> I don't see why that couldn't coincide with a decrease in subsidies. In an ideal world, we could even redirect that money towards the poor - potentially making up for the impact to food banks.

This seems true but irrelevant. The claim that things would be better for everyone, were X accompanied by policies Y and Z, is not a real defence of X unless you have good reason to believe that it really will be accompanied by Y and Z.

The subsidies aren’t going anywhere, the lobby is very strong and senators like being re-elected. “Just get rid of the subsidies” sounds great, but it won’t happen. So given that as a baseline reality, and given how much produce is grown by small farmers vs. giant conglomerates, this is really just about more money in the bank and less food in the food bank.

Hey, next time you comment please take a look over HN's comment guidelines[0]. The parent comment brings up a good point about subsidies, however it would be great to also learn if there is a flaw in their reasoning (as you so strongly believe). Comment's like yours just discourage conversation.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Yikes, posting like this will get you banned on HN. Please don't do that again.

If you know more than someone else, the best thing to do is to post correct information, hopefully with a good amount of detail. Then the rest of us can learn something too. Alternatively, you can just not post anything. But no personal attacks, please.