Scandal-plagued Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann (D-OH) resigned yesterday . Dann will apparently return home to spend time with his family.
The House passed the farm bill by a veto proof margin, 318-106
. Food stamp programs were widely expanded in the bill. Update: The Senate passed the bill 81-15
, with none of the presidential hopefuls voting. Looks like Bush's imminent veto will be overridden.
On this day:
Fmr. Sec. of State Madeleine Albright was born in Prague, Czechoslovakia (now the Czech Republic). (1937)
Ironically, former NFL football players Emmitt Smith and Ryan Leaf
were both born today. (1969, 1976) I say ironic because Smith ranks as one of the best running backs in NFL history while Leaf is known as the worst bust in NFL history and perhaps in all of professional sports.
The Red Army begins withdrawing from Afghanistan. (1988)
__________________________
I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
Stereotyping
West Virginia as 'Goobers R Us' is equally as offensive to me as stereotyping all blacks as lazy welfare cases, or all public schools as liberal indoctrination centers. Enough already.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
Bush goes after Obama in Israel
The Smears Begin
Obama responds
immediately.
Bush:
Nice. Nazi tanks and talking to Hitler.
Obama responds almost instantly:
Nice. Extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and using fear do nothing to secure America.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
Bush has a History degree from an Ivy League school...
Apparently either Bush didn't have the same sources I did in my class that covered Germany History from the 3 wars of German unification up until the end of WWII. Otherwise, Bush might know that Hitler would have not tried to invade Poland had he recieved messages during talks that further "aggression" after the Sudetenland would be met with force, unless of course Hitler was lying about that.
Bush needs to pick up golf again...
__________________________In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Typical liberal. Even WITH 20/20 hindsight you would believe...
that Hitler would not lie. This is precisely why liberals have no place in national security matters.
Nope, Hitler never would have lied ... just ask the Russians
. You might want to actually find some new (and hopefully more complete) history sources, eh?
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Hitler was a megalomaniac, not a mythomaniac.
I assume you're joking, because Adolf had no reason to lie [my lying comment was meant as a joke, because Adolf had zero incentive to lie]. Adolf was testing the limits with the Sudetenland and received effectively no resistance, so the operation to take over Polish land went ahead..
With the NAP with "the
Russians[Soviets]", Hitler had a very good reason to lie, avoid a second front until he thought it was mission almost accomplished with the Brits.In a coincidence, Hitler began his assault on the Soviets the same day little Napoleon started his campaign versus Russia.
__________________________In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Sorry, now you're confusing things ...
... for me at least.
I have no idea what you are trying to say with the above statement. It seems to indicate that we were both joking in spite of the fact that we were taking diametrically opposed positions.
By "my lying comment" I assume you must mean your comment about Hitler lying (i.e. "unless of course Hitler was lying about that"), as opposed to admitting that your comment was a lie somehow. Given the context above this seems the most plausible interpretation.
However, both "your lying comment" and the comment above (i.e. "because Adolf had zero incentive to lie") imply that you don't think Hitler would lie and, therefore, I actually DO stand by my statement that even with 20/20 hindsight here you are defending Hitler as an honorable sort of diplomat who could be taken at his word in spite of the fact that I have provided a key example of where he did, in fact, lie.
Meh, an accurate point from our current perspective but speaking from the German perspective they referred to the ensuing front as the "Russian Front"
:
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Did you read my entire post?
Or are you just messing with my head?
"With the NAP with "the Russians [Soviets]", Hitler had a very good reason to lie [I just said Hitler lied], avoid a second front until he thought it was mission almost accomplished with the Brits.
And ", because Adolf had no reason to lie [about stopping further aggression]" That wasn't a blanket statement about Hitler never telling lies. One can lie and not be a mythomaniac.
I don't have the source my first post was made on, the source was given by my prof. It was not in a speech to put the onus on the Allies for passively colluding with the Nazis land grab, so he had no reason to lie about that particular topic that I just talked about in this paragraph.
__________________________In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Smear? What smear? I just don't see any smear here.
Bush's comment is spot on.
No action? What's all this complaining about the Iraq and Afganistan actions then? Why are the liberals whining about the amount we are spending to keep the US safe if that amounts to no action? I detect some intellectually challenged thinking on the part of Obama here.
Quite the opposite, actually, Obama is
__________________________proposingtelegraphing that HE will take no action ... and he won't even be using tough talk, he'll be using diplomacy.Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Great stuff GR
We will be looking forward to the next innocent statement of non-smear....... which will be going after Obama's wife.
Did you find those WMD's yet?
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
No, but we definitely know they existed ...
The UN inspectors said so after Gulf War I.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
You should watch Olbermann,
You should watch Olbermann, it might lead to a brand new television or monitor in your future
__________________________http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iy7-W8VX0o8
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
I report. You decide.
Here is the video of Bush's comment in Israel. Attacking Obama? Don't think so.
Seems like Obama may feel a bit guilty here for something because Bush doesn't mention Obama once. Did these comments just hit a little too close to home for the candidate of unrepentent domestic terrorists and America haters?
UPDATE:
The bottom line here seems to be that telling the truth about people in the Democrat Party somehow equates to an unfair attack. How interesting.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
all this plays right into the hands of the
Rapture crowd. The Jim Hagee's of the world.
Bringing in Hitler...... nice touch of class there by the Prez.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
At least one pundit came to
At least one pundit came to the conclusion that the quote was either directed at Obama, a Straw Man, or Bush's Defense Secretary, since Gates proposed talks with Iran after gaining some leverage. I think most people agree that it was a thinly veiled quote aimed at Obama.
__________________________In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
some people say
It wasn't even thinly veiled. But that's just some people.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
What about reasonable people?
But what are "reasonable people" who don't suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome saying?
__________________________I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
Reasonable people are saying,
I was born at night, but not last night. This was obviously directed at Obama.
When all else fails, play the Hitler card. For maximum impact play it at the 60th anniversary of the creation of Israel.
Bush's next stop, Saudi Arabia, a nation that has not recognized Israel's right to exist.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
hey guys
I know I haven't been around much in the last couple of weeks - lots of stuff going on. I will be away for the next 10-11 days until after Memorial day. I am actually flying to South Korea with my girlfriend (she is Korean) tonight.
I hope you all don't kill each other while I am gone and I'll be back in the political swing of things after!
If there are problems with the site, admins email me at my regular email address -- I should be checking it once a day or so.
See you all soon!
__________________________"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Have fun.
Going to meet the folks?? hehehe
hehehe
Yes. Should be fun. Of course it will be great to see the city (they live in Seoul) and experience the life.
__________________________"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Spicy kim-shee. Mmmm, I love it.
Some Koreans still consider dog a delicousy though. Please Ender, if you do happen to eat some dog, don't tell us.
I can eat your dog? ;)
Heh, ok I will let you know. In the last year I've greatly improved my taste for spicy food so should be cool.
__________________________"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Very cool.
We want a full report with pictures when you get back.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
hehe will do
I'll be taking a lot of pictures!
__________________________"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I see
so I introduce you to the wonders of Grace Park and suddenly you get a Korean girlfriend. Karma indeed.
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
lol
I am not sure if that was before or after I met my girlfriend :) Still meeting her was unrelated to Grace Park though!
__________________________"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Denying Americans the right to vote right before our eyes.
You are all familiar with what's going on in Missouri as far as American's being able to vote
aren't you? Well, Digby points out a case in Arizona 
that's even worse.
"Perhaps no one knows that as well as 97-year-old Shirley Freeda Preiss. She was born at home in Clinton, Kentucky in 1910, before women had the right to vote, and never had a birth certificate...After living in Arizona for two years, she was eagerly looking forward to casting her ballot in the February primary for the first major woman candidate for President, Hillary Clinton. But lacking a birth certificate or even elementary school records to prove she's a native-born American citizen, the state of Arizona's bureaucrats determined that this former school-teacher who taught generations of Americans shouldn't be allowed to vote. "I have a constitutional right to vote, don't I?" she asks with her soft Southern drawl. "I didn't get to vote because of a birth certificate. What am I going to do now?" Her strong-willed 78-year-old son, Nathan "Joey" Nemnich, a World War II veteran, is infuriated. "I'm pissed. She's an American citizen who worked her whole life and I want her to vote," he says. He went down to the local Motor Vehicle Division to get her an Arizona ID and register her to vote, armed with copies of his mother's three drivers' licenses from her previous home in Texas, along with copies of her Social Security and Medicare cards. All that wasn't good enough for the state of Arizona. "The sons of bitches are taking away our Constitution," Nemnich says."
Digby finishes with:
"In Arizona and now as seems likely in Missouri, Kafkaesque rules blend with right-wing ideology to block American citizens like Shirley Preiss from voting, collateral damage in the Republican-led war on democracy."
It reminds me of this memorable (paraphrased) refrain:
When they came for the gays and gypsys, I didn't care because I wasn't gay or a gypsy. When they came for the Communists, I didn't care because I wasn't a Communist. When they came for the Jews, I didn't care because I wasn't jewish. Now they've come for me, and there is nobody left to care.
Theft of our elections, either national, state or local is a bigger problem to us here in the United States than the threat we face from Osama bin Laden. I say that because the one's trying to impose their canditates on the rest of us are right here, right now. Osama I don't fear. These people I fear very very much.
Food Stamps. A story
A personal story
.
I was on WIC
I don't recall it, but I was raised on WIC until I was about 5 or so. Being literally dirt poor is not something anyone wants to try.
__________________________I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
"Spending time with the family"
I'm pretty sick of the "he resigned to spend more time with the family" BS. Just once couldn't they tell the truth? You know something like:
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
You need to read The Onion more.
They're the only ones who would lay it out like that.
Given that he (Dann) is a Democrat ...
your version would seem appropriate.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Are you trying to take Ann's
Are you trying to take Ann's job?
__________________________In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
CA Supreme Court overturns Gay Marriage ban
California now joins Massechusetts as the only other state that will allow gays to marry.
But for those who frown upon this, there has already been a ballot submitted for the November election calling for making a Gay Marriage Ban a Constitutional Ammendment to the CA Constitution.
Why is it that people fear gays being able to marry so?
IOW,
Of the busy bodies in the 50 state legislatures, which are still under the arrogantly mistaken belief that it is within their natural right and natural province to allow or ban the natural right of association as they fancy themselves the right of seeing fit, those in 48 are still favoring the greater and even more misguided hubristic vanity of banning it.
Government shouldn't be sanctioning any marriage
Marriage is a religious institution and should stay that way. Government should not sanction any marriage.
Now if they want to encourage domestic partnerships, that's an entire different ball of wax.
__________________________I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
If it were broken out that way, I would be OK with it.
But then you'd have some folks up in arms because their tax forms would all talk about their "Civil Unions" not their marriage.
Still, I agree with you. Churches that don't condone gay marriages wouldn't be forced to preform them. Those that would, would preform them.
But then what do we do about those fundamentalist LDS folk? I myself don't care if they marry 20 consenting adults. But I don't want them to get 20 write offs on their taxes. (that's snark kinda, please don't make that a central issue)
The OT, at the very least,
The OT, at the very least, implicitly allows polygamy.
But if the gov't wants to ban polygamy, so be it.
__________________________http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans+13:1-7
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
My prefereed solution as well
and it elegantly negates any slippery slope arguments-
By removing marriage entirely form the legal code and instead using a form of civil partnership (or several different types of partnerships) to give property, social, and parenting rights it no longer matters if a person wants to enter into said partnership with a man or woman or two men or three women or whatever.
I'd probably remove the tax break altogether as it's never really made any sense.
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Right
I don't see why a family can't be organized like any other business partnership. Treat the family unit as you would a business partnership and all this hand waving about taxes falls away.
__________________________I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
Good ideas....
how libertarian of you.
:)
I'm a big fan of separating church and state. -nt.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
They should eliminate it.
The whole dogma about being responsible for yourself is important.
They don't let mother's who are receiving assistance get more money when they have another kid any more. And not to be selfish but if someone is pumping out multiple babies, they are going to cost society more in the services they receive from society. Why should they get a discout because of this? I've been really responsible all my life in not making life cost more for those around me. Why is it that I have to pay more in taxes than someone who actually uses more of our governments services?
Now....a good way to do it that is "fair". Allow for a deduction for one kid. Anything more than that & you just have to plan accordingly.
tax breaks for parents make some sense
Anyone who has a dependent is doing some of the work of the state in caring for that person who cannot (for one reason or another) take care of themselves. I was talking more about the tax break for a married adults.
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I don't see the sense in any universally meaningful
or justifiable reason to give tax breaks for certain circumstances.
If the govt. is going to tax income at whatever percentages...then so be it. But stop there. No deductions for anything. Just lower the percentages and end the whole calculation right there.
The only totally and dispassionately "fair" tax code is one that does not favor anyone for any reason. Now of course, I don't think some degree of progressivity in the code is really part of this issue. To me that is a little different at the risk of sounding like I'm contradicting myself.
What I'm talking about are choices like owning a home, having a child, buying a Hummer or whatever. A truly and absolutely fair code simply levies a percentage of tax on your income and that's it.
The single person living in an apartment and using the subway should not be charged an effectively higher rate than a married person with a home and two children and a Hummer in the driveway.
Natural rights
I tend to shun the very idea of natural rights (I believe all rights are done by social contract), but if they do exist or I assume they do, right #1 would certainly have to be the right to have children. It is THE reason we exist.
Obviously there can be reasonable limitations on rights, and for what it's worth, I don't think you're arguing anything close to saying that people shouldn't actively be stopped from procreating, but finances shouldn't enter into the equation when one decides whether or not to be a parent.
For instance, my decision should be based on whether or not I want to be responsible for bringing new life into the world, for all its goods or bads, not that I don't have enough money to provide more than a meager existence for that child.
__________________________I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
I embrace natural rights
We do not have natural rights because of a state says so. We have natural rights because we are human and they are part of our humanity. In the absence of a state we would still have our natural rights.
The state exists to protect rights and not to grant them.
And child bearing is a personal choice and natural right and not right granted by the state.
The flourishing of man's higher level of existence from pestilence, serfdom and being at the mercy of some divine king to a free being with the right to one's self, thoughts and property is a direct and unequivocal result of the acceptance of this.
Do what you want, when you want and how you want...so long as you respect the commons and others' rights to do the same. The state has no true business administering spoils for certain actions.
I'm not finding myself disagreeing here
I think we find the same conclusion but starting at different places. We have all rights absent a state. We have the right to speak freely, rape, murder, steal, etc.
The state rightly protects some rights at the expense of others. Which rights we choose to protect are a matter of social contract among men, not by any inherent order in the universe.
A legitimate state could plausibly decide to protect the right to rape people and shun the right of free worship. I wouldn't want to live under such a state, but so long as the people largely agree (lets say 67% or so), the government and rights protected are legitimate. In other words, all rights are equal.
__________________________I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
Some rights are more equal than others
I'm going to have to disagree with you here. I don't think we have the right to murder absent a state. There are some things that are inherently wrong. Sure, you could hypothetically have a state which allows murder, but it's not just you - no one would want to live there. That in itself should tell you that this "right to murder" is not equal to say, the right to speak freely.
__________________________We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
yes.
Natural Rights
do not include the right to infringe on the natural rights of others. Thus, rape and theft, for example, do not fall under my list of rights. IOW, you're stretching the meaning of natural rights beyond their scope in order to find a possible problem with them.
Natural Rights supersede any social contract. If anything, a social contract exists to protect or recognize those rights.
Legal rights are another matter. They are creations of the state and social contracts.
See Natural Rights
.
We'll have to disagree
I would agree with that only because the term "natural rights" has no meaning for me in your context. Social contract will always protect a natural right, but it will leave many unprotected, which is why I say social contract is where rights "come from" in practical terms.
The idea that I have a right to free speech but my government doesn't protect that right and, subsequently, I'm not able to exercise that right doesn't really mean much in practice. Similarly, the fact that I say all rights are equal but most of us value some more than others makes little difference in practice. It's not the rights that are unequal, it's our value of them. A little semantic CYA never hurt anyone. :-)
I could devolve into ideas that rights exist absent people, animals, or even life or matter itself (ie. if the universe didn't exist, would rights exist? -- or put another way -- did God or some other deity create the concept of rights or did they exist before Him?), but thats another debate for another time.
__________________________I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
You don't HAVE TO disagree.... :)
Natural Rights are simply a right to life and self and all things therefrom.
Ya know....certain "INALIENABLE RIGHTS ENDOWED BY OUR CREATOR"....that kinda "self-evident" stuff.
To me, a social contract is to grant and agree upon non-natural rights (read: legal rights) and the protection natural rights that a state can neither grant nor take away.
No creator
Some rights would seem to be "self-evident" but the fact that not all people agree on what rights are self-evident and what ones aren't means that there is some wiggle room.
If there is a creator then we do have natural rights, but I'm not going to buy that there is unless someone can prove it to me that one does exist.
__________________________I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
OK, let's circumvent that figure of speech:
endowed by their very birth as human beings....does that work better?? ;)
from wiki link above:
A natural right is the concept of a universal right inherent in the nature of living beings, one that is not contingent upon laws or beliefs.....A natural right is one that is said to exist even when it is not enforced by the government or society,...proponents of the concept of natural rights say that documents like the American Declaration of Independence, and social contracts like the Constitution of the United States, demonstrate the usefulness of recognizing natural rights....almost all include the right to life and liberty, as these are considered to be the two highest priorities....to deny this right is to deny that we have a right to be human, which would be absurd, just as it would be absurd to demand that carnivores reject meat or that fish stop swimming.
see also Natural Law
Or, as Bastiat so eloquently said in The Law:
"Life, faculties, production — in other words, individuality, liberty, property — this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God [or whoever or whatever] precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place."
Is homosexuality a 'natural' right?
Some say yes.
Some say no.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
No, it's not a right.
it's an involuntary condition like having brown eyes, blond hair or being left-handed.
And shame on the ignorant who pretend it's a correctable choice or frivolous right to misbehave.
Is sex a natural right?
It is the economy, stupid.
Pursuit of happiness! n/t
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Pursuit of happy a$$? -nt.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
No good solution
Assistance is for the child, not the parent. I have trouble telling little Mikey that because his mom is an unsavory character, that he has to starve. The alternatives aren't much better. For instance, forced sterilization isn't my cup of tea.
I'm actually for increased government involvement in the lives of children with questionable parents. More kids should be taken away from their parents. The only problem here is the false positive rate. For every news story about the crack whore with 8 kids who fell through the cracks in the system (no pun intended), there's a good family who has an overly clumsy child.
A lot of this could be fixed with changed social attitudes. I'm from Huron county, Ohio, which at one time had the highest per-capita teenage pregnancy rate in the state. It may still be so, but I can't find any figures. In my fiancee's extended family one is expected to be married and have at least 2 children by the time they're 21. Government assistance is seen as standard procedure around here.
It'll take some doing to get rid of the idea that having children regardless of whether or not you can financially support them is a responsible way to live.
__________________________I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
Speaking of the farm bill,
...a bill whose gruesome details I don't even need to see to know I hate and is simply pork and favoritism for agri-business and an empty pile of nothing to small farmers and passed with near unanimous support from Democrats and mixed support from Republicans ( the group that is ever aligned with "the rich")...
Mark at Publius Endures
offers a challenge to his Progressive friends and I second his challenge:
Good questions...
Ya see, for all the talk and grandstanding and rhetoric and tit for tat on this or that, this is one of the "big ones" that comes up every year and really counts for something.
I want to see it vetoed.
I think the government ought to help farmers with their crop insurance. I don't think the government should be setting the prices of farm products, paying people not to grow anything or paying farmers on top of what they get for selling their crops.
But the amount of money being thrown around on this one may be enough to over-ride the threatened veto.
We'll see.
+1 on the veto
Being from an agricultural area, I do support limited subsidy for family farmers based on ups and downs in the market. Otherwise, I agree with a veto here.
__________________________I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
not that I don't agree with the intention and spirit of your
idea, stinerman,....
but how would a "limited subsidy for family farmers based on ups and downs in the market" work?
IOW, play devil's advocate with your idea. Make some parameter to do your intended deed and then imagine a way to break it and go around it.
Heregoes
The subsidy would be only for natural persons who farm the land they live on or own, people like my Grandpa Langjahr (well before he rented his fields out). The subsidy would be based on a certain wage, a sort of guaranteed minimum income for farmers. If prices rose or crops were especially good that year, I'd expect an additional tax on earnings in order to recoup some of the costs of the program.
I don't see very many loopholes in that one. I'm sure you do, though. :-)
I don't expect family farmers to be rich (grandpa never was, but he is now with his work pension and social security), but there is an interest in keeping down the number of factory farms we have.
__________________________I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
Simple...
A larger farm business probably owns the land they work on.
Check.
Moreover, they can set up residence on the land to get the pork....regardless of whether they actually really live there. That mansion is Aspen is their "summer home". ;)
Check.
If by "Natural Person", you mean non-incorporated...not sure if you do..BUT IF YOU DO...that could be problematic for the small farmer who operates a corporation (like my business). In that case, it will negate many of the families it's trying to help.
And good luck trying to figure how a well-conceived formula for crop prices and tax relationship without any unforeseen circumstances creating a situation that causes some complications or "that's-not-what-we-meant-to-happen" effects....that will most likely require a further stipulation that would make even less sense if the first formula didn't exist in the first place.
The minimum income will also most likely affect how they choose to plant...or if they plant at all and perhaps even cause them to be a bit wasteful because it's covered.
I know that if I have a guaranteed subsidy in my business, I would probably be a little careless....I could afford to.
Just some random thoughts at first glance....
Just install me dictator
Well, all this isn't a big problem if I could just be installed dictator. I'll be able to make a case-by-case decision that gives the effects I want.
__________________________I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
hehehehe
And after waiting a few years...
"The Stinerman will see you now"
"He's a real softy for poor people so dress down and he may bequeath you the subsidy...."
;)
Nothing so sinister
Just so long as they can recite Buckeye Battle Cry from memory, I'll be happy. :-)
__________________________I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
Random reference
The ""that's-not-what-we-meant-to-happen" effects...." of a libertarian approach would surely lead to a situation where only trained specialist
can save the common man from the forces of emerging evil capitalist overlords.
j/j of course
__________________________In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Farm Bill confusion
I'm not really sure I understand what's going on here. Is it not the case that the newly passed bill lowers the cap at which subsidies are given out? Current law has a $2.5 million income cap, new law has a $1.5 million cap. Now I am pretty much in agreement with you that the subsidies are in general a pretty bad idea, but isn't this at least a step in the right direction?
Sure, President Bush has said he wanted the cap lowered to $250,000. All well and good to say that now, but when the Republic Party (tee hee) was in control of congress, he didn't have any problem with them increasing these subsidies. He is being an incredible hypocrite, it seems to me. Not that I am surprised by this.
The new bill also lowers the corn-ethanol tax credit (again, probably not enough, but it's something) and funnels some of that money to cellulosic-ethanol. I know you, John, are pretty much against these kinds of credits at all, but if they are going to exist, this seems like a good move.
__________________________We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Well,
after reading some explanations on it from