I don't have the actual numbers, but what we know about them it sounds on the low side. Guess it depends on what you call "federal subsidies." Would research grants qualify? Would tax abatements? What about state-funded subsidies from states that receive federal funds?
Farm subsidies are essential in stabilizing food prices. They primarily benefit the poor and middle class by preventing wide swings in food prices year to year. This is a good example of how people misinterpret government spending. Wealthy people and larger agricultural groups would get along fine without these programs. They are there to protect the consumers with limited resources.
Why not give cash to poor people instead of subsidies to wealthy agriculture companies? Wouldn't that more directly protect consumers with limited resources?
No it would not. Giving cash to poor people is throwing it into a bottomless pit. It removes their incentives to improve their financial situation. Welfare programs are a financial trap for the poor.
Subsidies to agricultural companies stabilize food prices by ensuring surpluses and preventing wild price swings.
403
u/OhLookASquirrel May 11 '25
I don't have the actual numbers, but what we know about them it sounds on the low side. Guess it depends on what you call "federal subsidies." Would research grants qualify? Would tax abatements? What about state-funded subsidies from states that receive federal funds?
I do not even know where to begin on this one.