I don't know if I'm having an argument with my son or if he's just curious about how much welfare I'm getting.  (was before I retired)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-09/farmers-boost-revenue-sowing-subsidies-for-crop-insurance.html 

He sent me the above link and I've been debunking some of the things in it.  Or clarifying to the best of my knowledge.  I don't know how insurance works if you start farming a piece of ground that's never had corn on it.  My guess was if you had established yields on other farms they might use those yields, barring that they use the county average?

I noticed they said farmers only paid 38% of the cost of insurance, I saw the renters bill and he's paying 52%.

They also talked to one farmer who, oh my Lord, he owned a Cadillac.  I guess Cadillac stays in business because of farmers, nobody else has one.  Noticed a Kia now costs $60,000 while you can get a Cadillac for $45,000,  just saying.

Anyway they also said last falls drought caused shortages and high prices, I seem to remember it differently.  I remember corn below $4.00 for a little while at local elevators and I can't find the final total bushels.  I would think final 2013 corn yield would pop up on Google but no, it full of ad's and contests.

If somebody could help me debunk that last I'd appreciate it.

There's a lot in the article that's wrong or stupid.  Among the things that are wrong and stupid was a statement about taxpayers paying out $90 billion over a 10 year period as global warming gets worse.  Ignore the global warming part, concentrate on the fact that insurance pays the loss, not the taxpayer.  And if yields drop you'll get less insurance, thought admittedly if the price increases that could offset the yield loss.  

Anyway all help is appreciated, he's surrounded by liberals where he lives.  I did point out to him that if we were getting rich off the government he'd had those video games he wanted as a kid. :)