O.k guys here is your on thread. Go for it.
Posted by andrew on :
own
Posted by glassman on :
this eagle can only soar when both wings are strong and working together.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
LOL Common glass. Give em their thread.
Posted by glassman on :
i'm not stopping anybody from posting. i'm just tired of the right-left wing bickering... (from both side) our nation is in worse trouble right now than it was right after 9-11. we have made little progress in the so-called "war on terror". if anything? the VaTech situation should put an exclamation point on the fact that there is no defense against terrorists, all you can do is build a society that creates as few nuts as possible and that can only happen when everybody addresses serious/difficult issues head on without flinching... last week everybody was claiming Imus had done serious harm to some kids... toady? we are reminded again what real harm is...
Posted by glassman on :
The Great Seal Remarks and Explanation – June 20, 1782
The Escutcheon is composed of the chief & pale, the two most honorable ordinaries. The Pieces, paly, represent the several states all joined in one solid compact entire, supporting a Chief, which unites the whole & represents Congress. The Motto alludes to this union. The pales in the arms are kept closely united by the chief and the Chief depends upon that union & the strength resulting from it for its support, to denote the Confederacy of the United States of America & the preservation of their union through Congress.
The colours of the pales are those used in the flag of the United States of America; White signifies purity and innocence, Red, hardiness & valor, and Blue, the colour of the Chief signifies vigilance, perseverance & justice. The Olive branch and arrows denote the power of peace & war which is exclusively vested in Congress. The Constellation denotes a new State taking its place and rank among other sovereign powers. The Escutcheon is born on the breast of an American Eagle without any other supporters to denote that the United States of America ought to rely on their own Virtue.– Posted by rimasco on :
scuse me....is this a wing? oh..im a breast man Posted by glassman on :
i hope everybody noted this: The Olive branch and arrows denote the power of peace & war which is exclusively vested in Congress.
for right and left wingers? this is what the founding fathers intended. the President Executes War. the congress is the "Decider" of war(not Dubya). if we aren't going to wage war in Iraq? Congress will have to pass a clear resolution.... I haven't looked it up yet? But i suspect that if Congress passes a resolution on withdrawing from Iraq? Dubya has no veto power. Since they are only working thru budgetary means right now? Dubya does have veto power.
Posted by bdgee on :
"ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8:
The Congress shall have Power:
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress....
ARTICLE II, SECTION 2
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States....
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...."
I think you may be misreading the Constitution, as it specifically awards to the Congress, not the President, the power to "To raise and support Armies", "To provide and maintain a Navy", "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions", and "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States.
I see no provision there for any veto power by the president in funding or providing troups at war.
Posted by glassman on :
I see no provision there for any veto power by the president in funding or providing troups at war.
that's why the funding is thru a budget supplementla and not a war-funding bill...
what i'm trying to point out is that BOTH sides are playing a political game with each other..
if Congress really decides to pull out? all they have to do is vote on that...
as i've stated dozens of times before? we can't just pull out, just for starters? there are 10 million or so middle-class Iraqi depending on US to fix this... i don't hear people talking about normal people anymore, just terrorists and fanatics.
the political gamesmanship needs to stop and these folks need to have some serious dialog in search of a rational solution.
Posted by bdgee on :
The Congress has the sole power of "maintaining" the navy and "supporting the army". Maintaining and supporting include financing. Even Washington was not aqllowed to supercede the Contenental Congress on funding, which, I am sure he would have had he been able. Those guys were quite jealous of the power they allowed for war.
By the wording of the Constitution, the president is restricted to acting as commander in chief of the military and then only provided 2/3rds of the senate present agree. There is no Constitutional veto power for the president on maintaining, supporting, or funding the military. Any that is assumed is exactly that, assumed ..... not Constitutional.
Posted by glassman on :
not Constitutional. that's what i'm trying to point out bdgee.
Reid and Pelosi know this too..
they are NOT trying to pull out of Iraq.. they are trying to send a message to the Iraqi's that US time and patience is running out. It's a complicated dance, and the US politicians are playing a turf-war game of their own... Cheney comes right out and openly says that his goal is to increase the power of the Prez...
Posted by bdgee on :
Cheney's eventual goal is to alter the form of government of the Country by morphing it into fascism. Empowering the Presidency so as to make it independent and superior to Congress and the judiciary is only one step toward that goal.
The Party first hijackers of the republican party that now control the Administration, with a belief that they can construct (by hook or crook) "permanent" republican Party control of the Government, stand shoulder to shoulder with Cheney in efforts to undermine the Constitution and alter our form of government.
Party before Country they cry.
It is the same formula they used in Germany to achieve that goal in 1933.
Posted by glassman on :
it started well before Cheney got into office bdgee... when i lived in SE VA in the 90's i spent alot of time around spec force teams from the marines and the navy...
a lot of CAREER people were not re-enlisting because they were being required to sign forms that they considered to be contrary to the posse camitatus laws... since i left the area? i have no idea what they are signing these days. the rumors today are not good, but they are only rumors...
Civilian and uniformed military lawyers said provisions in several federal statutes, including the Fiscal Year 2000 Defense Department Authorization Act, Public Law 106-65, permits the secretary of defense to authorize military forces to support civilian agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in the event of a national emergency, especially any involving nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.
In 1998, the Pentagon's top policy official, Walter B. Slocombe, acknowledged that the military had covert-action teams.
"We have designated special-mission units that are specifically manned, equipped and trained to deal with a wide variety of transnational threats," Mr. Slocombe told the Senate Armed Services Committee. "These units, assigned to or under the operational control of the U.S. Special Operations Command, are focused primarily on those special operations and supporting functions that combat terrorism and actively counter terrorist use of W.M.D. These units are on alert every day of the year and have worked extensively with their interagency counterparts."
this was going on under Clinton too... that's why i say this right-left stuff is hog-wash..
Posted by glassman on :
From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress; and no money appropriated by this act shall be used to pay any of the expenses incurred in the employment of any troops in violation of this section And any person willfully violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding two years or by both such fine and imprisonment. Posted by glassman on :
here's some thoughts that go back to before Clinton's time too, written by an Army spec. for.
This country needs someone who cares about the U.S.
Not their POS campaign and how much money they can raise.
Its all a pathetic...
I am voting for who promises least.
How Long Do We Have?
About the time our original thirteen state adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government."
"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury."
"From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."
"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years."
"During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. from bondage to spiritual faith;
2. from spiritual faith to great courage;
3. from courage to liberty;
4. from liberty to abundance;
5. from abundance to complacency;
6. from complacency to apathy;
7. from apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage"
Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.
If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.
Oh by the way..... Did you know the fastest way to get service in the E.R at your local florida hospital.
Wear a border patrol shirt.... The room generally clears in less than a minute.
Posted by glassman on :
i agree with most everything in your post but this:
Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."
Bush may have "won land" but he didn't win the areas with the most and highest taxpayers... the "blue" states pay higher taxes by a very large margin.....
for instance? Texas and Fla don't even pay state income tax...
Taxes paid in the northeast are the highest in the nation...
Posted by glassman on :
This map of the most recent census data (for 2003) shows an interesting divide: Blue States are those whose median income for a family of four exceeds the U.S. median of $65,093, while Red States are those whose median income is less than the U.S. median: [IMG]http://www.lawprofessor** **s.com/taxprof/linkimages/redblueincome.gif[/IMG]
Note the eerie similarity with the 2004 presidential election map: [IMG]http://www.lawprofessorbl ogs.com/taxprof/linkimages/redblueelection.gif[/IMG]
you'll have to go here ands see them: the word B log is censored out:
The thing I have a problem with and this is not a bash on dems or rep. is that this country is giving, giving, giving.....
What happens to a child when you give them everything they want???
Thats right they get spoiled. As americans we expect to much from our govt.
Its time to earn a living not ask for a living.
Many ask why support Bush?
My #1 reason is because he is the president of the greatest nation on earth.
This bipartisan B.S is great and understood but comprehending the goal of each and coming to mutual agreements that better the nation as a whole should be the focus for the future.
If the next prez. is dem than so be it. I will support them as well.
Its time to look past the political vantage point and focus on America as a child that needs rearing to embrace the supreme qualities of life.
This is our baby----we must honor and treat her with respect.
PS. I love this country!
Posted by glassman on :
and with all due respect (to you and other thoughtful, polite people)? if the next president is Dem? i will still point out what i think is wrong with their job... unless? Congress actually does declare war on another country...
"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
"Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star", 149 May 7, 1918
Theodore Roosevelt
i bet i woulda had something nasty to say about him too, once inawhile Posted by bdgee on :
Here here, glass....
Posted by rimasco on :
hey Surfer, it appears your surfing in shark infested waters.....
I voted for the guy and no longer support him...thats my right in this country...thats patriotism...what youre saying sounds more like romantic nationalism
please keep in mind, Dubya is a public servant....not a king. He works for us..he has to answer to us...not the other way around
WOW...How the hell did he do that??
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
Quote rimasco, hey Surfer, it appears your surfing in shark infested waters _________________________________________________
I think we all might be in those waters from time to time, when we post. Posted by glassman on :
i dunno, i think the water's real nice 'round here Posted by bdgee on :
'Tain't the niceness of the water that's in question, but that of the creature therein.
Posted by glassman on :
what creatures? Posted by T e x on :
so...
we need a bigger boat?
Posted by Doctoall on :
One thing is for sure, the garbage is the same on the left and right wing threads Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Doctoall: One thing is for sure, the garbage is the same on the left and right wing threads
yep, and the sad/stupid part is that the solution to 99% of ALL of society's problems were (shoulda been) taught to US all in friggin kintygarten...
Posted by Highwaychild on :
They are both takin' the golden rule and beatin' we the people over the head with it. They don't care about U.S., they only care about their pockets.
Posted by IamtheWalrus on :
THis might give us an indication of where we all might be heading...JMO of course
Anybody got a line on a good kayak manufacturing stock?
Posted by bond006 on :
No I don't about kayak's, but when the right wing gets kicked out next election it will be like the tide going out all the garbage will be left on the beach for everyone to clean up
Posted by rimasco on :
And then the left wing will go into an endless debate on whos gonna clean it up until sombody presents them with a solution...
Posted by bdgee on :
Clean up what?
You must have mistakenly posted in the wrong thread.
Posted by IamtheWalrus on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: You a Branch dividian?
Are you talking to me? If so, no I am not. Just a Christian...does that bother you?
Posted by bdgee on :
Why should it bother me?
And why should you assume it would?
I do find the preaching of mystical gloom and doom fear mentality to be inappropriate outside your own kind, but it doesn't bother me.
The end of the world is more likely to be from global warming or a huge asteroid hitting in the night or some other quite simply scientifically defined and described event tha from some religious mumbo-jumbo, whatever the religion.
If God built the Earth, did he build a rock so big he could not destroy it. Could he have? why would he? Why would he not?
Why then, with his all seeing all powerful ability, did he not foresee exacty the path we humans would take? The answer? He obviously did.
He must have, at the making of it all, have already known the suffering he dictated (and could have eliminated) through his action of creating us and known to the exact time when he would wipe us out and the Earth as we know it, along with exactly which among us would have reached his standards to be allowed an after life. Why do it then? We, made in his own image, have, in his image, inquiring minds and:
Inquiring minds want to know!
But God already knew, so why did he do it?
Posted by a surfer on :
quote:Originally posted by rimasco: hey Surfer, it appears your surfing in shark infested waters.....
I voted for the guy and no longer support him...thats my right in this country...thats patriotism...what youre saying sounds more like romantic nationalism
please keep in mind, Dubya is a public servant....not a king. He works for us..he has to answer to us...not the other way around
WOW...How the hell did he do that??
No... romantic nationalism is the point your missing. Freedom to choose is the right of every American. If you feel let down then your right is fine by me.
Again I must point out I don't support every move of dubya but I do support his perseverence to act as the leader of a nation that is in need of protection. Not only from foreign countries but from its own self implosion.
The problem is not the presisdent.. its people that are unequivocally against the president that feel the need to rationalize their positions to the point of misconception and ridicule that have led to the demise of this great nation.
And yes I have surfed with sharks. I do it every time I am in the water. I had a 9 foot tiger shrk within a couple yards of me on one occasion in the Abacos and countless other close calls.... They are the landlords of the sea.
Thank God I voted for Dubya or I probably would have had leg taken off.
Posted by bdgee on :
No, surfer, it is the arrogance (and ignorance) of "the decider" that can't admit his toy project to take over the world for republicans was a bust from the start.
You and the RNC blaming his failure on anyone but him is the problem.
Posted by jordanreed on :
surfer says...
"Again I must point out I don't support every move of dubya but I do support his perseverence to act as the leader of a nation that is in need of protection. Not only from foreign countries but from its own self implosion."
youre right!..he is acting as he thinks a leader should,,its too bad he doesnt have the natural capacity to actually be a leader..his "perserverance" ,as you put it, is nothing more than stubborn arrogance....this,of course, is jmo...bush always seems like hes in way over his head. and most people would be. its a tough job. and he has proven time and time again that he's not up to the task. He fooled a lot of people with his swagger..but....not much longer
Posted by bdgee on :
jordanreed,
Just your opinion?
No way!
It is the opinion of most of the majority of the people in the country, as has been repeatedly proved via polling. It appears the results would show him even further behind in a world wide poll.
Posted by jordanreed on :
goin down....down,down,down,down,down
Posted by IamtheWalrus on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: Why should it bother me?
And why should you assume it would?
I do find the preaching of mystical gloom and doom fear mentality to be inappropriate outside your own kind, but it doesn't bother me.
The end of the world is more likely to be from global warming or a huge asteroid hitting in the night or some other quite simply scientifically defined and described event tha from some religious mumbo-jumbo, whatever the religion.
If God built the Earth, did he build a rock so big he could not destroy it. Could he have? why would he? Why would he not?
Why then, with his all seeing all powerful ability, did he not foresee exacty the path we humans would take? The answer? He obviously did.
He must have, at the making of it all, have already known the suffering he dictated (and could have eliminated) through his action of creating us and known to the exact time when he would wipe us out and the Earth as we know it, along with exactly which among us would have reached his standards to be allowed an after life. Why do it then? We, made in his own image, have, in his image, inquiring minds and:
Inquiring minds want to know!
But God already knew, so why did he do it?
Global warming, asteroids, comets, earthquakes, etc. were all prophecies once laid out by many in those times, in which we have experienced through the millenia. The only reason I asked if it bothered you because you were so quick to relate me to a group that was lead by a madman who considered himself to be the messiah. How silly is that? Just because he claimed to be a Christian doesn't mean he was. Many people are that way, and I was once myself. Lukewarm. The link I provided was just a reference to a coalition of countries like the Roman Empire as we once knew, only in the economic sense as it is today. The European Union. By no means may it be real or true...just interesting. Thought it might help us Right Wingers understand just what may, I and say "may" be before us.
It is because of His grace are we to be humble and forgive those who trespass against us. Not to quickly judge those that act irresponsibly or even criminally.
And of course He only knows what day that will be, not even Jesus knew that, as He said so Himself when He spoke to His disciples of the Mount Of Olives shortly before His death. Why would He want to eliminate all the suffering when it is our own freewill that brings us closer to Him? That is what He wants, for it to be our choice. That is why He sent His own son to be sacrificed by our own governments, for the sins of the world in which you, I and everyone else has, is and will commit. It is through His grace that we can receive Him...which in the end is our choice.
I am sorry if I offended you by asking if it bothered whether I was a Christian or not. That is not what I intended. I just felt a little personally attacked when you referred to me as a Branch Davidian.
God bless you.
Posted by a surfer on :
One day a florist goes to a barber for a haircut. After the cut he asked about his bill and the barber replies: "I'm sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week" The florist is pleased and leaves the shop. Next morning when the barber goes to open there is a thank you card and a dozen roses waiting for him at his door.
Later, a cop comes in for a haircut, and when he goes to pay his bill the barber again replies: "I'm sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week."
The cop is happy and leaves the shop. Next morning when the barber goes to open up there is a thank you card and a dozen donuts waiting for him at his door.
Later a Republican comes in for a haircut, and when he goes to pay his bill the barber again replies: "I'm sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week."
The Republican is very happy and leaves the shop. Next morning when the barber goes to open, there is a thank you card and a dozen different books such as "How to Improve Your Business" and "Becoming More Successful."
Then a Democrat comes in for a haircut, and when he goes to pay his bill the barber again replies: "I'm sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week."
The Democrat is very happy and leaves the shop. The next morning when the barber goes to open up, there are a dozen Democrats lined up waiting for a free haircut.
And that, my friends, illustrates the fundamental difference between left and right.
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by IamtheWalrus:
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: Why should it bother me?
And why should you assume it would?
I do find the preaching of mystical gloom and doom fear mentality to be inappropriate outside your own kind, but it doesn't bother me.
The end of the world is more likely to be from global warming or a huge asteroid hitting in the night or some other quite simply scientifically defined and described event tha from some religious mumbo-jumbo, whatever the religion.
If God built the Earth, did he build a rock so big he could not destroy it. Could he have? why would he? Why would he not?
Why then, with his all seeing all powerful ability, did he not foresee exacty the path we humans would take? The answer? He obviously did.
He must have, at the making of it all, have already known the suffering he dictated (and could have eliminated) through his action of creating us and known to the exact time when he would wipe us out and the Earth as we know it, along with exactly which among us would have reached his standards to be allowed an after life. Why do it then? We, made in his own image, have, in his image, inquiring minds and:
Inquiring minds want to know!
But God already knew, so why did he do it?
Global warming, asteroids, comets, earthquakes, etc. were all prophecies once laid out by many in those times, in which we have experienced through the millenia. The only reason I asked if it bothered you because you were so quick to relate me to a group that was lead by a madman who considered himself to be the messiah. How silly is that? Just because he claimed to be a Christian doesn't mean he was. Many people are that way, and I was once myself. Lukewarm. The link I provided was just a reference to a coalition of countries like the Roman Empire as we once knew, only in the economic sense as it is today. The European Union. By no means may it be real or true...just interesting. Thought it might help us Right Wingers understand just what may, I and say "may" be before us.
It is because of His grace are we to be humble and forgive those who trespass against us. Not to quickly judge those that act irresponsibly or even criminally.
And of course He only knows what day that will be, not even Jesus knew that, as He said so Himself when He spoke to His disciples of the Mount Of Olives shortly before His death. Why would He want to eliminate all the suffering when it is our own freewill that brings us closer to Him? That is what He wants, for it to be our choice. That is why He sent His own son to be sacrificed by our own governments, for the sins of the world in which you, I and everyone else has, is and will commit. It is through His grace that we can receive Him...which in the end is our choice.
I am sorry if I offended you by asking if it bothered whether I was a Christian or not. That is not what I intended. I just felt a little personally attacked when you referred to me as a Branch Davidian.
God bless you.
Offended?
hahahaha
Amused.
You preach doom based on a document that can only, at best, be claimed to be popular, not factually based or verified outside itself.
I don't mind if you believe as you do. But your assumption that it is factual and has added these magnificant values to your life is exactly the same as the similar claim of a Voodo believer. Your assumption that I am offended is based on your choice of religion, not on my needs or interest.
So far as I am concerned, either of you may becorrect and both far from the fact.
It isn't personal to me.
However, when you propose your extreme interpretations (of anything) as a challenge ot "presentation" to the public, why are you surprised and offended that someone questions them?
Isn't that the purpose of open discussion, or is it your attitude that you may impose or state your beliefs while others may not unless they propose beliefs in conjunction with your own?
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by a surfer: One day a florist goes to a barber for a haircut. After the cut he asked about his bill and the barber replies: "I'm sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week" The florist is pleased and leaves the shop. Next morning when the barber goes to open there is a thank you card and a dozen roses waiting for him at his door.
Later, a cop comes in for a haircut, and when he goes to pay his bill the barber again replies: "I'm sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week."
The cop is happy and leaves the shop. Next morning when the barber goes to open up there is a thank you card and a dozen donuts waiting for him at his door.
Later a Republican comes in for a haircut, and when he goes to pay his bill the barber again replies: "I'm sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week."
The Republican is very happy and leaves the shop. Next morning when the barber goes to open, there is a thank you card and a dozen different books such as "How to Improve Your Business" and "Becoming More Successful."
Then a Democrat comes in for a haircut, and when he goes to pay his bill the barber again replies: "I'm sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week."
The Democrat is very happy and leaves the shop. The next morning when the barber goes to open up, there are a dozen Democrats lined up waiting for a free haircut.
And that, my friends, illustrates the fundamental difference between left and right.
lemme show you something surfer, before you get mad? lemme 'splain that i am lifelong gun owner, and consider myself to be economically conservative:
In fact, US added more subsidies when it passed the 2002 Farm Bill that increased government aid to agriculture by 80%. Although the US argues that this aid falls within the WTO limit on US subsidies, most countries agree that the bill violates the spirit of the Agreement on Agriculture http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cidtrade/issues/agriculture.html
the US total ag subsidies in 2004 were 8,002,000,000....
these subsidies are going to red (conservative) states...
the basic issue of susbsidies sounds good, but it is WELFARE for wealthy people... very wealthy people..
Research from Brian M. Riedl the Heritage Foundation showed that nearly three quarters of subsidy money goes to the top 10% of recipients.[6] Thus, the large farms, which are the most profitable because they have economies of scale, receive the most money. The discrepancy is only widening. Since 1990, payments to large farms have nearly tripled, while payments to small farms have remained constant.[7] Brian M. Riedl argues that the subsidy money is helping large farms buy out small farms. "Specifically, large farms are using their massive federal subsidies to purchase small farms and consolidate the agriculture industry. As they buy up smaller farms, not only are these large farms able to capitalize further on economies of scale and become more profitable, but they also become eligible for even more federal subsidies—which they can use to buy even more small farms."[8] Critics also note that, in America, over 90% of money goes to staple crops of corn, wheat, soybeans and rice while growers of other crops get shut out completely. Posted by glassman on :
Critics often charge that farm programs are really all about transferring income from taxpayers to wealthy farmers. U.S. Department of Agriculture data confirm that large commercial farms typically have net incomes higher than those of average U.S. households. Posted by T e x on :
ya...the old, "sterotype" of the farm family has just about been wiped out. Started post-WW II, when the chemical industry was all dressed up, with nowhere to go...
Posted by glassman on :
yep, the explosive manufacturers decided to tweak the process a little et voila, fertiliser...
makes stuff grow faster, but i wonder if the quality of actual food produced isn't worse, since it doens't replace "micro"nutrients, just nitrogen...
Posted by T e x on :
has been horrible for the soil, but good for corporations, banks, etc.
Posted by a surfer on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman:
quote:Originally posted by a surfer: One day a florist goes to a barber for a haircut. After the cut he asked about his bill and the barber replies: "I'm sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week" The florist is pleased and leaves the shop. Next morning when the barber goes to open there is a thank you card and a dozen roses waiting for him at his door.
Later, a cop comes in for a haircut, and when he goes to pay his bill the barber again replies: "I'm sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week."
The cop is happy and leaves the shop. Next morning when the barber goes to open up there is a thank you card and a dozen donuts waiting for him at his door.
Later a Republican comes in for a haircut, and when he goes to pay his bill the barber again replies: "I'm sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week."
The Republican is very happy and leaves the shop. Next morning when the barber goes to open, there is a thank you card and a dozen different books such as "How to Improve Your Business" and "Becoming More Successful."
Then a Democrat comes in for a haircut, and when he goes to pay his bill the barber again replies: "I'm sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week."
The Democrat is very happy and leaves the shop. The next morning when the barber goes to open up, there are a dozen Democrats lined up waiting for a free haircut.
And that, my friends, illustrates the fundamental difference between left and right.
lemme show you something surfer, before you get mad? lemme 'splain that i am lifelong gun owner, and consider myself to be economically conservative:
In fact, US added more subsidies when it passed the 2002 Farm Bill that increased government aid to agriculture by 80%. Although the US argues that this aid falls within the WTO limit on US subsidies, most countries agree that the bill violates the spirit of the Agreement on Agriculture http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cidtrade/issues/agriculture.html
the US total ag subsidies in 2004 were 8,002,000,000....
these subsidies are going to red (conservative) states...
the basic issue of susbsidies sounds good, but it is WELFARE for wealthy people... very wealthy people..
Research from Brian M. Riedl the Heritage Foundation showed that nearly three quarters of subsidy money goes to the top 10% of recipients.[6] Thus, the large farms, which are the most profitable because they have economies of scale, receive the most money. The discrepancy is only widening. Since 1990, payments to large farms have nearly tripled, while payments to small farms have remained constant.[7] Brian M. Riedl argues that the subsidy money is helping large farms buy out small farms. "Specifically, large farms are using their massive federal subsidies to purchase small farms and consolidate the agriculture industry. As they buy up smaller farms, not only are these large farms able to capitalize further on economies of scale and become more profitable, but they also become eligible for even more federal subsidies—which they can use to buy even more small farms."[8] Critics also note that, in America, over 90% of money goes to staple crops of corn, wheat, soybeans and rice while growers of other crops get shut out completely.
Glass I am as happy a person as you'll ever meet.
Don't ever worry about making me mad....
my above post was merely for a laugh.
Posted by glassman on :
i know it was a joke, but there are a lot of "stirred up" right wingers that somehow think they have some sort of moral high ground when in fact the problems we face really aren't about right and left wing policies...
wait till the corn ethanol subsidy causes an imabalance in the proportion of crops planted.... we will see effects that are unexpected.. i expect to see a rise in the cost of meat at the grocery store due to higher feed prices...
that old saying of "a chicken in every pot" may come back in five/ten years....
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
