Trump says his farm bailout 'would not be possible without tariffs.' His critics agree.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

President Trump announced a $12 billion farm aid package on Monday, money the president said "would not be possible without tariffs."

"We're giving some up to the farmers because they were mistreated by other countries," Trump said.

But some farmers and economists were quick to note that the problems facing farmers and the mistreatment they have endured are primarily a direct consequence of Trump's own tariff actions.

"It seems to be going in a circle to raise tariffs, which causes our customers to raise tariffs, which causes us to lose money, which means we need money," Blake Hurst, a farmer and former president of the Missouri Farm Bureau, said in an interview with Yahoo Finance.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-his-farm-bailout-would-not-be-possible-without-tariffs-his-critics-agree-175959597.html

Too dumb to get the self-own.

[rsdsharp]

1. No Donnie, the bailout wouldn't be NECESSARY without the tariffs.

And I use necessary in its loosest possible sense.

[ms liberty]

2. Beat me to it. This is the answer.

[Ocelot II]

3. If it weren't for the tariffs the farmers wouldn't need bailing out.

[Scrivener7]

4. A bailout is a one-time thing. The tariffs have lost American farmers their markets. Those aren't coming back.

[Frasier Balzov]

5. The source of this assistance is not tariff revenue.

And that's a good thing.

Otherwise it would need to be clawed back from those farmers when the tariffs are ruled unconstitutional.

[gulliver]

6. I think farmers are also squeezed by suppliers

There are effectively monopolies in seed, herbicide, and equipment suppliers. Farmers are squeezed at both ends, as buyers and as sellers.

Yet another reason Democrats need to refocus, get strong again in our core issues, ignore all the stupid issues, and win elections.

[Norrrm]

7. Trump ruins their income and then plays the savior with other people's taxes. Socialism? Farmers love him again.