Ed Huntress wrote:
"CaveLamb" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
It appears to be much simpler than that, George. The point is to keep
corn prices high so we don't get into a deeper subsidy trap with "family
farmers." That would be political disaster. It's easier to make it all a
hidden tax that we pay in higher food prices.
Who is still running a family farm, Ed?
Those days are long gone.
These are corporate farms now.

That issue actually is often misrepresented. Very large family owned farms,
which are incorporated, produce most of the food crops in the US. The
percentage owned or leased from non-farmer, non-family corporations actually
is fairly small.

But don't tell that to a politician out to make hay.


The Republicans would trot out Farmer Brown at every political rally and
tell everyone how Democrats forced him to sell the family farm to a
Chinese soy sauce corporation. He'd leave the Lincoln in the barn on
those days, of course.

Then there would be the charges of hypocrisy about Dems calling for
alternative energy while stopping the expansion of "clean, safe, green,
home-grown" cornholeum, or whatever it is.

What's good for Cargill is....good for ADM. And so on.

None of which is good for you or me...

Well, those corporations are highly self-serving and socially ruthless. But
then, so are oil companies.

Makes me wonder if the Peter Principle applies to governments as well???

Libertarians think that corporations should be able to spend all they want
on political elections. It's well documented that those who spend get
favorable treatment. If we want to be run by a corporatocracy, we'll
continue with the same election laws we have now. A number of people here
defended corporate spending on First Amendment grounds, you'll recall.



t'wern't me!

--

Richard Lamb