Sac river water update

Duck hunting in California topics include: California duck hunting trips, the past hunting seasons, and share information about California duck hunting guides.

Moderators: duckman2000, spoonysmaker, OGblackcloud

Re: Sac river water update

Postby Nabs » Tue Feb 25, 2014 8:39 pm

if we did not subsidize farming more "working poor" would not be able to afford food, and even by your own logic and making us all millionaires we can just get all our food from the stores, who needs farmers, we can just go to the store to buy food with our millions. Think of how much water we would have if e did not have to give any to "those greedy farmers".

What it all comes down to is I (and a lot of other makers) are tired of supporting the 46 million takers of food stamps, the which BTW is a lot more money than we spend subsidizing farmers, you know the ones that grow food, employ people, and pay taxes.

Here you go read this and tell me why anyone works at all anymore? Forget pride, honor and self worth.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/
Even Ducktape cannot fix Stupid, but it can muffle the sound!
User avatar
Nabs
hunter
 
Posts: 768
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:35 pm


Re: Sac river water update

Postby marsh-mello » Tue Feb 25, 2014 8:51 pm

Well, the biggest problem is welfare by any other name is still welfare isn't it...and of ALL the subsidies listed,because that is what they are, I am MORE than sure the food stamps are a smaller portion of that collective pork pie. You're just under some romantic delusion and see what you want and rationalize the rest. Get past that and the hypocritical rhetoric attached to it and then we will be on the same page.

http://www.salon.com/2013/12/15/poverty ... ork_swamp/

"2013 is the year many Americans discovered the crisis of the working poor. It turns out it’s also the crisis of the welfare poor. That’s tough for us: Americans notoriously hate welfare, unless it’s called something else and/or benefits us personally. We think it’s for slackers and moochers and people who won’t pull their weight.

So we’re not sure how to handle the fact that a quarter of people who have jobs today make so little money that they also receive some form of public assistance, or welfare – a proportion that’s much higher in some of the fastest-growing sectors of the workforce. Or that 60 percent of able-bodied adult food-stamp recipients are employed."

Which brings me to the other problem with low-wage workers being forced to depend on public assistance: They’re sadly vulnerable to political scapegoating and backlash politics. Rep. Paul Ryan calls the safety net a “hammock,” which is horrifying when we know so many people are working at least one and maybe two jobs and still remaining poor. Mitt Romney inveighed against the 47 percent of Americans who pay no federal income taxes, which includes millions of low-wage workers on the earned income tax credit, even though the EITC was a Republican idea, signed into law by President Gerald Ford and expanded by both Presidents Bush.
Last edited by marsh-mello on Tue Feb 25, 2014 9:55 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Charter member of the "I only shoot bar belly geese club". I'm a Bar belly goose purist!
marsh-mello
hunter
 
Posts: 607
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:30 pm

Re: Sac river water update

Postby clampdaddy » Tue Feb 25, 2014 9:03 pm

Having grown up with family in dairy and nut trees I have an idea of how many people they employ (dairy being full time, trees being seasonal). Just out of curiosity, how many men does it take to farm, say 200 acres of rice?
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3717
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: Sac river water update

Postby Nabs » Tue Feb 25, 2014 9:23 pm

Yep SNAP cost last year (2013) was 76 Billion. Easily researched, those farm subsidies were how much? Somewhere between 10 Billion and 16 Billion, so somewhere between 13 and 21 % in Subsidies compared to JUST the food stamp program. Total government spending on welfare annually (not including food stamps or unemployment) $131.9 billion.

Just more Democrats buying votes, Housing paid, Food paid, Health Care Paid, Obama Phone Paid. Add a couple kids and hell the IRS gives them a refund above and beyond the federal income taxes they pay.

I am convinced I am quitting my Job, moving to Hawaii and collecting my $17.50 an hour in welfare, I don't even need to worry about deducting 58cents a mile, I can ride the Public Transit for free with my Low Income Buss Pass.
Even Ducktape cannot fix Stupid, but it can muffle the sound!
User avatar
Nabs
hunter
 
Posts: 768
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:35 pm

Re: Sac river water update

Postby Nabs » Tue Feb 25, 2014 9:29 pm

clampdaddy wrote:Having grown up with family in dairy and nut trees I have an idea of how many people they employ (dairy being full time, trees being seasonal). Just out of curiosity, how many men does it take to farm, say 200 acres of rice?


I know a couple rice farmers, one of which farms about 1100 acres and employs 4 people year round, and adds 3 to 4 people for about 4 months a year. My guess would be the equivalent of about 1 employee per 200 acres. But they also buy fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides and fungicides along with the trucking, drying, milling and other support systems, mechanics, equipment sales etc.

Directly about 1 employee per 200 acres.
Even Ducktape cannot fix Stupid, but it can muffle the sound!
User avatar
Nabs
hunter
 
Posts: 768
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:35 pm

Re: Sac river water update

Postby marsh-mello » Tue Feb 25, 2014 9:37 pm

Nabs wrote:Yep SNAP cost last year (2013) was 76 Billion. Easily researched, those farm subsidies were how much? Somewhere between 10 Billion and 16 Billion, so somewhere between 13 and 21 % in Subsidies compared to JUST the food stamp program. Total government spending on welfare annually (not including food stamps or unemployment) $131.9 billion.

Just more Democrats buying votes, Housing paid, Food paid, Health Care Paid, Obama Phone Paid. Add a couple kids and hell the IRS gives them a refund above and beyond the federal income taxes they pay.

I am convinced I am quitting my Job, moving to Hawaii and collecting my $17.50 an hour in welfare, I don't even need to worry about deducting 58cents a mile, I can ride the Public Transit for free with my Low Income Buss Pass.


See there you go rationalizing again..it's not people just sitting around with their thumbs twittling who are the working poor and if you choose to look at the entire picture it's not just SNAP vs Farm Subsidies. There is a whole government and corporate alliance built to support those who do not need supporting all the while trying to demonize and chastise the poor? You yourself admitted you don't know how to deal with the corporate farm subsidy which provides more than 70% of the subsidies to large Agribusiness who are not means tested as SNAP RECEIPIENTS ARE and who don't need any handouts.

As far as who we will buy our food from, just list who is not taking subsidies on the package and I will gladly pay more for it upfront myself...although I probably wouldn't even have to. :yes: I imagine most people would feel the same...that's the American way!
Charter member of the "I only shoot bar belly geese club". I'm a Bar belly goose purist!
marsh-mello
hunter
 
Posts: 607
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:30 pm

Re: Sac river water update

Postby Nabs » Tue Feb 25, 2014 10:08 pm

Lets go to the heart of the matter then, if Big Business is not making profits from somewhere who do think is going to pay?

The very same "working poor" are going to pay more for the now unsubsidized farm goods, also know as food.

it is not rationalization. It is a straight up calling a broken system a broken system. Cut the subsidies and stop food stamps and welfare. Sound Fair to you? Would work fine for me.
Even Ducktape cannot fix Stupid, but it can muffle the sound!
User avatar
Nabs
hunter
 
Posts: 768
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:35 pm

Re: Sac river water update

Postby marsh-mello » Tue Feb 25, 2014 11:59 pm

To each according to their need...now we could also both live with that too.

Root out abuse where it exists...Fair enough.

One last thing whisky is still for drinking and water is still for fighting over... :beer:
Charter member of the "I only shoot bar belly geese club". I'm a Bar belly goose purist!
marsh-mello
hunter
 
Posts: 607
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:30 pm

Re: Sac river water update

Postby clampdaddy » Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:16 am

Nabs wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:Having grown up with family in dairy and nut trees I have an idea of how many people they employ (dairy being full time, trees being seasonal). Just out of curiosity, how many men does it take to farm, say 200 acres of rice?


I know a couple rice farmers, one of which farms about 1100 acres and employs 4 people year round, and adds 3 to 4 people for about 4 months a year. My guess would be the equivalent of about 1 employee per 200 acres. But they also buy fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides and fungicides along with the trucking, drying, milling and other support systems, mechanics, equipment sales etc.

Directly about 1 employee per 200 acres.

That's about what I was thinking. On 200 acres one guy could do all the ground work, planting, irrigating, and run the harvester without ever having to work too hard. Then you'd need a few guys running trucks or wagons (however it is you guys do that). Product gets picked up or dropped of somewhere and then someone else takes over. Is that about right?
I wasn't really concerned about the chemicals, equipment, mechanics, etc, etc because no matter what you farm, you're going to have similar costs. If it ain't fungicide it's bees, or artificial breeding, or whatever crop specific bills a guy can think of.

I grew up around farming but I've never actually seen a rice operation and was just curious about it. Thanks.
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3717
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: Sac river water update

Postby clampdaddy » Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:20 am

marsh-mello wrote:To each according to their need.......

Now where have I heard that before? Hmmmm........where's that little vomiting emoticon guy? :lol3:
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3717
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: Sac river water update

Postby Nabs » Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:26 am

clampdaddy wrote:
marsh-mello wrote:To each according to their need.......

Now where have I heard that before? Hmmmm........where's that little vomiting emoticon guy? :lol3:



Those words will never come from my mouth or my keyboard. Done debating economics with a socialist, ask the USSR how that worked out for them.
Even Ducktape cannot fix Stupid, but it can muffle the sound!
User avatar
Nabs
hunter
 
Posts: 768
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:35 pm

Re: Sac river water update

Postby marsh-mello » Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:42 am

Yeah I thought you'd like that... :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:

A rose by any other name...Don't think for a second that subsidies aren't a form of socialism, because it sure isn't a blueprint for free market capitalism.

Like I said, just root out abuse where ever it exists... :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Charter member of the "I only shoot bar belly geese club". I'm a Bar belly goose purist!
marsh-mello
hunter
 
Posts: 607
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:30 pm

Re: Sac river water update

Postby Nabs » Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:52 am

Impossible to take you serious when you go back and edit and re-edit and edit the edits in your posts. We get it, you sit and read your original postings and when you do you cannot keep a straight face. Wanna know the most disturbing fact I found doing research about welfare?


Number of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than the average salary of a U.S. Teacher 8
Even Ducktape cannot fix Stupid, but it can muffle the sound!
User avatar
Nabs
hunter
 
Posts: 768
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:35 pm

Re: Sac river water update

Postby marsh-mello » Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:53 am

Nabs wrote:Impossible to take you serious when you go back and edit and re-edit and edit the edits in your posts. We get it, you sit and read your original postings and when you do you cannot keep a straight face. Wanna know the most disturbing fact I found doing research about welfare?

Number of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than the average salary of a U.S. Teacher 8


Oh Yeah Name two... :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: < Straight face

I take my own thought process seriously...the rest of the nonsense here and you...not so much

To be quite honest I don't know why you started going down this road again...however I thought I'd entertain you "again".


"The median expected salary for a typical Public School Teacher in the United States is $51,816. This basic market pricing report was prepared using our Certified Compensation Professionals' analysis of survey data collected from thousands of HR departments at employers of all sizes, industries and geographies."

Perhaps this was an older figure?

https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=28

The average salary for full-time public school teachers in 2010–11 was $56,069 in current dollars (i.e. dollars that are not adjusted for inflation). In constant (inflation-adjusted) dollars, the average salary was about 3 percent higher in 2010–11 than in 1990–91.
Charter member of the "I only shoot bar belly geese club". I'm a Bar belly goose purist!
marsh-mello
hunter
 
Posts: 607
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:30 pm

Re: Sac river water update

Postby marsh-mello » Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:37 am

clampdaddy wrote:Having grown up with family in dairy and nut trees I have an idea of how many people they employ (dairy being full time, trees being seasonal). Just out of curiosity, how many men does it take to farm, say 200 acres of rice?


One guy I know who does it about as thin as I have seen, farms about 1000 acres with three guys. Everything works well until one of his pieces of equipment breaks down. Not much of a margin to keep going if things break down. He has updated his equipment in the last few years though to address this issue and seems to be doing well. He also has other family members who farm and who can bail him out in a pinch if he needs help. It's also dawn to dusk days and sometimes running with the lights on too though...Don't ask me how I know. :eek:
Charter member of the "I only shoot bar belly geese club". I'm a Bar belly goose purist!
marsh-mello
hunter
 
Posts: 607
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:30 pm

Re: Sac river water update

Postby Mallards Only » Wed Feb 26, 2014 7:47 am

marsh-mello wrote:
Nabs wrote:Yep SNAP cost last year (2013) was 76 Billion. Easily researched, those farm subsidies were how much? Somewhere between 10 Billion and 16 Billion, so somewhere between 13 and 21 % in Subsidies compared to JUST the food stamp program. Total government spending on welfare annually (not including food stamps or unemployment) $131.9 billion.

Just more Democrats buying votes, Housing paid, Food paid, Health Care Paid, Obama Phone Paid. Add a couple kids and hell the IRS gives them a refund above and beyond the federal income taxes they pay.

I am convinced I am quitting my Job, moving to Hawaii and collecting my $17.50 an hour in welfare, I don't even need to worry about deducting 58cents a mile, I can ride the Public Transit for free with my Low Income Buss Pass.


See there you go rationalizing again..it's not people just sitting around with their thumbs twittling who are the working poor and if you choose to look at the entire picture it's not just SNAP vs Farm Subsidies. There is a whole government and corporate alliance built to support those who do not need supporting all the while trying to demonize and chastise the poor? You yourself admitted you don't know how to deal with the corporate farm subsidy which provides more than 70% of the subsidies to large Agribusiness who are not means tested as SNAP RECEIPIENTS ARE and who don't need any handouts.

As far as who we will buy our food from, just list who is not taking subsidies on the package and I will gladly pay more for it upfront myself...although I probably wouldn't even have to. :yes: I imagine most people would feel the same...that's the American way!

Nobody is demonizing or chastising the poor. That's the liberal socialist agenda. You all want them to think we are demonizing them and chastising them so they will vote to keep to keep your socialistic regime in power. The truth is conservatives who actually understand the economy and what it takes to have a successful economy where everyone flourishes, want the poor to work rather than be on the never-ending dole from self-serving politicians. There really isn't a job shortage in this nation right now. There are plenty of jobs in the ag industry, not to mention many other segments of retail and other industries. Most "Americans" are too lazy to do that work though and they think it's above them. This is why immigration reform will never work. At least the migrant farm workers are willing to work for a living. The rest have been coddled to think they should be able to make $20/hr or more and, if not, sit back and let the government support them. Take away that incentive and they would be forced to work like the rest of us. They would start giving to the economy rather than sucking off it and the nations business climate would rebound. And before you even start, don't even try to compare the farm subsidies to food stamps and welfare. The two are not one and the same. Farmers are out busting their ass trying to make a living to support themselves and their families and occasionally suffering at the expense of all their hard work as a result of government over-regulation and manipulation of the commodities markets or the weather. We can't survive without farmers and the food that they grow. If they fail, we all suffer. The poor are home sitting on their azz collecting a check for doing nothing(in between impregnating themselves so they can have more kids to support and collect more money). I could easily survive without them. Why don't you ask your farmer buddy who is barely making ends meet how he feels about the USDA pmts? There are a lot more like him who work long days and bust their azz, only to have all his hard work be for naught if the govt decides to manipulate the cost of rice. Which is it, Ray? I thought all farmers were driving around in shiny new pick-ups and spending all day at the Maxwell diner waiting for their subsidy check to arrive so they can plan their next vacation. Now, you say you know a farmer who toils hard, barely making it work with the minimum in equipment and manpower hoping he doesn't have a breakdown. Doesn't sound like the business plan of a billionaire making millions off farm subsidies. I guess he's the only one. Shouldn't come as a surprise that he's a friend of yours though.
Mallards Only
hunter
 
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:49 pm
Location: Chico, CA

Re: Sac river water update

Postby marsh-mello » Wed Feb 26, 2014 8:14 am

Mallards Only wrote:
marsh-mello wrote:
Nabs wrote:Yep SNAP cost last year (2013) was 76 Billion. Easily researched, those farm subsidies were how much? Somewhere between 10 Billion and 16 Billion, so somewhere between 13 and 21 % in Subsidies compared to JUST the food stamp program. Total government spending on welfare annually (not including food stamps or unemployment) $131.9 billion.

Just more Democrats buying votes, Housing paid, Food paid, Health Care Paid, Obama Phone Paid. Add a couple kids and hell the IRS gives them a refund above and beyond the federal income taxes they pay.

I am convinced I am quitting my Job, moving to Hawaii and collecting my $17.50 an hour in welfare, I don't even need to worry about deducting 58cents a mile, I can ride the Public Transit for free with my Low Income Buss Pass.


See there you go rationalizing again..it's not people just sitting around with their thumbs twittling who are the working poor and if you choose to look at the entire picture it's not just SNAP vs Farm Subsidies. There is a whole government and corporate alliance built to support those who do not need supporting all the while trying to demonize and chastise the poor? You yourself admitted you don't know how to deal with the corporate farm subsidy which provides more than 70% of the subsidies to large Agribusiness who are not means tested as SNAP RECEIPIENTS ARE and who don't need any handouts.

As far as who we will buy our food from, just list who is not taking subsidies on the package and I will gladly pay more for it upfront myself...although I probably wouldn't even have to. :yes: I imagine most people would feel the same...that's the American way!

Nobody is demonizing or chastising the poor. Really? read what you just wrote. That's the liberal socialist agenda. You all want them to think we are demonizing them and chastising them so they will vote to keep to keep your socialistic regime in power. The truth is conservatives who actually understand the economy and what it takes to have a successful economy where everyone flourishes, want the poor to work rather than be on the never-ending dole from self-serving politicians. There really isn't a job shortage in this nation right now. There are plenty of jobs in the ag industry, not to mention many other segments of retail and other industries. Most "Americans" are too lazy to do that work though and they think it's above them. Really? then who is doing this work if it's not Americans who are contributing to our society as employees of the farm as you say? This is why immigration reform will never work. At least the migrant farm workers are willing to work for a living. The rest have been coddled to think they should be able to make $20/hr or more and, if not, sit back and let the government support them. Take away that incentive and they would be forced to work like the rest of us. They would start giving to the economy rather than sucking off it and the nations business climate would rebound. And before you even start, don't even try to compare the farm subsidies to food stamps and welfare. The two are not one and the same. Farmers are out busting their ass trying to make a living to support themselves and their families and occasionally suffering at the expense of all their hard work as a result of government over-regulation and manipulation of the commodities markets or the weather. We can't survive without farmers and the food that they grow. If they fail, we all suffer. The poor are home sitting on their azz collecting a check for doing nothing(in between impregnating themselves so they can have more kids to support and collect more money). WOW! I could easily survive without them. Why don't you ask your farmer buddy who is barely making ends meet how he feels about the USDA pmts? There are a lot more like him who work long days and bust their azz, only to have all his hard work be for naught if the govt decides to manipulate the cost of rice. Which is it, Ray? I thought all farmers were driving around in shiny new pick-ups and spending all day at the Maxwell diner waiting for their subsidy check to arrive so they can plan their next vacation. Now, you say you know a farmer who toils hard, barely making it work with the minimum in equipment and manpower hoping he doesn't have a breakdown. Doesn't sound like the business plan of a billionaire making millions off farm subsidies. I guess he's the only one. Shouldn't come as a surprise that he's a friend of yours though.


Well I looked up my poor friends take for his subsidies...and he has taken over a million dollars and his other family member who helps him on occasion has taken just slightly more. He is still a friend of mine. Who said he was barely making it?

Your characterization and stereotyping of those who are the working poor is a fantasy which allows you to attempt to defend your hypocrisy for taking the same and being no better or worse. The same.
Charter member of the "I only shoot bar belly geese club". I'm a Bar belly goose purist!
marsh-mello
hunter
 
Posts: 607
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:30 pm

Re: Sac river water update

Postby straightsixes » Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:01 am

Those who have hired/fired blue collar labor have a different view than a government or large industrial firm employees view.


Those who own rental housing/apartments etc have a different view than a government or large industrial firms employees view.


One can quickly be shielded from the "reality" of others, when they don't see what the average small business owner or property manager has to deal with on a day to day.

Same as with a farmer. Its easy to pounds one's chest and declare things "aren't fair". Often the chest pounder has NO CLUE the risk taken upon by the farmer or other small business owner. There can be good years that everyone looks at and says "NOT FAIR" they are making too much... yet they are quick to forget the down years when families are running extremely lean.

It happens and could be happening real soon. I'd much rather support that farmer, business owner who sticks their neck out to make a living... than those who work the system to KEEP from gainful employment. If one doesn't understand the part about those who doing everything to keep from employment... well run your own business for a while and you will learn.

Our society has seemed to allow generations of people to get by on excuses for NOT being productive, yet that same person STILL wants to HAVE everything a "successful" hard working person has. So now our society seems to give it to them, as its only "fair" right? Lets face it that is what frustrates the many who have risked everything, and work their tail off to survive.

It won't be changed anytime soon, and surely won't be changed from a duck hunting forum.

Lets hope it keeps raining, and everyone has water for their fields.
straightsixes
hunter
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:18 pm
Location: Central CA

Re: Sac river water update

Postby Mallards Only » Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:20 am

marsh-mello wrote:
Mallards Only wrote:
marsh-mello wrote:
Nabs wrote:Yep SNAP cost last year (2013) was 76 Billion. Easily researched, those farm subsidies were how much? Somewhere between 10 Billion and 16 Billion, so somewhere between 13 and 21 % in Subsidies compared to JUST the food stamp program. Total government spending on welfare annually (not including food stamps or unemployment) $131.9 billion.

Just more Democrats buying votes, Housing paid, Food paid, Health Care Paid, Obama Phone Paid. Add a couple kids and hell the IRS gives them a refund above and beyond the federal income taxes they pay.

I am convinced I am quitting my Job, moving to Hawaii and collecting my $17.50 an hour in welfare, I don't even need to worry about deducting 58cents a mile, I can ride the Public Transit for free with my Low Income Buss Pass.


See there you go rationalizing again..it's not people just sitting around with their thumbs twittling who are the working poor and if you choose to look at the entire picture it's not just SNAP vs Farm Subsidies. There is a whole government and corporate alliance built to support those who do not need supporting all the while trying to demonize and chastise the poor? You yourself admitted you don't know how to deal with the corporate farm subsidy which provides more than 70% of the subsidies to large Agribusiness who are not means tested as SNAP RECEIPIENTS ARE and who don't need any handouts.

As far as who we will buy our food from, just list who is not taking subsidies on the package and I will gladly pay more for it upfront myself...although I probably wouldn't even have to. :yes: I imagine most people would feel the same...that's the American way!

Nobody is demonizing or chastising the poor. Really? read what you just wrote. That's the liberal socialist agenda. You all want them to think we are demonizing them and chastising them so they will vote to keep to keep your socialistic regime in power. The truth is conservatives who actually understand the economy and what it takes to have a successful economy where everyone flourishes, want the poor to work rather than be on the never-ending dole from self-serving politicians. There really isn't a job shortage in this nation right now. There are plenty of jobs in the ag industry, not to mention many other segments of retail and other industries. Most "Americans" are too lazy to do that work though and they think it's above them. Really? then who is doing this work if it's not Americans who are contributing to our society as employees of the farm as you say? This is why immigration reform will never work. At least the migrant farm workers are willing to work for a living. The rest have been coddled to think they should be able to make $20/hr or more and, if not, sit back and let the government support them. Take away that incentive and they would be forced to work like the rest of us. They would start giving to the economy rather than sucking off it and the nations business climate would rebound. And before you even start, don't even try to compare the farm subsidies to food stamps and welfare. The two are not one and the same. Farmers are out busting their ass trying to make a living to support themselves and their families and occasionally suffering at the expense of all their hard work as a result of government over-regulation and manipulation of the commodities markets or the weather. We can't survive without farmers and the food that they grow. If they fail, we all suffer. The poor are home sitting on their azz collecting a check for doing nothing(in between impregnating themselves so they can have more kids to support and collect more money). WOW! I could easily survive without them. Why don't you ask your farmer buddy who is barely making ends meet how he feels about the USDA pmts? There are a lot more like him who work long days and bust their azz, only to have all his hard work be for naught if the govt decides to manipulate the cost of rice. Which is it, Ray? I thought all farmers were driving around in shiny new pick-ups and spending all day at the Maxwell diner waiting for their subsidy check to arrive so they can plan their next vacation. Now, you say you know a farmer who toils hard, barely making it work with the minimum in equipment and manpower hoping he doesn't have a breakdown. Doesn't sound like the business plan of a billionaire making millions off farm subsidies. I guess he's the only one. Shouldn't come as a surprise that he's a friend of yours though.


Well I looked up my poor friends take for his subsidies...and he has taken over a million dollars and his other family member who helps him on occasion has taken just slightly more. He is still a friend of mine. Who said he was barely making it?

Your characterization and stereotyping of those who are the working poor is a fantasy which allows you to attempt to defend your hypocrisy for taking the same and being no better or worse. The same.

If expecting someone to work for a living rather than living off the hard work of others is demonizing and chastising, then guilty as charged. Why don't you give me the name of your farming buddy. I'll give him a call and let him know your take on the subsidies and we'll see if you ever pick up any extra work for him again. If he and his family have taken in over a million dollars in subsidies, how is it that he can't afford new equipment and has to farm as thin as he does? Could it be that even with the subsidies totaling millions, he still has to operate on very thin margins in order to make ends meet? No, that can't be it. All farmers are bazillionairres according to you.
Mallards Only
hunter
 
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:49 pm
Location: Chico, CA

Re: Sac river water update

Postby Calikev » Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:37 pm

straightsixes wrote:Those who have hired/fired blue collar labor have a different view than a government or large industrial firm employees view.


Those who own rental housing/apartments etc have a different view than a government or large industrial firms employees view.


One can quickly be shielded from the "reality" of others, when they don't see what the average small business owner or property manager has to deal with on a day to day.

Same as with a farmer. Its easy to pounds one's chest and declare things "aren't fair". Often the chest pounder has NO CLUE the risk taken upon by the farmer or other small business owner. There can be good years that everyone looks at and says "NOT FAIR" they are making too much... yet they are quick to forget the down years when families are running extremely lean.

It happens and could be happening real soon. I'd much rather support that farmer, business owner who sticks their neck out to make a living... than those who work the system to KEEP from gainful employment. If one doesn't understand the part about those who doing everything to keep from employment... well run your own business for a while and you will learn.

Our society has seemed to allow generations of people to get by on excuses for NOT being productive, yet that same person STILL wants to HAVE everything a "successful" hard working person has. So now our society seems to give it to them, as its only "fair" right? Lets face it that is what frustrates the many who have risked everything, and work their tail off to survive.

It won't be changed anytime soon, and surely won't be changed from a duck hunting forum.

Lets hope it keeps raining, and everyone has water for their fields.


Good post Matt. :clapping:
"It seems the harder I work the more luck I seem to have"
Calikev
hunter
 
Posts: 807
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 7:14 pm
Location: Oakdale

Re: Sac river water update

Postby Calikev » Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:46 pm

Mallards Only wrote:Could it be that even with the subsidies totaling millions, he still has to operate on very thin margins in order to make ends meet? No, that can't be it. All farmers are bazillionairres according to you.


Most farmers aren't abusing the system and I think most folks would agree to the value of keeping those farms going. However, it is naive to think that some farmers aren't abusing the system. Like with any money coming down with the Government, there will always be those who come to depend on it more than they should.

Most folks here don't want to put farmers out of business. However, if farms over the long term can't be sustainable then taxpayers shouldn't have to bail them out year after year. Short term makes sense but some farmers are becoming welfare recipients because of where/what they are trying to farm.

I don't remember the Federal Government bailing out four of my family members when Hershey's moved down to Mexico and they all lost their jobs. They all had to go find jobs elsewhere on their own and the Government didn't give us squat for it. Those farmers who lost out got taken care of though just as they always do. None of my family took one cent of welfare and found jobs at the time in a tough job market.
"It seems the harder I work the more luck I seem to have"
Calikev
hunter
 
Posts: 807
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 7:14 pm
Location: Oakdale

Re: Sac river water update

Postby High Sierras » Wed Feb 26, 2014 3:34 pm

marsh-mello wrote:High Sierra, while I am listening to what you are saying I just disagree...little reservoirs all over the place do not add up to solving big problems, they create bigger problems from the financial standpoint, ROI, and an environmental ones as well. The reservoirs we have now have more than enough capacity they are just not full...get it, it is a drought. No matter if you had another 1400 reservoirs they wouldn't have water in them from 1990.

But that was exactly my point... the reservoirs we have now were adequate back 40 years ago, meant to serve a population half the current size. We DONT have enough capacity, because the reservoirs that we do have, have had their contents drained by trying to supply the same amount of water to twice as many people. If we had twice as many reservoirs, and had stoppered up the water we've let run out into the delta & ocean every winter for the last decade, then yes, they would be down because of the current drought -- to about half full, more or less. And we wouldn't be wringing our hands and trying to decide what to do now that we didn't get average rainfall this year. That's kinda the point of a reservoir... to reserve water from one season to the next, so we have it when we need it.

marsh-mello wrote:The real issue is unfettered growth like I mentioned before and NO ONE is addressing or will touch this issue until it parboils us all like the proverbial frog in the warming water. How many people will be in California in 2520? Hell we will never be able to build enough to meet the exponential unfettered growth of the future. Or should like you logically suggest we just keep building forever? At what point is enough enough, people and infrastructure, this cannot go on ad-infinitum?

I agree with you... but as I think we can also both agree on, no politician will ever step up and announce "The borders are now closed util someone decides to move out of California!" So how do we provide an adequate water supply for the growing population? Doing nothing and expecting everything to be all right will just keep us in to the predicament we're currently in.

marsh-mello wrote:I about as sick of folks political finger pointing as duckdoa is. How many Republican Governors in the last 40 years has California had and how many reservoirs have Wilson, Reagan, Dukmejean, or the Schwartznegger proposed and championed?

You're missing the point. It's not about who was sitting in Sacramento at the time, it's about who was doing their dead level best to stop the construction of all dams in California in the mid 1070's... on a grass roots level. And unarguably it was the radical far left wing of the democrat party... the greenies. The Sierra club, the Friends of American River Canyons, call them what you want. It's their legacy, not necessarily the Jerry Browns or Gray Davis' of the world, and thanks to them we now have a water supply infrastructure that is inadequate to withstand a season of drought for the current population that relies on it.

marsh-mello wrote:Get off the political one way locomotive. Talk about losing credibility...I don't go there because it's just plain stupid to politicize these issues when no one is more to blame than anyone else. There had been recent talk about raising Shasta dam...I do not know what ever became of those ideas but I bet and hope they will see a resurgence.

It's not urban sprawl vs reservoirs...they are co-joined with ALL water interests which are responsible for the increased demands on the infrastructure. It's not one is evil and the other is the answer, by cherry picking urban sprawl as the counter point you try and make it into a one issue interest and demonize the one you pick. The other interests and users are are somehow given the golden blind eye by you? Big Business, Manufacturing, Agriculture, Urban AND Rural families, heck how much water do you think a brewery needs in just one year? I'm sure we'll all agree to sacrifice for that though... :lol3:

We should learn to live with what we need and in my humble opinion that is a lot less and until that issue reaches a practical level of implementation everyone is just going to keep crying to get all they can and throw a tantrum just like we see a few do here when they cannot. I do not think you are a whacko but if you cannot see the benefits of conservation given the situation we are in now then you're certainly headed in that direction.

But who gets to decide exactly how much water we need? You? Me? Some faceless politician?

And if you're willing to let someone else decide how much water you and yours 'need' to survive on, are you also willing to let them decide how much land you need to live on? That's the next resource that is running out in California, and we can't catch more of that falling out of the sky come winter. I don't know about you, but I sure as heck don't want the politicians telling me I can only have a 4' strip of dirt around my house because "thats all you need to live on". Might as well go live down somewhere in the Valley with that writhing throng of humanity. Ugh.

I need elbow room to move around a little...Lebensraum baby! Lebensraum! :grooving:
High Sierras
hunter
 
Posts: 879
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:34 pm
Location: above the snow line most of the year

Re: Sac river water update

Postby marsh-mello » Wed Feb 26, 2014 6:17 pm

Mallards Only wrote:
marsh-mello wrote:
Mallards Only wrote:
marsh-mello wrote:
Nabs wrote:Yep SNAP cost last year (2013) was 76 Billion. Easily researched, those farm subsidies were how much? Somewhere between 10 Billion and 16 Billion, so somewhere between 13 and 21 % in Subsidies compared to JUST the food stamp program. Total government spending on welfare annually (not including food stamps or unemployment) $131.9 billion.

Just more Democrats buying votes, Housing paid, Food paid, Health Care Paid, Obama Phone Paid. Add a couple kids and hell the IRS gives them a refund above and beyond the federal income taxes they pay.

I am convinced I am quitting my Job, moving to Hawaii and collecting my $17.50 an hour in welfare, I don't even need to worry about deducting 58cents a mile, I can ride the Public Transit for free with my Low Income Buss Pass.


See there you go rationalizing again..it's not people just sitting around with their thumbs twittling who are the working poor and if you choose to look at the entire picture it's not just SNAP vs Farm Subsidies. There is a whole government and corporate alliance built to support those who do not need supporting all the while trying to demonize and chastise the poor? You yourself admitted you don't know how to deal with the corporate farm subsidy which provides more than 70% of the subsidies to large Agribusiness who are not means tested as SNAP RECEIPIENTS ARE and who don't need any handouts.

As far as who we will buy our food from, just list who is not taking subsidies on the package and I will gladly pay more for it upfront myself...although I probably wouldn't even have to. :yes: I imagine most people would feel the same...that's the American way!

Nobody is demonizing or chastising the poor. Really? read what you just wrote. That's the liberal socialist agenda. You all want them to think we are demonizing them and chastising them so they will vote to keep to keep your socialistic regime in power. The truth is conservatives who actually understand the economy and what it takes to have a successful economy where everyone flourishes, want the poor to work rather than be on the never-ending dole from self-serving politicians. There really isn't a job shortage in this nation right now. There are plenty of jobs in the ag industry, not to mention many other segments of retail and other industries. Most "Americans" are too lazy to do that work though and they think it's above them. Really? then who is doing this work if it's not Americans who are contributing to our society as employees of the farm as you say? This is why immigration reform will never work. At least the migrant farm workers are willing to work for a living. The rest have been coddled to think they should be able to make $20/hr or more and, if not, sit back and let the government support them. Take away that incentive and they would be forced to work like the rest of us. They would start giving to the economy rather than sucking off it and the nations business climate would rebound. And before you even start, don't even try to compare the farm subsidies to food stamps and welfare. The two are not one and the same. Farmers are out busting their ass trying to make a living to support themselves and their families and occasionally suffering at the expense of all their hard work as a result of government over-regulation and manipulation of the commodities markets or the weather. We can't survive without farmers and the food that they grow. If they fail, we all suffer. The poor are home sitting on their azz collecting a check for doing nothing(in between impregnating themselves so they can have more kids to support and collect more money). WOW! I could easily survive without them. Why don't you ask your farmer buddy who is barely making ends meet how he feels about the USDA pmts? There are a lot more like him who work long days and bust their azz, only to have all his hard work be for naught if the govt decides to manipulate the cost of rice. Which is it, Ray? I thought all farmers were driving around in shiny new pick-ups and spending all day at the Maxwell diner waiting for their subsidy check to arrive so they can plan their next vacation. Now, you say you know a farmer who toils hard, barely making it work with the minimum in equipment and manpower hoping he doesn't have a breakdown. Doesn't sound like the business plan of a billionaire making millions off farm subsidies. I guess he's the only one. Shouldn't come as a surprise that he's a friend of yours though.


Well I looked up my poor friends take for his subsidies...and he has taken over a million dollars and his other family member who helps him on occasion has taken just slightly more. He is still a friend of mine. Who said he was barely making it?

Your characterization and stereotyping of those who are the working poor is a fantasy which allows you to attempt to defend your hypocrisy for taking the same and being no better or worse. The same.

If expecting someone to work for a living rather than living off the hard work of others is demonizing and chastising, then guilty as charged. Why don't you give me the name of your farming buddy. I'll give him a call and let him know your take on the subsidies and we'll see if you ever pick up any extra work for him again. If he and his family have taken in over a million dollars in subsidies, how is it that he can't afford new equipment and has to farm as thin as he does? Could it be that even with the subsidies totaling millions, he still has to operate on very thin margins in order to make ends meet? No, that can't be it. All farmers are bazillionairres according to you.


You don't even realize many SNAP recipients are working and some two jobs. In the information I provided it explains how 60% of recipients are working not sitting at home popping out babies and drinking budwieser....heck just about every Walmart employee is living below the poverty line and receiving support while the "family" business rakes in more than you can count in profits. There are many divorced and single mothers receiving assistance, many veterans who are coping with PTSD and issues in which they find themselvs homeless, many people in the downturn of the economy lost jobs they had for decades and need assistance...but no you know they are all your stereotypical "lazy no good for nothings". :fingerpt: Your line of thinking is pathetic. I am all for rooting out any abuse anywhere it exists.

I said one of my many farmer friends has upgraded his equipment and the only reason he farms so "thin" is so he can make as much money as possible by not hiring more employees, it's not his profit margin that is thin. He does it on the razors edge of personell requirements...others choose not to, it was just an example another poster asked about not some other stupid claim you are trying to extrapolate it into. Never said all farmers are bazillionaires but there are hundreds who have taken millions and they do receive those handouts which are not means tested unlike those who you chastise. The end result is the burden taxpayer assume. Most of the subsidies do not go to family farms they go to mega-agribusiness corporations something like 70% of the subsidies go to the top 10% of recipients. No one wants to put farmers out of business however huge agribusiness should be weaned off the government dole and prosper like many farmers do who do not take or are offered subsidies. Or should they be coddled and bankrolled while their profits are measurable and substantive and obviously not dependent on additional tax dollars?

It's obvious you choose to ignore this information.

marsh-mello wrote:Well, the biggest problem is welfare by any other name is still welfare isn't it...and of ALL the subsidies listed,because that is what they are, I am MORE than sure the food stamps are a smaller portion of that collective pork pie. You're just under some romantic delusion and see what you want and rationalize the rest. Get past that and the hypocritical rhetoric attached to it and then we will be on the same page.

http://www.salon.com/2013/12/15/poverty ... ork_swamp/

"2013 is the year many Americans discovered the crisis of the working poor. It turns out it’s also the crisis of the welfare poor. That’s tough for us: Americans notoriously hate welfare, unless it’s called something else and/or benefits us personally. We think it’s for slackers and moochers and people who won’t pull their weight.

So we’re not sure how to handle the fact that a quarter of people who have jobs today make so little money that they also receive some form of public assistance, or welfare – a proportion that’s much higher in some of the fastest-growing sectors of the workforce. Or that 60 percent of able-bodied adult food-stamp recipients are employed."

Which brings me to the other problem with low-wage workers being forced to depend on public assistance: They’re sadly vulnerable to political scapegoating and backlash politics. Rep. Paul Ryan calls the safety net a “hammock,” which is horrifying when we know so many people are working at least one and maybe two jobs and still remaining poor. Mitt Romney inveighed against the 47 percent of Americans who pay no federal income taxes, which includes millions of low-wage workers on the earned income tax credit, even though the EITC was a Republican idea, signed into law by President Gerald Ford and expanded by both Presidents Bush.
Last edited by marsh-mello on Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Charter member of the "I only shoot bar belly geese club". I'm a Bar belly goose purist!
marsh-mello
hunter
 
Posts: 607
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:30 pm

Re: Sac river water update

Postby wanapasaki » Wed Feb 26, 2014 6:26 pm

STORMS ARE ON THEIR WAY! STOCK UP WHILE YOU CAN!
Give a man a duck... Feed him for a day... Teach him to fowl hunt... Feed him for a lifetime...Teach him in your spot... Learn to hunt a different spot....
User avatar
wanapasaki
hunter
 
Posts: 2516
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Tehachapi, CA

Re: Sac river water update

Postby marsh-mello » Wed Feb 26, 2014 6:30 pm

High Sierras wrote:If you're willing to let someone else decide how much water you and yours 'need' to survive on, are you also willing to let them decide how much land you need to live on? That's the next resource that is running out in California, and we can't catch more of that falling out of the sky come winter. I don't know about you, but I sure as heck don't want the politicians telling me I can only have a 4' strip of dirt around my house because "thats all you need to live on". Might as well go live down somewhere in the Valley with that writhing throng of humanity. Ugh.

I need elbow room to move around a little...Lebensraum baby! Lebensraum! :grooving:


My answer is not to let anyone dictate the answers...I just believe it is responsible to take advantage of the savings through conservation which are there and everyone should be individually responsible for doing so in these times when we are short.

Thanks for the discussion.
Charter member of the "I only shoot bar belly geese club". I'm a Bar belly goose purist!
marsh-mello
hunter
 
Posts: 607
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:30 pm

PreviousNext

Return to California Duck Hunting

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests