Personally I'm in favour of slashing them for big agri-business type farms (like in California) while increasing them (often by a lot) to smaller farms out in the MidWest
The farms in the mid-west are big argi-business too.
Not in the same way and you know it.
Slave agriculture in California is disgusting.
Funny, California gets back 78 cents on the dollar.
Here's how the midwest does:
Iowa $1.06
Kansas $1.13
South Dakota $1.49
Nebraska $1.06
Of course the blue states in the midwest also get back less than their share.
Don't dodge my point: the system of de facto slave agriculture in California is disgusting
So you only want to end subsidizes to states that are already f**cked by the feds? Great plan.
What the hell are you on about?
Why exactly should some slave driver in California who turns over a huge amount of money every year get subsidised by the Government? Why should he get more federal money than a wheat farmer in North Dakota struggling to make ends meet?
