cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Senior Contributor

Re: I'm perplexed???

Hey Schnurrbart, farm programs vary with different parts of the country, yields,acre bases,local prices, crops grown. Generally with corn the program gives a direct payment that farmers being farmers bid "direcrtly" into their cash rent bids, so simply you if don`t have that extra you can`t bid competively on cash rent, this is why alot of us say get rid of programs, money goes in one hand and out the other, zero net gain. On the guns, I`m satisfied with laws on the books right now and I`m against nutters running around with FULLY auto AK-47`s. Clinton and the Dems put in the disasterous "brady bill" Dems never met ADDITIONAL gun laws they didn`t like. Was Pelosi Lying when she said the Dems would push for "Meaningfull gun control in Obama`s 2nd term" not on THAT issue! On gay marriage, everytime I`ve asked this you liberals have WIMPED OUT I`m sure this time will be no different! Are you for 40 yr olds marrying 12 yr olds?  One man marrying 2 men and 3 women?  Well why NOT?????  "what do you care"??  "Does it harm you in anyway"??  "I don`t get it". "They don`t take anything away from you and they don`t hurt you".

Veteran Advisor

Re: I'm perplexed???

  The statistics tell a different story, as 90% of all subsidies go to the top 10% of farmers. So the remaining 10% of money is either a pretty big chunk of change because it's spread among 90% of the remainder, or it's just another fallacy that is used to justify your using them.

   Another pesky little tidbit that needs to be brought up is the fact that 80% of farmers want those same subsidies to continue, and that was proven when they were asked during input sessions for the new Farm Bill.

Veteran Advisor

Re: I'm perplexed???

Meaningful gun control means things like being against Arizona's no training no permit no worry concealed carry law that lets anyone carry a concealed weapon and they can carry it into bars "as long as they don't drink"!  Ha!  Stopping the sale of assault weapons to every day citizens.  I repeat NO ONE IS GOING TO EVER TAKE AWAY GUNS IN THIS COUNRY!!  We already have laws against under age and multiple spouse marriages so again why are you REALLY against gays????

Re: I'm perplexed???

Mollie - this a a good example of what I have been telling you.  You jump in first to reply with such stupid logic.  Read some of the posts below and learn how a real debate is had.  Your shoot from the hip approach indicates little thought has gone into your reply.  Take heed.

Senior Contributor

Nope, Nope, Nope

Meaningfull gun control to Chuck U Schummer, Barb Boxer, The late Toad Kennedy and others mean getting rid of 50 caliber rifles, magazines of over 5 or 10 rds, possesing "2,000 ROUNDS OF AMMO!!!!" better known as 4 bricks of .22 shells to those of us with a IQ above 40. All that crap the Democrats have been documented to being for in the past. All with the ultimate goal of getting rid of handguns and everything above a single shot 22 or 410 as Canuck would say "What more would you need!!" I do know some of this conceal carry is getting too lax, I`m sure liberals pray to Darwin each day that some nutter goes off on a McDonalds full of kids to give them a "crisis to not let go to waste".  The world has went on for thousands of years with no gay marriage, why do this crap now? This isn`t my original thought, but someone said marriage will cause homosexuals to go extinct in a couple generations. In the past they had to pretend to have a family, passing their "gay gene" to their children. With gay marriage there will be no reason to pretend, there for no procreating, only doing their stuff.  The things that make you go hmmm. 

Senior Contributor

Re: I'm perplexed???

hey gooboy glad to see you are still BEHIND me --now tell us waht was wrong with my reply--it was correct  and true--so i can see why you would have trouble with it ---aint this fun

Senior Contributor

Re: I'm perplexed???

With those stats of farmers wanting the programs to continue boils down to is, if you`ve farmed the last 10 yrs you`ve seen $1.40 cash corn (way below COP)  to the 3 hours one day it was above $8.00. There`s a lot of uncertainty out here, a year from now it could go below $2.00 again and to know you`re walking a tight rope with no net is scary. Farms have taken on debt and probably $3.00 corn would give `em a nasty haircut. The farm program is too complicatated to explain in one paragragh but basically  the lower the price of corn goes below $2.50 the more the gov`t pays out and above $2.50 the gov mostly sends out just the direct payment...basically Smiley Happy  Hey I`m just reporting. 

Senior Contributor

Re: I'm perplexed???

Your argument of there not being a net doesn't hold much water.  Harvest corn futures for 2011 settled today at $4.92.  Harvest corn futures for 2012 settled today at $4.50.  Harvest corn futures for 2013 settled today at $4.62.  It seems to me that there is plenty of net available.  If you choose not to use the net that is available, well that's entirely your choice.

 

The reason I'm against doing away with farm programs boils down to I get sick and tired of what I produce being used as a weapon by our gov't.  The first thing we do to a country that doesn't fall in line with our thinking is trade embargoes.  The number one thing embargoed is food products.  I would have absolutely no problem with doing away with farm programs/payments if our gov't wouldn't use ag. products as a weapon. 

Veteran Contributor

Re: I'm perplexed???

Seems like alot of "smart people" are moving south, not north, because they like the weather, better job opportunities and our women are thinner and better looking.  That's been going on for years.  Did you miss that somehow? 

Veteran Advisor

Re: I'm perplexed???

Funny you'd mention that...I just lookedni at PKrugman's blog and gets after it from somewhat the same angle today:

 

 

I’ve been thinking about the ongoing Irish mess, and I suddenly realized the true nature of Ireland’s big mistake.

It should have been Texas.

Think about it: the savings and loan crisis was about runaway banks, which had to be bailed out at (huge) taxpayer expense. And as best I can figure, about half the taxpayer cost came from just one state: Texas. Yet the burden was borne nationally. So it was as if the European Union as a whole were taking responsibility for Anglo Irish etc., which would of course make the whole Irish situation much less serious.

The Irish just picked the wrong continent on which to engage in crony capitalism.

 

From the FDIC:

 

Because Texas S&Ls had been among the most aggressive growers, the situation there was particularly acute. By year-end 1987, insolvent Texas S&Ls accounted for 44 percent of the assets in all RAP-insolvent S&Ls in the country, and the unprofitable Texas thrifts accounted for 62 percent of all losses nationwide.