The benefit for what we put into it is worth for it reasons that go far beyond simply shoveling money at a powerful lobby. While it certainly bears looking into for people egregiously abusing loopholes, the system itself has a great deal of merit.

Your 'insurance' argument would carry more weight it it didn't also ensure the ocntinuation of some very bad paractices along the way.
Life insurance policies have suicide clauses. Subsidies have no conditions ensuring good behavior.

I'm not against subsidies on principle, btw. I'm against subsidies that produce bad results.
Every policy, every program should be subject to periodic revue to see how it's working. A religious (unproved) dedication to a theory of how things should work0
is deadly to the ability to guide a nation in changing times.

We've had it so good for so long we think it can't happen here, but trust me it can. The billions in farm subsidies are more like insurance than anything, and like insurance it appears to be a total waste of money until you need it. It is good to be prepared for hard times.

Your argument does not convince me l

There are lots of things we need.
Should we also subsidize the steel industry enough to make it survive here, or the textile industry, or etc.etc.?
We can not seal our borders and become an isolated self-sufficient nation. Businesses would break down every barrier. subsidies could raise. All our wealth would go to just maintaining the isolation.
waht kind of economy is that?

If agrobusineesses were really interested in feeding the nation, (or beyond) they would produce edible corn. Agro busienses are interested only in producing profit, and they often do it in counterproducitve ways, tying up lots of taxpayer money in the process. They don't do what's necessary; they do what's profitable and subsidies are certainly profitable.

Subsidies encourage business to get stuck in profitable ruts instead of seeking innovative and more useful methods.

This is just antoher source for the corrupitve influence of special interests..

During the great depression food production dropped to all time lows because of farm foreclosures, which in turn happened because cheap external sources were dropping the price on the market below where farmers found it worth their while. Much like the low food prices we are generating today are preventing many 3rd world nations from being able to produce their own crops and make a profit from it. Our leaders, in one of the wisest moves ever, decided that food production is not something we ever wanted to have others do for us, and even if it cost the gov't a truckload of money, in the long run it was worth it.

This is especially important today, as a looming food crisis is pointing out. I'm not saying that our subsidies will prevent the price of staples from rising, but it will certainly mean that no one in this country starves to death. That can not be said of many other nations, and is a direct result of the subsidies.

And I'm sure everyone wanted to know it

We need food just like we need oil. If the relevant businesses are as profitable as their financial statements show, they don't need subsidies.
Likewise, we need to provide for the poor, but once they become self sufficient, the support stops. There is a lesson in that.

When we get locked into subisdies, that stifles inovation, because of the unfair financial edge in competition. When we opt out of innovation, other countries surpass us, ond our self suffieciency, which is never total, gets undercut.
Subsidizing oil companies has kept us back from developing alternate souces of energy. and we lose in the long run.
We are equally shortsighted about agrobusinesses.

Besides all that, the globe is interconnected, like it or not. Subsidies have resulted in massive crops of inedible corn (not a food source) for the production of ethanot (not necessary, there are more economic sources for ehthanol) and corn syrup, which is a dubious additive in so many foods that it's raising increasing alarm for its health implications. Meanwhile, our artticically manipulated prices are related to food riots in other countries.
Consequences do matter.

This is no different than defense contracts. They are necessary, but when they are used as political tools and not evaluated for value received, they become a source of corruption, waste and stagnation.

What agro businesses produce is relatively cheap food, but not necessarilty good food. If anybody should get subsidies, it's the small farmers who are trying to grow healthy food in an environmentally friendly way.

Beside targeting donors, they have also been used to get votes, as they've been marketed as benefiting small farmers,, i.e. the downtrodden. guardians of our food baskets. Though that was the original intent, the huge corporations that now benefit the most are hardly downtrodden.

A lot of the outrage over earmarks should have been spent on agricultural subsidies.

I don't object to subisdies on principle, as I don't think markets on theirr own necessarily embrace quality, timely change or wisdom. I do think subsidies should be granted on the basis of what the country needs at a particular time to nudge markets in the right direction.
When they become entreched political tools instead of providing a national benedit, however, It's time to wean the baby, pronto.

I wonder if Obama would have the courage to takcle this particular special interest.. Only the party and president out of power or needing a boost at the polls seem to recover theri senses.

Farm subsidies end up hurting the consumers, the environment and 3rd world farmers.