spook12
New member
Another good post.
Should people who accept government assistance/handouts be allowed to vote? It's a conflict of interest in many ways.
Who would be left to vote?
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.
Another good post.
Should people who accept government assistance/handouts be allowed to vote? It's a conflict of interest in many ways.
Who would be left to vote?
Who would be left to vote?
I would suggest that ALL the polls could be left closed from now on if anyone that receives''Government assistance/handouts'' not be allowed to vote.
So you are suggesting that ALL Americans receive government handouts?
Interesting perspective.
.[/I]
Pretty much, yeah. Do you know anyone who doesn't buy gas,electricity or food?
I know a lot of farmers and ranchers who wished our government didn't get involved at all. In addition they would like to market their products to any willing payer but our government uses food exports as a weapon in trade wars and boycotts etc, etc.
I can't justify many of the things our government spends money on including farm subsidies. I can argue that just because one industry is subsidized that doesn't mean you get any special consideration to access the things that industry owns.
Nemont
Wow!!! Great comment! I can honestly say that we do not receive any government payments because we ranch, and don't farm....there is a difference. My in-laws farm a boat load, wether they receive any subsidies...I don't know and don't give a rat's ass and damn sure don't judge them one way or the other. But why in the hell would you bitch about what the ag sector gets in government payments when they are the ones that are feeding your family? Contrary to popular belief, your protein sources do not come from the "grocery store". They are actually raised by farmers and ranchers that deal with drought, high input costs, volatile markets, severe weather one way or another, insects and a plethora of other variables, to not only provide for their own families, but also yours. But yet you think that you should be granted access if they receive any government subsidies....? Un "goddamned" believable!! If it weren't for the ag producers in the U.S., you and your family would be consuming inferior quality foods at a higher price.
Just because they might receive some payments does not entitle you to "Jack Shit"!! If I it is that important to you, there is plenty of good hunting/ag ground that you could damn sure purchase, and then you could be the lucky recipient of all of this "free" money.
FWIW... Many, if not most, farmers in Indiana are not farming just what they own. The majority of producers I've known that do it full time lease/rent the majority of their acres. Cash rent prices vary, but $250/acre is not unheard of nor uncommon these days. However, with current commodity prices, cash rent is becoming less common. Many owners are now going on a percetage basis of the harvested. In some cases, any payment/subsidy is split between the owner and the tenant, but probably as often it's an either or proposition with one or the other being the one enrolled. Either way, the rules and limitations of enrollement and payment apply."Jack shit", huh? Well no ag folks GIVE my family "Jack shit"!!!!! Not only do I work to pay for (or hunt for) my family's food I PUT FOOD ON THEIR TABLES, both through profits and FREEBIES. As for purchasing land and growing crops, it is not the BUSINESS I choose or could affod even if I wanted to due to the incredibly inflated land prices we currently enjoy in my home area thanks wholely to our farmer buddies. I don't know about your family or where you live, but the majority of farmers in my county at home never bought an acre of land. Rather, some distant relative several generations ago was either fortunate enough to be at the right place at the right time or put forth the effort to clear the land. The current folks, for the most part, inherited their land and now have an attitude, JUST LIKE YOURS, that we all owe them not only undying gratitude for them actually doig their JOB but tax funds for eternity so that they can keep doing what they want, even if they can't be profitable on their own...now THAT IS UNBELIEVABLE!!!
The venom you and the other ag guys spew is a perfect example of the attitude of entitlement that is the problem..."You owe us, keep paying us out of your pocket ...TWICE, don't think about qestioning how jacked-up the welfare we recieve is, even though you pay for it...blahblahblah"
That said, these are federal programs which are very seperate from the state management of wildlife and hunting. As such, the tying of these two things (state approved hunting access to lands recieving federal ag subsidy/payments) requirement together is all but impossible and very improbable. I doubt either side would abdicate the funds or the management of their "sphere of influence" to the other. One way it has been done is through agreements. For instance, some states pay a CRP participant extra over what the get from the Feds for CRP to allow access. But, to have access tied to participation in federal programs, I can't ever see that happening and would have to research it, but I doubt that it's even legal.
The venom you and the other ag guys spew is a perfect example of the attitude of entitlement that is the problem..."You owe us, keep paying us out of your pocket ...TWICE, don't think about qestioning how jacked-up the welfare we recieve is, even though you pay for it...blahblahblah"
"Venom seems to flow whenever this subject comes up. If it is a gravy train, why not buy up some land now, have the government pay for it and cash the big checks then sit back and count your money? You seem to be jealous that other have more than you, get used to it life isn't fair. I am not 6'5" and built like a Greek God, or have the attributes of John Holmes but then again I eat doughnuts and am part Irish. Get over it. "
Nemont
Having personally lived on 3 continents and in 5 countries other than our own, I can say that you have a seriously generous vision of what other countries would be willing or able to pay for our commodities. Having seen both the fairly prosperous European and dirt poor Asians I am pretty confident in saying that most who could afford to buy produce large amounts for themselves and the others simply can't afford it. I have faith in what we like to call a "free market" economy. Social programs (see Socialism) do nothing but cripple us in the long term.
Given the grossly inflated land prices at home, due in large part to our farming brothers and the lucrative nature of what they do and receive, I cannot afford to buy even a reasonably sized tract of land. If it isn't lucrative why aren't there farms for sale everywhere at reduced rates? A September 2012 Purdue Ag Department survey found that good quality IN cropland was going for and average of $7,704/acre and that when it became "transitional" with the possiblity of going from Ag to another purpose that value increased to $8,505/acre. During the year prior to that survey they found that across the state Ag land values had increased at rates of 14.3%-18.1%. Compare that to what all the other taxpayers helping to foot Ag bills are seeing on their property values (let alone the subs, rent and straight profit)and it becomes even more offensive. You are definitely right that life isn't fair BUT is not a matter of jealousy. It is a matter of disgust that I, and other taxpayers, are paying for the priviledge of being priced out of land ownership and any and all uses of that land and continue to be told we should be grateful for it. As soon as my tax money stops being used for purposes which are directly opposed to my best interests I will GET OVER IT.