretend nostalgic fantasy of yesteryear.

I disagree.

[ QUOTE ]
I happen to think there is a societal benefit that isnt easily quantified by keeping small, family type diners afloat.

[/ QUOTE ]

See? There are all kinds of bygone traditions that the government shouldn't spend taxpayer money preserving solely for the sake of preserving them.

Everything used to be "small, family type". Not just farming, but manufacturing as well. There is no reason to rob people to preserve the one but not the other, so the car analogy is perfectly apt.