Cone_Junky wrote: This was the slight mention of agricultural welfare that no one took any further, thank you very much.
Don't get me started on corn subsidies/welfare. Pound for pound, the worst sham out there.
Cone_Junky wrote: This was the slight mention of agricultural welfare that no one took any further, thank you very much.
Don't get me started on corn subsidies/welfare. Pound for pound, the worst sham out there.
Cone_Junky wrote:yamaha wrote:This was the slight mention of agricultural welfare (over an hour ago) that no one took any further, thank you very much.PHeller wrote: He contended "I wouldn't take a dime from the government"....yea right, buddy.FWIW, my area in Indiana was classified as an exceptional drought and became eligible for federal loans......several people around us are taking those and buying new equipment then claiming their crop insurance for the crop. We think this is wrong, so we won't take any money. Sure, since most of our equipment is older(and paid off), and each tractor and our combine cost more than most people's houses, we could have taken loans to purchase more acerage, but this boils down to ethics and personal pride, which we value more than just money. We got lucky, our crops were hurt, but not as bad as the rest. Some people need the help, some don't.....the government doesn't seem to care enough to look into it. Thats what makes this one and the same issue.
Why would we jump all over that? The poster was given the opportunity to suck from the government teat, and declined to do so, placing strong emphasis on his own values, pride, and personal responsibility.
Pretty awesome, I'd say. Fits right in with what we've been saying. Again, what's to "jump on"?
The fact that all his neighbors were hard working American farmers, who are probably religious conservatives fighting against government handouts, yet will accept them in times of drought.
At the same time, most of California's Central Valley has water supplied through government funded infrastructure products. Without all that investment, the area would still be desert.
PHeller wrote: The fact that all his neighbors were hard working American farmers, who are probably religious conservatives fighting against government handouts, yet will accept them in times of drought.
OK, fine: I agree! I'm against subsidies for individuals, businesses, and corporations. They're all equally bad. They let you avoid lessons that would otherwise be learned, and they reinforce bad behaviours. I've said this several times in recent threads.
In reply to Duke:
Because obviously other people (argh, corporations) have taken advantage of it to the tune of $127 billion.
So can I write ONE anedoctal story about a single person not taking advantage of welfare and the arguement is over?
Cone_Junky wrote: In reply to Duke: Because obviously other people (argh, corporations) have taken advantage of it to the tune of $127 billion. So can I write ONE anedoctal story about a single person not taking advantage of welfare and the arguement is over?
I'm confused. I'm against welfare for ANYBODY, any COMPANY, and any ENTITY. I support those who make their own lives and livelihood their own responsibility.
That is a relatively popular opinion on this board, and a relatively unpopular opinion among the general public.
Why does that mean the argument is over?
We could also make a distinction between subsidies and aide.
Subsidies are incentives for a company that benefits our economy. Research and development that feeds economic growth. The American taxpayer should see the direct result of such subsidies. In the case of oil subsidies, it has been argued that the American taxpayer doesn't see lower oil costs as a result of subsidies, as its the oil company the controls the flow, not the earth (at least with our current capacity). Subsidizing green energy is therefore seen as a beneficial because it is the technology development that lowers costs for consumers.
Part of the debate about green energy subsidies is that it doesn't make financial sense. That's completely true. It doesn't. Green energy is still far more expensive than coal/oil/gas. The thing is, it's an investment in the future. The quicker we develop green energy, more energy efficient cars and trucks, homes, etc, the more quickly we'll insulate our economy from fluctuating prices of resource based energy.
It was mentioned earlier that corn subsidies are a sham. I'd tend to agree with that. The American taxpayer is paying for a few tons of corn every year that gets burned in our fuel. I don't quite understand why we need to pay for it twice. First we pay with our taxes for corn subsidies, then we pay against to the oil company who is getting subsidies for a gallon of gas.
Aide is a bit different. Aide is designed to keep good industries in business. Farm aide is a perfect example of this.
Where the line gets blur is in the public sector. We shouldn't be giving aide to people want to rebuild in bad places.
PHeller wrote: The fact that all his neighbors were hard working American farmers, who are probably religious conservatives fighting against government handouts, yet will accept them in times of drought.
You obviously have no clue what my surroundings are......this stereotype you are attempting to connect is the minority. Most people around us would rather have communism.
Also, on corn subsidies......the grower doesn't get them. Don't hate the farmers, its the damn commodities traders and brokers making the big $$$$ here unfortunately.
Yamaha, I don't know what your surrounding area is.
Enlighten me. I don't normally meet farmer who are communist unless they are on an organic CSA or something.
Most farmers I meet (I work in an Ag Preserve Program) tend to want to maintain their farms and their way of life, government hand out or not.
Anti-stance wrote:Cone_Junky wrote: This was the slight mention of agricultural welfare that no one took any further, thank you very much.Don't get me started on corn subsidies/welfare. Pound for pound, the worst sham out there.
The ethanol/corn susidy is a scam perpetuated on us.
The mohair subsidy is worse. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38379.html It went away for 1 year, then came back. Hmmm.
In reply to PHeller:
Most of them around me are the stab each other in the back, wanting all the handouts they can get, and so on.
Several became LLC's here recently allegedly cash renting their own ground so they could file chapter 11 every few years if they bit off more than they could chew.
We just mind our own business and keep doing what the family has been doing since coming from Bordeaux. My family has lived here for over a century on the same homestead, I doubt it'll ever change. As far as political side.....the closest town and the county I live in always vote democrat(which you most likely will find odd btw), personally I've always voted in the name of common sense for who the best person was....never which party. IDGAF about parties.
Duke wrote: You have to admit: forest fires, major earthquakes, tornadoes, etc. are cyclical things that often go decades between large events for a given locality, even if an entire region is prone to them. But New Orleans gets pounded like a drunk sorority girl *every berking year*, on top of the fact that it is in an inherently unsustainable position relative to sea level.
An example from history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanport_City,_Oregon
Good sized city, lots of workers there that were involved in ship building, etc. It was completely wiped out in a flood. No one came back. Remnants were turned into a park and racetrack (Portland International) to keep people from populating the flood plain again.
It has happened.
Also: The Netherlands
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cities_under_sea_level
Cone_Junky wrote:Duke wrote:Not quite. There is a lot of talk about why these people don't leave or why they came back. Simple, it's thier home. Same reason people returned to thier homes (or foundations) in CO. No talk here about those idots who live in a forest and then want a gov't handout when a forest fire burns down thier belongings. Only one slight mention of corporate (agr) welfare and no one jumped on the bandwagon of E36 M3ting on that. Just a long thread about these moochers sucking off the gov't teat down south.Cone_Junky wrote: $127billion spent on corporate subsidies vs $55 billion on human welfare. There is a lot more "welfare" spent on big, rich corporate farms and oil subsidies than those damn humans who can't fish.Frankly, BOTH types of welfare are the problem, not the solution. It is interesting that you assume that anybody who is against personal welfare must be for corporate welfare.Cone_Junky wrote: Let's just kick all the people out of the flood plains, hurricane zones, earthquake zones, toronado alley, drought prone areas, and areas where giant fires happen. We can squeeze our poulation into 50% less land can't we?Who said anything about "kicking them out"? How about just reducing the amount of federal artificial insulation that is provided, and let everybody who lives there assess the actual cost/benefit ratio for themselves? Interesting false dichotomies there.
Ok, I live on 48 acres of forest, a few years ago some of it caught fire. What did I do? Had my wife call the fire dept and round up the animals and get them into the car just in case we had to get them the hell out of here. Then I went out and fought the fire, no shoes, no shirt went and did what had to be done. Luckily my dad came home 20 min after we saw the smoke and between the two of us we had it contained from about 3 acres down to almost nothing by the time the fire dept got there 45 min after the call. We didn't stand there and watch it burn, we did what needed to be done. Not saying those in CO should have done the same, but if everyone would have pitched in, instead of just letting the firefighters do the work, maybe things would have ended better. And yes I know people tried to save their homes, but what did they do when they realized they weren't going to be able to save it?
You'll need to log in to post.
