The sad thing is ROM, that the government money, IMO, is destroying our own farming communties as well. The way the money is doled out, it fosters what I see as a vicious circle of self-defeating competition, especially in the Corn Belt. The more acres you have under your control, the more per acre payments you get. You are told by "experts" that you have to make your farm bigger to be more competive, because the bigger you are, the more buying power you have, so your input costs will be lower, and you'll be spreading your machine costs over more acres. So you go out and expand by bidding up land prices or cash rent rates. And then you end up selling more grain at lower prices. So, you need more acres, so you can get more payments, so you can increase your buying power to get cheaper inputs, but now you need bigger machines . . . So now you need more acres, to get more payments, so you can increase your buying power to get cheaper inputs, so you can get bigger machines to cover the increased acres and-- oh wait, grain prices are even lower now, so you need more acres, so you can get more payments, so you can increase your buying power . . . . . I don't get a lot of money from the FSA, because hay isn't subsidized and I'm not a big-time grain farmer, and what corn and grain I do have I've found niche markets to sell it in (at considerably higher than CBOT prices). Could I survive an elimination of subisidiesIJ If you look only at the low level of government money I actually receive and discount it from my yearly statement, yes. However, even though I'm in the Northeast US, the turmoil caused in the Corn Belt by subsidy elimination could disrupt my operation indirectly and disasterously.