Sorry, but if farmers really were as you portray them -- nothing but Democrat socialist takers -- then the most rural counties would vote the most Liberal, and the electoral map would be reversed.
Red states would be blue and blue states would be... who knows what?
But the truth is farmers are not "takers", not socialists and they don't vote for Democrats.
Of course, any farmer insists on getting good value for his money, and hates to throw money down some bottomless rat-hole, especially in the form of taxes to a government he (or she) doesn't much approve of.
So farmers, just like any other interest group, insist on getting "something back" for their hard earned tax dollars.
That "something back" takes the form of programs such as you describe.
But all such programs combined cost less than the value of taxes paid by farmers and agriculture in general to all levels of government.
In short, in the minds of most farmers: they are paying for a lot more in government services than they actually receive.
So, farmers look at themselves as not only supplying the world's best quality, lowest cost food, but also supporting with their hard work, welfare payments to people who refuse to work.
That's why you are never going to convince a farmer that he or she is nothing but a Democrat socialist taker.
By the way, it's a small point, but the definition of "socialism" is: government ownership of the means of production.
So what percentage of farmers favor government taking their farms away to form giant collectives?
Answer: zero.
But 100% of farmers want good value for their money, and that includes all the money they spend for government services: taxes.
I’m from a farm family and so I learned up close how people can rationalize that which is in their personal interest—included a large, controlling and redistributive intrusion of government in any area that benefits them individually.
Such it is not only with overt government subsidies, but price supports and other regulations that help those in the business.
Thus, in farm-intensive regions of the country, we can end up with “Republicans” like Chuck Hagel.
And, of course, socialism isn’t only defined as abject communism, but as this opening paragraph to the Wikipedia discussion describes, all sorts of government control of the means of production:
“Socialism refers to an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.[1] “Social ownership” may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, or citizen ownership of equity.[2] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[4]”
Farmers on average declare a relatively low income, and so end up being significant lifetime ‘takers’ in social security and Medicare ‘handouts’, as well as regular farm subsidies and regulatory benefits.
I don’t doubt but that farmers justify their handouts to themselves by considering that they put in in taxes more than they take out in benefits, but that’s just not the case—especially in an environment in which we are borrowing something like 40 cents on every dollar we spend. We’re broke as it is, without special payouts to favored industries. And due to imperfect distribution of US Senate representation by population, farmers are in that position, which they take advantage of, becoming in essence ‘crony capitalists’.
Second, your claim that farmers receive less in benefits than they pay in taxes if false. The estimate is that the number of farms in the US would be reduced by more than half if direct and indirect payments were removed. And that is EXACTLY what needs to be done. We need about half the people now farming to go out of business because they're terrible businessmen and terrible farmers who have NO CLUE as to what they're doing so that half that remain can finally make some money in a free market where the price of food is determined by market conditions and not where government interference sets prices to be. And yes, when the government gives money to one group at the expense of another, sets prices, and determines who gets to farm by fiat rather than by market laws, that IS socialism.
Third, your claim that farmers can't be socialists because they vote for the most "conservative" candidates is not only silly, but I've already demolished it in the previous post (to which you have yet to respond.) Whenever true conservatives have tried to get farmers off the tit, farmers have thrown them out of office, or made such a squawk that the bills are repealed double-quick. Farmers vote for the most "conservative" candidates -- as long as once in office they keep bringing home the bacon. Farmers vote against socialist programs in the rest of the economy, but they vote in favor of them when they perceive their own interests are in play.
Finally, I notice you don't respond, and can't respond, to the claim that farmers are one of the groups destroying the country with the importation of Third World slave labor whose hospitalization and other benefits have to be subsidized by all of the other taxpayers. Again, try taking that illegal labor away, and you'll find out how "conservative" farmers are.
In short, in the minds of most farmers: they are paying for a lot more in government services than they actually receive.
And there IS THE PROBLEM. This is true in the minds of farmers. But isn't true in the real world.
Please don't respond with your emotions and feeeeeeeeelings and empty opinions again; I've heard your nonsense hundreds of times over the last 50+ years. Come back with actual, documented facts, or don't bother.