So the game is an enigma wrapped in a mystery impaled on a conundrum*

Acyn @Acyn
Trump: We’re going to take some of the tariff money and give it to our farmers who are going to be hurt for a little while until the tariffs kick in.


...hey @grok, when will the tariffs 'kick in" as Trump says?

And what is the 'tariff money' he's talking about here? What percentage of that tariff money comes from American consumers and sellers?

Grok @grok
Tariff money is revenue the US government collects from import taxes, paid directly by US importers.

Trump's tariffs began kicking in from Feb 2025 (e.g., 25% on Mexico/Canada/China goods), with more in March (steel/aluminum), April (autos), and beyond; by Sept 2025, many are active.

Studies (e.g., NBER, Tax Foundation) show 100% paid by US importers, with 70-100% of costs passed to American consumers and businesses via higher prices.

so Trump is ostensibly saying he expects American consumers and businesses, who already pay 70-100% of costs of his tariffs through higher prices passed on to them by US importers, to further pay to subsidize farmers' losses due to the tariffs, out of the general budget?

Trump's statement proposes using tariff revenue—collected from US importers and often passed on as higher prices to consumers and businesses—to temporarily subsidize farmers affected by the tariffs. This revenue is federal funds, not separately from the general budget, but earmarked here for aid. Sources like POLITICO and Reuters confirm similar past and current plans.

does this expenditure of federal funds have to go through Congress, or awarded through USDA?

How many farms are hurting and how many are expected to get most of the money?

Is it true just 100,000 individuals collected just over 70% of the money in Trump's last bailout?

USDA can administer such aid via the Commodity Credit Corporation without new congressional approval, as in 2018-2019 (per CRS reports), though Congress provides oversight.

Exact number of hurting farms in 2025 is unclear; bankruptcies rose 55% in 2024 and continued up, potentially affecting thousands in export crops like soy.

Per EWG and Reuters, top 10% of ~600k recipients got 54-66% of 2018-2019 MFP funds, so ~60k collected the majority—not precisely 100k for 70%, but comparable.

how many farms are there in the U.S., and can you break them down by income and general grant amount each income group received?

How many of the farms that got bailout moneyare still operating?

Also, what did the federal government ask in return for all of that money?

Per latest USDA data (2024, as 2025 census pending): ~1.88M US farms. By sales: 89% small ($1M, avg $185k+). Top 10% got 58% of funds.

Exact still-operating count unclear; bankruptcies up 55% in 2024, many small farms closed, but large recipients likely persist.

MFP required eligibility (e.g., crop production, active labor/management, $250k cap); no repayment or major conditions beyond that.

what was the benefit, consequence to the economy from the last bailout?

The 2018-2019 Market Facilitation Program distributed ~$28B to farmers affected by trade retaliations.

Benefits: Offset ~$23B in export losses (e.g., soy), boosted farm incomes by 10-20% in key sectors, and curbed bankruptcies (USDA data).

Consequences: Added to federal deficit; unevenly favored large farms (top 10% got 54-70% of funds, per EWG/GAO); didn't fully resolve trade harms, with net economic costs estimated at $10-20B from higher prices and reduced GDP (Cato, AEI studies).

where's the relief for consumers who are paying higher prices for groceries and other necessities as a result of higher tariffs imposed by Trump, even as he's cutting their benefits?

How many bankruptcies in the U.S. compared to farmers and where's their relief? Discuss.

No specific relief programs exist for consumers facing higher prices from 2025 tariffs (e.g., +$1,300/household per Tax Foundation; 3-6% consumption drop per PWBM/CEPR). Tariff revenue funds general budget, but Trump proposals cut some benefits like SNAP/Medicaid.

US bankruptcies: ~276k in H1 2025 (up 10%, per USC/Epiq); farms: ~88 in Q1 (up 95%, per USDA/UAEX), potentially 300+ yearly.

Non-farm relief: Bankruptcy offers debt discharge; no bailouts like farmers' $10B ARA 2025 aid. General aid via SBA loans/unemployment.

...does this statement sound realistic or true, given what we know about past bailouts and the present US economic condition?

Trump: "We’re going to take some of the tariff money and give it to our farmers who are going to be hurt for a little while until the tariffs kick in."

Trump's statement aligns with past actions: In 2018-2019, $28B in tariff revenue funded farmer aid via MFP to offset trade war losses (USDA, GAO reports). Current 2025 conditions show farm bankruptcies up 55%+ from 2024, driven by tariffs and retaliations (CNN, CNBC, Farm Bureau). It's feasible via USDA/CCC, but critics note uneven aid (top farms got most) and added deficits (Cato, AEI). Realistic short-term, though long-term efficacy debated.

will this benefit the economy in the short-term, though?

When would any benefit to the economy likely occur, looking at the proposed republican budget and the present and projected state of the economy?

Short-term: Mixed impact. Bailout could stabilize farm incomes and curb bankruptcies (USDA, Reuters), boosting ag output by 1-2% temporarily, but tariffs raise consumer costs (~$1,300/household, Tax Foundation) and slow GDP growth to 1.7-1.9% in 2025 (CBO, Fed projections).

Benefits, if any, likely immediate for farmers (Q4 2025 via USDA aid) but broader economic gains from tariffs/Republican budget (tax cuts, spending shifts) projected mid-2026+ amid below-trend growth (Conference Board, EY).

explain this a bit further, please.

"broader economic gains from tariffs/Republican budget (tax cuts, spending shifts) projected mid-2026+ amid below-trend growth"

Broader economic gains refer to potential boosts like increased domestic manufacturing from tariffs (protecting jobs, per Heritage Foundation) and higher growth from tax cuts (e.g., extending 2017 TCJA, adding 0.5-1% GDP by 2027 per Tax Foundation). Spending shifts might cut deficits or redirect funds.

Projections (Conference Board, EY, CBO) see these emerging mid-2026+, but amid below-trend growth (1.5-2% vs. 2.5% historical avg) due to initial tariff costs and inflation.

is higher growth from tax cuts likely, as most of the tax relief isn't tied to any specific investment?

Didn't total receipts, which include individual and corporate taxes as well as estate and excise taxes, and tariff duties, rise less than 1% after Trump's last tax cuts?

Higher growth from 2017 TCJA tax cuts is debated—some studies (Tax Foundation, NBER) show modest boosts (e.g., 1.1% long-run GDP, 20% short-term investment), partly from tied incentives like expensing. Others (CBPP, Congress) find little evidence, with growth from 2.4% (2017) to 2.9% (2018) then 2.3% (2019) driven more by demand than investment.

Total receipts rose 0.4% from FY2017 ($3.315T) to FY2018 ($3.329T), per Treasury data—less than 1% initially, before higher increases.

didn't Obama preside over double-digit annual increases in individual tax receipts 3 times?

And didn't economic growth barely change in the 2 years after the 2017 tax law relative to 2 years before, and the rate of overall business investment slowed, as did consumption?

Yes, under Obama (2009-2017), individual income tax receipts saw double-digit annual increases three times: +21% (2011), +16% (2013), +11% (2015), per Treasury data.

GDP growth: 2 yrs pre-TCJA (2016-17 avg ~2.0%); post (2018-19 avg ~2.6%)—slight rise then dip (CBO, BEA).

Business investment: Mixed; some studies show +8-20% boost (NBER, Brookings), others note slowdown post-2018 (CBPP, CRS).

Consumption: PCE grew 2.8% (2017) to 3.0% (2018), then 2.2% (2019)—initial uptick, per BEA.

...a little in the weeds on tax cuts, but, ya know.

*quote by Peter Allis, a late English golf broadcaster.