Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That's no excuse to not sort out and remove those who would waste valuable resources provided at other people's expense. For every penny provided in aid, it's a penny taken from someone else who earned it.
I'll agree with you, but I don't like that because a few abuse the privileged, everyone pays the price.
It's more than a few. Don't buy into the liberal hype. Their intent is to keep people dependent on them and buy votes thru entitlements to stay in power.
Case Worker: Illegal Aliens Got Food Stamps by the ?Vanload? | Judicial Watch
We have enough food. It's not scarcity of food that is the problem.
It's over regulation that means that everything is priced out of range.
Sorry, but the "over regulation" thing is somewhat empty. I'd have to ask you to tell me what part of our food supply chain should be deregulated.
If you were to say, "over subsidized," I'd be in full agreement. Paying farmers to grow easy commodity crops like soybeans and corn devastates our food supply and costs billions (also, it has created another entitlement culture with farmers). Most commodity subsidies, in my opinion, should be eliminated. Farmers should shoulder some risk with their business operations for a change.
I think society is facing an issue whereby full employment may be nearly impossible to come by due to technological advances. The need for human labor has simply decreased, and it will continue to do so. At some point this will need to be recognized; I can imagine that the whole idea of a 40-hour workweek may soon be outdated. We could quickly achieve full employment if we were to go to a 32-hour workweek, but I recognize it isn't that easy--although it is probably unevitable.
We have enough food. It's not scarcity of food that is the problem.
It's over regulation that means that everything is priced out of range.
Sorry, but the "over regulation" thing is somewhat empty. I'd have to ask you to tell me what part of our food supply chain should be deregulated.
If you were to say, "over subsidized," I'd be in full agreement. Paying farmers to grow easy commodity crops like soybeans and corn devastates our food supply and costs billions (also, it has created another entitlement culture with farmers). Most commodity subsidies, in my opinion, should be eliminated. Farmers should shoulder some risk with their business operations for a change.
I think society is facing an issue whereby full employment may be nearly impossible to come by due to technological advances. The need for human labor has simply decreased, and it will continue to do so. At some point this will need to be recognized; I can imagine that the whole idea of a 40-hour workweek may soon be outdated. We could quickly achieve full employment if we were to go to a 32-hour workweek, but I recognize it isn't that easy--although it is probably unevitable.
Most of the people who get the farm subsidies are the big agricultural companies, not the family farmer. I'm all for getting rid of those subsidies as well. Then again, I think people should be able to grow their own food, even in their front yard if they want.
Sorry, but the "over regulation" thing is somewhat empty. I'd have to ask you to tell me what part of our food supply chain should be deregulated.
If you were to say, "over subsidized," I'd be in full agreement. Paying farmers to grow easy commodity crops like soybeans and corn devastates our food supply and costs billions (also, it has created another entitlement culture with farmers). Most commodity subsidies, in my opinion, should be eliminated. Farmers should shoulder some risk with their business operations for a change.
I think society is facing an issue whereby full employment may be nearly impossible to come by due to technological advances. The need for human labor has simply decreased, and it will continue to do so. At some point this will need to be recognized; I can imagine that the whole idea of a 40-hour workweek may soon be outdated. We could quickly achieve full employment if we were to go to a 32-hour workweek, but I recognize it isn't that easy--although it is probably unevitable.
Most of the people who get the farm subsidies are the big agricultural companies, not the family farmer. I'm all for getting rid of those subsidies as well. Then again, I think people should be able to grow their own food, even in their front yard if they want.
You're quite wrong, you know. This is an agricultural area, and I can tell you that these so-called "family farms" are now corporate in structure--but still family owned. Many times, three or four "corporations" live under one roof so that they can maximize the subsidies they collect from the government (dad is Sunnyvale Corporation, mom is StayAtHome Corporation, and the boy is Mailbox Corporation, for example). You would be shocked at how much money those people "harvest" in their mailboxes.
In conservative right-wing Nebraska, the legislature is about to pass a law that will pay farmers $300 PER ACRE to NOT IRRIGATE in drought-stricken areas.
Fuck the farmers, and this is why I don't trust Republicans. They have their hands in our pockets every damned day.
Sorry, but the "over regulation" thing is somewhat empty. I'd have to ask you to tell me what part of our food supply chain should be deregulated.
If you were to say, "over subsidized," I'd be in full agreement. Paying farmers to grow easy commodity crops like soybeans and corn devastates our food supply and costs billions (also, it has created another entitlement culture with farmers). Most commodity subsidies, in my opinion, should be eliminated. Farmers should shoulder some risk with their business operations for a change.
I think society is facing an issue whereby full employment may be nearly impossible to come by due to technological advances. The need for human labor has simply decreased, and it will continue to do so. At some point this will need to be recognized; I can imagine that the whole idea of a 40-hour workweek may soon be outdated. We could quickly achieve full employment if we were to go to a 32-hour workweek, but I recognize it isn't that easy--although it is probably unevitable.
Most of the people who get the farm subsidies are the big agricultural companies, not the family farmer. I'm all for getting rid of those subsidies as well. Then again, I think people should be able to grow their own food, even in their front yard if they want.
You're quite wrong, you know. This is an agricultural area, and I can tell you that these so-called "family farms" are now corporate in structure--but still family owned. Many times, three or four "corporations" live under one roof so that they can maximize the subsidies they collect from the government (dad is Sunnyvale Corporation, mom is StayAtHome Corporation, and the boy is Mailbox Corporation, for example). You would be shocked at how much money those people "harvest" in their mailboxes.
In conservative right-wing Nebraska, the legislature is about to pass a law that will pay farmers $300 PER ACRE to NOT IRRIGATE in drought-stricken areas.
Fuck the farmers, and this is why I don't trust Republicans. They have their hands in our pockets every damned day.
Most of the people who get the farm subsidies are the big agricultural companies, not the family farmer. I'm all for getting rid of those subsidies as well. Then again, I think people should be able to grow their own food, even in their front yard if they want.
You're quite wrong, you know. This is an agricultural area, and I can tell you that these so-called "family farms" are now corporate in structure--but still family owned. Many times, three or four "corporations" live under one roof so that they can maximize the subsidies they collect from the government (dad is Sunnyvale Corporation, mom is StayAtHome Corporation, and the boy is Mailbox Corporation, for example). You would be shocked at how much money those people "harvest" in their mailboxes.
In conservative right-wing Nebraska, the legislature is about to pass a law that will pay farmers $300 PER ACRE to NOT IRRIGATE in drought-stricken areas.
Fuck the farmers, and this is why I don't trust Republicans. They have their hands in our pockets every damned day.
My friend owns a farm in Minnesota. Her brother rents out her farm for his crops. They don't get any government subsidies, I don't know what the heck you are talking about.
I'm from the farm belt too, and the farmers I know are families who have been farming for a hundred or more years.
The subsidies suck in theory but they have to use them. Most of them were conceived of and put into place to offset some governmental restriction on the farmers....like "you can't develop your land" or "You can only sell off land in 160 acre parcels" or "We don't want you to grow lima beans anymore, here you have to grow corn instead".
You're quite wrong, you know. This is an agricultural area, and I can tell you that these so-called "family farms" are now corporate in structure--but still family owned. Many times, three or four "corporations" live under one roof so that they can maximize the subsidies they collect from the government (dad is Sunnyvale Corporation, mom is StayAtHome Corporation, and the boy is Mailbox Corporation, for example). You would be shocked at how much money those people "harvest" in their mailboxes.
In conservative right-wing Nebraska, the legislature is about to pass a law that will pay farmers $300 PER ACRE to NOT IRRIGATE in drought-stricken areas.
Fuck the farmers, and this is why I don't trust Republicans. They have their hands in our pockets every damned day.
My friend owns a farm in Minnesota. Her brother rents out her farm for his crops. They don't get any government subsidies, I don't know what the heck you are talking about.
Primarily the subsidies come in the form of payments in the form of "crop insurance" and crop incentives. There for a while all the farmers were getting big chunks of money if they planted circle crops, or a particular type of wheat. I have a friend who gets insurance payments on crops every year, for one thing or another.
My husband's family had a family farm, and they were penalized and heavily taxed for any improvements they made to their grain elevators...or if they decided to let a field sit idle, and that land had water or birds on it...then the government would step in and declare it a "wildlife habitat" and they would be unable to use it.
They did things like paint all repairs with rust-colored paint so they wouldn't be observed by the ag workers who came out regularly...and drain ponds so that birds wouldn't land there...ridiculous shit that they shouldn't have to worry about.
When those idiotic laws are made, the feds make deals with the land owners, and those deals come in the form of subsidies. So every subsidy you see applied for farmland represents some degree of profitability or freedom that has been taken from landowners and business owners - who are also families - in this country. They represent federal interference and loss of liberty. They're bribes. And eventually, the government just stops payment on them. But you don't get your freedom or your land back.
Although this does not apply to everyone in all cases (nothing does), the economic system only operates efficiently on the premise of "lords and serfs;" the profit imperative necessarily requires exploitation of a workforce to maximize concentrated wealth.
It's driven by a quest for power, which infers the desire to control others.
IOW, it's complicated.
Unless you have actually been educated in the ideas and principles and value system of our nation's founders. When you have, you know that the system they set up for us REMOVED all authoritarian power including a pope or archbishop or monarch or fuedal lord or any other totalitarian power from having any ability to have power over the people without their express consent. The intention was for the federal government to secure our rights and provide a structure by which the various states could function as one strong nation. And then the people would be left alone to govern themselves and form whatever sort of societies they wished to have.
If we could return to that system, permanent poverty would again be a conscious choice rather than the result of government policy.
Although the "founders" may have had noble intentions, they had no way of predicting how society and technology would change things. We could no more "return to that system" than we could redesign our transportation infrastructure based upon horses and buggies. Why would we want to?
I think the fundamental problem is that it is nearly impossible to fairly govern 300+ million people with a single centralized democracy. Why in the world should a bunch of people in Oklahoma prevent New Yorkers from having a national health care system, for example? The system of government the founders envisioned may have been fine for 18th century America, but we've grown a bit since then . . . hell, they didn't even use oil back then.
Unless you have actually been educated in the ideas and principles and value system of our nation's founders. When you have, you know that the system they set up for us REMOVED all authoritarian power including a pope or archbishop or monarch or fuedal lord or any other totalitarian power from having any ability to have power over the people without their express consent. The intention was for the federal government to secure our rights and provide a structure by which the various states could function as one strong nation. And then the people would be left alone to govern themselves and form whatever sort of societies they wished to have.
If we could return to that system, permanent poverty would again be a conscious choice rather than the result of government policy.
Although the "founders" may have had noble intentions, they had no way of predicting how society and technology would change things. We could no more "return to that system" than we could redesign our transportation infrastructure based upon horses and buggies. Why would we want to?
I think the fundamental problem is that it is nearly impossible to fairly govern 300+ million people with a single centralized democracy. Why in the world should a bunch of people in Oklahoma prevent New Yorkers from having a national health care system, for example? The system of government the founders envisioned may have been fine for 18th century America, but we've grown a bit since then . . . hell, they didn't even use oil back then.
which is why they gave more power to the states. the problem we fave today is the fed has gradually been centralizing that power to themselves. it needs to revert back to the states because what is good for NY is not neccessarily good for nebraska
Oppressive excessive Taxation is all the Government has left. In the coming years, they'll have to soak the hard-working Middle Class to pay for these massive future Entitlements. I fully expect some sort of Rebellion. You can only use & abuse for so long. Everyone has their breaking-point.
Oppressive excessive Taxation is all the Government has left. In the coming years, they'll have to soak the hard-working Middle Class to pay for these massive future Entitlements. I fully expect some sort of Rebellion. You can only use & abuse for so long. Everyone has their breaking-point.
This is a good point. Our taxes are anything but progressive.
Oppressive excessive Taxation is all the Government has left. In the coming years, they'll have to soak the hard-working Middle Class to pay for these massive future Entitlements. I fully expect some sort of Rebellion. You can only use & abuse for so long. Everyone has their breaking-point.
This is a good point. Our taxes are anything but progressive.
This becomes even more obvious when one considers ALL forms of taxation and not just "federal income tax." Those that point at federal income tax to describe the entire tax burdens of our citizenry are either stupid or lying--probably both.
Oppressive excessive Taxation is all the Government has left. In the coming years, they'll have to soak the hard-working Middle Class to pay for these massive future Entitlements. I fully expect some sort of Rebellion. You can only use & abuse for so long. Everyone has their breaking-point.
This is a good point. Our taxes are anything but progressive.
This becomes even more obvious when one considers ALL forms of taxation and not just "federal income tax." Those that point at federal income tax to describe the entire tax burdens of our citizenry are either stupid or lying--probably both.
This is a good point. Our taxes are anything but progressive.
This becomes even more obvious when one considers ALL forms of taxation and not just "federal income tax." Those that point at federal income tax to describe the entire tax burdens of our citizenry are either stupid or lying--probably both.
the new game is, look we did not raise your federal taxes. we just cut federal funding to the states and many programs so they raised your state taxes. then we start adding taxes to anything we can think of. your booze, cigagrettes, phone service, purchases. then we'll make a special luxury tax for expensive purchases. now they are even looking to tax rain. seriously, it worked in MD and now lots of other states are looking at it as well as the fed.
This is a good point. Our taxes are anything but progressive.
This becomes even more obvious when one considers ALL forms of taxation and not just "federal income tax." Those that point at federal income tax to describe the entire tax burdens of our citizenry are either stupid or lying--probably both.
Which is why government should be at the lowest possible level to achieve the sort of society we wish to have. The more layers of government involved in any given situation, the more taxes will need to be collected, absorbed to fund the levels of government, and the less money will be available for those intended to benefit.
My friend owns a farm in Minnesota. Her brother rents out her farm for his crops. They don't get any government subsidies, I don't know what the heck you are talking about.
Primarily the subsidies come in the form of payments in the form of "crop insurance" and crop incentives. There for a while all the farmers were getting big chunks of money if they planted circle crops, or a particular type of wheat. I have a friend who gets insurance payments on crops every year, for one thing or another.
My husband's family had a family farm, and they were penalized and heavily taxed for any improvements they made to their grain elevators...or if they decided to let a field sit idle, and that land had water or birds on it...then the government would step in and declare it a "wildlife habitat" and they would be unable to use it.
They did things like paint all repairs with rust-colored paint so they wouldn't be observed by the ag workers who came out regularly...and drain ponds so that birds wouldn't land there...ridiculous shit that they shouldn't have to worry about.
When those idiotic laws are made, the feds make deals with the land owners, and those deals come in the form of subsidies. So every subsidy you see applied for farmland represents some degree of profitability or freedom that has been taken from landowners and business owners - who are also families - in this country. They represent federal interference and loss of liberty. They're bribes. And eventually, the government just stops payment on them. But you don't get your freedom or your land back.
I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on the subject of farmers. I see no other group in America that lives so well on other people's money. They don't need to invest in themselves through education or job training; they inherit their "jobs," and wait patiently for older relatives to die to get their land. They graduate from high school, and that's that. Nope, commodity farmers are not an impressive group of people overall.
This becomes even more obvious when one considers ALL forms of taxation and not just "federal income tax." Those that point at federal income tax to describe the entire tax burdens of our citizenry are either stupid or lying--probably both.
the new game is, look we did not raise your federal taxes. we just cut federal funding to the states and many programs so they raised your state taxes. then we start adding taxes to anything we can think of. your booze, cigagrettes, phone service, purchases. then we'll make a special luxury tax for expensive purchases. now they are even looking to tax rain. seriously, it worked in MD and now lots of other states are looking at it as well as the fed.
EXACTLY. And this is the reason I consider Ronald Wilson Reagan as the person most singly responsible for the undoing of the American middle class. His "tax cuts" actually moved taxation downward through the lower income groups--and his anti-labor extremism basically outlawed organized labor in the U.S. We may never again recover from the "supply side" economic scam perpetrated by Reagan. He effectively destroyed the America as we knew it, all for political success.
