Back in the 30's when crop supports first appeared, slighty less than halof of the population lived on farms, iirc. The dust bowl was occuring, the great depression. Faeming was subsistence for most, given the 10 or so year drought in the great plains, and the destruction of cotton in the southeast by the boll weevil.

Heck, pellagra was still common on southern farms, where cotton was planted from doorstep to road to try to maximize a cash crop. Farmers and their families were, in general malnourished and undereducated, often tenant farmers trying to eke out a living.

Today, less that 2 percent of the population is involved in farming. the crops that get more than 80 percent of the subsidies are wheat, feed grains (usually corn, but sometimes oats, barley, millet), soybeans and cotton. even the non-globalized corporation farmers that grow these, especially in the midwest (in other words, the family farmer, who may or may not have incorporated), will either own or rent 20,000 acres at a time because with the proper machinery and technology makes it possible for a small crew, sometimes as few as 10, to cultivate and grow 20,0000 acres of these crops.

Harvest is contracted out, sometimes, so a convoy of combines on flatbeds pull in and work as quicky as possible, often 24 hours a day, to finish and move to the next megafarm.

These supports aren't going to, and wouldn't help, the old 40 acres and a mule farmer.

If someone farms a section, these might be the difference between viability and not.

Big ag, though, doesn't keep the money in the community.

Why are we, the people, citizens of the "leader of the 'free world', not allowed to travel to Cuba?
Why do we tolerate this treatment from our government?

Apparently left intact in the bill, which expires in September, is the defunding of enforcement of rules that prevent Cuban-Americans from visiting relatives in Cuba more than once every three years. Such travel would still be illegal, but Treasury wouldn't be allowed to spend money to enforce the rule.