> Why don't we stop subsidizing corn so much? Because corn has at least some value, and letting the land lay fallow would cost the tax payer even more (though

> Why don't we stop subsidizing corn so much? Because corn has at least some value, and letting the land lay fallow would cost the tax payer even more (though that is sometimes subsidized too) in order to maintain the stabilization? Or are you suggesting that farms don't need the stabilization program at all? As a farmer who farms in a country without subsidies, I would agree with that, but I understand the reasons why Americans value the program when you look at it from a threat of war point of view.