Discarded: Should the U.S. end agricultural subsidies?

This issue moved to another topic and can now be found here

Should the U.S. maintain its agricultural subsidies?

This is more "U.S. Domestic Policy," or "Agriculture." 

CFR.org

One of the most hotly contested aspects of U.S. trade policy is the program of subsidies the United States provides its farmers. Trade partners object to U.S. farm subsidies, saying they unfairly block out foreign competition—this has been one of the primary sticking points in the stalled Doha round of trade negotiations. The counterargument holds that U.S. farm subsidies are necessary to prop up the U.S. farm industry, particularly given the role President Bush has assigned to corn-based ethanol in his energy security plan.

Daniel T. Griswold, director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Trade Policy Studies, and Bob Young, chief economist for the American Farm Bureau, debate whether the United States should be subsidizing its farmers.

I'm confused about where there's framing here.  Unless you'd rather call them price supports or something.  What were your categories going to be, Jacki?  Maybe that'd clear it up for me.

With that said, this might be more appropriate under agriculture, rather than trade.

I feel like the issue is framed.  Can we open it up:

How should the US approach agricultural subsidies?

i'm not thrilled by the "approach" business.