this point is enough, when you have such a policy, you change from helping to akhshar low income supports them in the name of supporting them, you are taking away their support. one should doubt this when we say that because the subsidy we give to bread is used by the rich, so we want to penalize the rich, it penalizes the whole society. with this work and these definitions of the iam, it is not without reason that we should doubt, that is, not one case, not two cases, all the cases that i recommended were necessary for the nations. this should be doubted when we say that the explanation of the subsidy is for the benefit of the rich, no, this is not correct. we gave it to meat we used to give frozen meat. did our 10th income earners consume frozen meat ? should we remove the subsidy from this meat? the rich should not benefit. well, you should come to see why it didn't happen. now , were we able to reduce this subsidy to 100%, that is, they could really use it. assuming that what is being done is correct at the moment, can the end of the chain be able to use this subsidy? we at the beginn