economy grows!

[webexplorer]

I'm not into scrolling for backup materials....these things don't always have to be a 'political battle'.....chat means just chatting.
I am an agriculture grad....no BS....only two AS.....while back.
Subsidy program stend to change with the economic times etc. ISusidizing has afffects elsewhere in markets. Subsidizing to do 'nothing' also has other 'benefits'. Landowners are considered as land managers........'conservers of land'. Letting land go fallow has it's benefits. Wildlife management......grassland rehabilitation......farmers and ranchers are not going to do these things on thier own.....the alternative is the government 'subsidizing conservation programs at large expense.

Subsidizing is often not just paying to not grow...it is paying to grow a certain crop rather than what you desire......lesser payments.
Grassland management is very important....if one doesn't give a rat;s ass about the possibility of global warming them they couldn't give a shyt about grassland managements either.
Another point.........subsidies also help keep certain types of crops plentiful......
\ ok the idea of food stamps?......many people gripe about it's a freeload to people.....well it provides amarket for many farmers...increases farmers market share....it all has a kickback effect.
Things are complicated and one shouldn't rush to make a judgement. It's all tied together...

That's great that you are agriculture grad. My uncle is also graduated from University of Connecticut to study in agriculture when he was young. He is retired, and his job was to plow and constructed several new roads and highways for over 50 years. He loves to work on his own garden (without any chemicals) every year.

I think that conservation land, in my opinion, is a big problem. Rich and famous people who bought and conserved the lands. For example, approx. 70 percent of conservation lands already set up 25 years ago. Bill Cobsy, the actor, bought several largest properties in Western Massachusetts and perhaps some areas in New York in order to save wild animals to live there.
It seems that a conservation land usually does not work in some states because many towns are hungry for more money by developing more houses and commercials. Most town committees are a sort of ignored people who conserved the lands from their donations. But, I cannot proof it because we have no control over that issue.

In Connecticut, I had about 40 farms in my town. Now, we have about four farmers now which started 10 years ago. Some farmers gave up to get their money to do something else. The government seized 50 houses on a busy road and converted to two different malls - a nasty eminent domain. It used to be a country when I was a little kid. I feel sorry for deers and wild animals who lost their home. I don't see that many birds in my area. I knew that the lawn chemical treatments that made the birds and deers sick. The home owners don't care anything except money and beauty homes - of course which is obvious. I guess that there is a new law that changed the toxic chemicals to non-chemicals. But, in fact, it is too late for that because the toxic is still buried in the ground that go forever.

 

[Cowpuppy]

Yes you're right....some urban areas taking farmlands. Agri turned into corporate farming has made it too difficult for many to compete. Smalelr families.....the amounts of money offered for farmlands is hard to turn down for some...especially reaching retirement ages.
I'm not a fan of these large farm landowners recieveing big subsidies....some are filthy rich ...why they need it?
well it can serve a purpose in the markets sometimes....but hell....make em give something to charity or something....maybe donate into health care programs lol....oh boy here we go again. jk.
actually not a bad idea.....it's against free markets capitalism?....well hell if you get subsidy your free market claim is out the window.

That's great that you are agriculture grad. My uncle is also graduated from University of Connecticut to study in agriculture when he was young. He is retired, and his job was to plow and constructed several new roads and highways for over 50 years. He loves to work on his own garden (without any chemicals) every year.

I think that conservation land, in my opinion, is a big problem. Rich and famous people who bought and conserved the lands. For example, approx. 70 percent of conservation lands already set up 25 years ago. Bill Cobsy, the actor, bought several largest properties in Western Massachusetts and perhaps some areas in New York in order to save wild animals to live there.
It seems that a conservation land usually does not work in some states because many towns are hungry for more money by developing more houses and commercials. Most town committees are a sort of ignored people who conserved the lands from their donations. But, I cannot proof it because we have no control over that issue.

In Connecticut, I had about 40 farms in my town. Now, we have about four farmers now which started 10 years ago. Some farmers gave up to get their money to do something else. The government seized 50 houses on a busy road and converted to two different malls - a nasty eminent domain. It used to be a country when I was a little kid. I feel sorry for deers and wild animals who lost their home. I don't see that many birds in my area. I knew that the lawn chemical treatments that made the birds and deers sick. The home owners don't care anything except money and beauty homes - of course which is obvious. I guess that there is a new law that changed the toxic chemicals to non-chemicals. But, in fact, it is too late for that because the toxic is still buried in the ground that go forever.

 

[kokonut]

Bruce Babcock, "Money for Nothing: Acreage and Price Impacts of U.S. Commodity Policy for Corn, Soybeans, Wheat, Cotton, and Rice," in American Enterprise Institute, The 2007 Farm Bill and Beyond (Washington, D.C.: AEI Press, 2007), pp. 41–45, at
http://www.aei.org/docLib/20070516_Summary.pdf
(June 4, 2007). Title 1 subsidies are in effect “money for nothing.” (Babcock, p. 41).

It's better to have references to back up certain arguments or assertions.

 

[kokonut]

More...

John Frydenlund, "Farm Subsidies: Myth and Reality," Citizens Against Government Waste Issue Brief No. 1, April 3, 2007, at
http://www.cagw.org/site/DocServer/2007_Farm_Bill-_
Issue_Brief_1.pdf?docID=2121 (June 4, 2007).

It is essentially one big welfare program that does do anything to help small rural farmers but mostly to big agriculture conglomerates instead. This Farm Bill continues to be seriously messed up which is, again, a microcosm of how our govt works.

Further exposing the inequity of the system, the wealthiest 10% of farm subsidy recipients, namely large corporations, non-farming homeowners, and absentee landowners, receive approximately 67% of all subsidy payments under the Farm Bill.55

SSRN-The Sustainable Farm Bill: A Proposal for Permanent Environmental Change by William Eubanks

Most of the subsidy actually goes to large corporations than to those non-farming homeowners and absentee landowners when you break it down even further.

 

[Jiro]

here's an infographic of our water (link). Pretty much confirmed PFH's concern.

 

[Cowpuppy]

Making claims of 'references' proving truth is bunk.
So if Rush Limbaugh writes books we should all believe anything he wrote?
Ha ha ha ha...
Do you understand the concept of 'biased writing'.
Apparently not........adk around what it means....you don't seem to be able to listen to what people are saying here. Perhaps you can learn somewhere else.
You theory of 'an authors publication being a reference proof'. And try and spin it off as truth.
References.....well hell.....Al Gore wrote a book. If one was to quote his book.....suddenly your 'references are proof' theory goes out the window. You ridicule those references unless it is one you listed.
And hence we are now back on the 'double standard' issue.
It's better to have references to back up your theories????
So it's better I list Al Gores books?? ok.
BIASED REFERENCES.........goofy narcassistic self-lover.
In your world you worship reference as all deciding if you posted it but ridicule references if someone else post it. And then go on to think we don't catch on. Like I said....STOP INSULTING DEAFIES INTELLIGENCE.
You simply are insecure and need to step on people to feel big about yourself. Go to the hearing world with you insults. Why insult fellow deafies.
References are not all deciding big boy. And this is not college.
And being a googlegeek doesn't make one intelligent.Your reference doesn't look at end game results. Effects on prices. Markets.
And yeah....stated big farms get too much help and should be kicking back into system.
We also have to remain competitive in global agri markets. We do donate grains still. And supply global markets foods. And sustenance in natural disasters worldwide.
Open your mind. Use you head...not google button.

 

[webexplorer]

here's an infographic of our water (link). Pretty much confirmed PFH's concern.

That's a good one. I hope that everyone will drive a H20 vehicle, and airplanes so that they would reduce all kind of pollution except a few bad ones that might be remain for a long time - damn it.

I saw on the news that one of the Pratt & Whitney branches successfully experiment on a small model helicopter with H20 instead of gas recently. It is only beginning. I can't wait to get rid of foreign oil companies and our refinery oil industries that hurt our economy. I personally do not like this company because many people who worked there for 30 years, and some of them died from a cancer. Most of them lost their lawsuits two times.

 

[kokonut]

Making claims of 'references' proving truth is bunk.
So if Rush Limbaugh writes books we should all believe anything he wrote?
Ha ha ha ha...
Do you understand the concept of 'biased writing'.
Apparently not........adk around what it means....you don't seem to be able to listen to what people are saying here. Perhaps you can learn somewhere else.
You theory of 'an authors publication being a reference proof'. And try and spin it off as truth.
References.....well hell.....Al Gore wrote a book. If one was to quote his book.....suddenly your 'references are proof' theory goes out the window. You ridicule those references unless it is one you listed.
And hence we are now back on the 'double standard' issue.
It's better to have references to back up your theories????
So it's better I list Al Gores books?? ok.
BIASED REFERENCES.........goofy narcassistic self-lover.
In your world you worship reference as all deciding if you posted it but ridicule references if someone else post it. And then go on to think we don't catch on. Like I said....STOP INSULTING DEAFIES INTELLIGENCE.
You simply are insecure and need to step on people to feel big about yourself. Go to the hearing world with you insults. Why insult fellow deafies.
References are not all deciding big boy. And this is not college.
And being a googlegeek doesn't make one intelligent.Your reference doesn't look at end game results. Effects on prices. Markets.
And yeah....stated big farms get too much help and should be kicking back into system.
We also have to remain competitive in global agri markets. We do donate grains still. And supply global markets foods. And sustenance in natural disasters worldwide.
Open your mind. Use you head...not google button.

Still trying to do that armchair analysis again? If you have a reference to support your argument then use it, otherwise it may look like an uninformed opinion instead. For the record, I haven't seen any of your references so how can I "ridicule" it? That "reference" provides an additional context in support of an argument or an idea. Sometimes using the information found in a reference counters other people's own arguments or ideas. No harm in doing that, either.

That "competitiveness" is rife with subsidies in the agri business. We all know that. Maybe not all of us realize that. All one has to do is read the Farm Bill and understand where most the funding goes to and that is to big agri businesses rather than the smaller Mom and Pop farm familes who are struggling just to compete and make money. So, yeah, it'd be easier for big agri business to compete in that manner if they're the ones that get most of the subsidized fundings. That alone simply do not sound right. It is horribly skewed to one direction when it comes to the right kind of support to struggling farmers rather than to well off farmers or large agri businesses.

One way to help inflate prices or prop it up is when our govt buys the grains or other agriculture products. This is a known fact. It's not all so easy and clearcut here, CP, when it comes to market prices. It's not even a clear case of a true market capitalism at work here if the govt is heavily involved in the subsidization of our agriculture products at the market level. See here using the sugar crop as an example. Deal Sweeteners : The New Yorker

I'm using my head, you use your emotion and arm chair psychology analysis. Maybe it's you who need to knock it off and do a real discussion for once?

 

[kokonut]

Interesting you say that.
Just come here, you will find "Real life." They say Boulder is 35 sq miles surrounded by reality. Organic food is everywhere, organic this and that. It has gotten to the point, you almost don't check.

Check out Luciles Creole Cafe here in Boulder. This is a family owned restaurant. They just recently bought a farm to give their customers 1.) Locally grown 2.) Organic 3.) non political 4.) good food.
This is just to give you an example of WHAT I AM LIVING IN.

Missed this one.

It's fine and dandy that restraunts buy their vegetables and fruits from local, organically grown farms. It's common in many restaurants across the U.S. to do this. I've no problem with that and I applaud their efforts. But growing organic has an efficiency, scale and cost issue when it comes to the mass production of food for delivery to the rest of the population.

 

[Jiro]

Missed this one.

It's fine and dandy that restraunts buy their vegetables and fruits from local, organically grown farms. It's common in many restaurants across the U.S. to do this. I've no problem with that and I applaud their efforts. But growing organic has an efficiency, scale and cost issue when it comes to the mass production of food for delivery to the rest of the population.

that's where mass production of food comes in. It's already factored in the whole scheme that not everybody can afford or are interested in buying organic products. no problem there. no concern there.

The issue is the matter of dependency. One is free to choose to live off on supermarket and fast food.

 

[Cowpuppy]

Bunk and more bunk....
there you go again ..when you lose an argument you change the subject, etc.
I am not going to be ordered by some narcassist to supply references. I am not here as a college project. It is supposes to be fun....not schoolwork. Keep your anal obssessions to yourself.
The guts of the post was defining your double standard of touting references as all encompassing and absolute truth. So, how are other people's post such as Al gore's book not defined as all encompassing and absolute truth such as you claim your references to be.
It's quite simple....don't try to change the point.
We actually agree on this topic but you have to turn it into some kinda of political argument. As I noted in earlier post concerning this......I wasn't trying to create a political argument.....just chat. You don't know how to do that without creating politics. You simply want to argue with everyone....even if they agree. Nuts. You can't agree with anyone so hell with ya.
Stop ordering people to play your references game.
And stop insulting deafies with you continuing efforts to place yourself apart from them.
And yes....I consider my self insightful concerning peoples actions and thier intentions. I'm ok with it.
Ridicule people all you want when you have no contest.
Your pattern is to make snotty comments about the poster when you lose an argument. And of course...pattern is to demand a 'reference' as though that defines anything as absolute truth. Or as though someones argument is moot without references....bullcrap. Don't try and put others into your little game.. You don't respecdt any references posted by any democrat....so who the hell are you to imply that references hold any water......oh, only if posted by you...is that correct?
Your arguments don't make any sense...they come from your obssessionally biased head. You are the only one not seeing that you are completely biased.
Double standard.....look it up...ask around...educate yourself.
You are really ridiculous......rush limbaugh.....these type of things you seem to thinnk you're fooling people here...you're not.....you insult deafies.
rush limpbaugh is an insult to deafies.
Do me a favor and don't even respond....I am quite sick of your self pandering. Narcassistic....self love......yeah look it up...educate yourself, Mr. Demand References College Professor.
See...the thing you are doing with the constant references demand is you are trying to elevate yourself above people and appear to be an intelligent college professor....mimicking an instructor. We ain't in college. And you are not elevated above other deafies. and you don't respect others references anyway so what is your point. It is only the appearance you are concerned with. And use it to change subject when ya lost. give it up...ya gots nada but self love.
Stop insulting other deafies with your attempts to elevate yourself above them.

Still trying to do that armchair analysis again? If you have a reference to support your argument then use it, otherwise it may look like an uninformed opinion instead. For the record, I haven't seen any of your references so how can I "ridicule" it? That "reference" provides an additional context in support of an argument or an idea. Sometimes using the information found in a reference counters other people's own arguments or ideas. No harm in doing that, either.

That "competitiveness" is rife with subsidies in the agri business. We all know that. Maybe not all of us realize that. All one has to do is read the Farm Bill and understand where most the funding goes to and that is to big agri businesses rather than the smaller Mom and Pop farm familes who are struggling just to compete and make money. So, yeah, it'd be easier for big agri business to compete in that manner if they're the ones that get most of the subsidized fundings. That alone simply do not sound right. It is horribly skewed to one direction when it comes to the right kind of support to struggling farmers rather than to well off farmers or large agri businesses.

One way to help inflate prices or prop it up is when our govt buys the grains or other agriculture products. This is a known fact. It's not all so easy and clearcut here, CP, when it comes to market prices. It's not even a clear case of a true market capitalism at work here if the govt is heavily involved in the subsidization of our agriculture products at the market level. See here using the sugar crop as an example. Deal Sweeteners : The New Yorker

I'm using my head, you use your emotion and arm chair psychology analysis. Maybe it's you who need to knock it off and do a real discussion for once?

 

[Calvin]

Mod note:

Thread is closed.