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: #1wingnut, finsnfeathershunter, duckman2000, PinTeal

Re: Sac river water update

Postby duckdoa » Tue Feb 25, 2014 2:23 pm

I'm so sick of people blaming the left or the right for what they perceive to be "wrongs" against their beliefs be it personal, political or religious. Don't forget when you point your finger at someone else, 3 more are pointed back at you...
Instead of complaining about everything why not unite based on common ground? Divide and conquer still holds true.
The sky is falling, the sky is falling! Oops that's just ducks and geese...
duckdoa
hunter
 
Posts: 254
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 9:03 pm


Re: Sac river water update

Postby Tommyo » Tue Feb 25, 2014 3:15 pm

IMO the BDCP plan is in fact the "do nothing" option. Because the BDCP plan does not add to supply and simultaneously opens the potential for greater raiding of NorCal water - I call it kleptostructure - not infrastructure.
Find a way when there is no way.
Tommyo
hunter
 
Posts: 138
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:46 pm

Re: Sac river water update

Postby High Sierras » Tue Feb 25, 2014 4:39 pm

marsh-mello wrote:I'd say you listed how already the streams have multiple impoundments (means, many already)...and thinking you can just put in more without some serious process is a fools folly.


Hardly. I listed one river as a model of how it could be done and should be done if we want to do more than follow the “live with less” model the greenies demand. How many dams are on the Feather River? Three little ones at the headwaters of the Middle fork, and then over 30 miles until it arrives in Oroville? A handful of little ones on the north fork, primarily for hydro power? The Feather drains over 6,000 square miles of California. That alone suggests we could add a dam or two there.

The Yuba River? Between Downieville and Bullard’s Bar, there’s 20 miles of river. A series of smaller dams like Lake Clementine on the American could add a lot of storage there as well as flood prevention.

The Consumnes? None. The Mokuloume (besides Pardee and Comanche)? None on the main river, a handful on its tributaries. And together the Mokuloume and Consumnes drain over 2,143 square miles of the Golden State, and the Mokuloume is over 150 miles long… surely we could find room for a few small dams that would alleviate a little of the overburdened demands on the water supply there, no? I’m not talking about building mega reservoirs like Oroville or New Melones… but a series of smaller ones that would act together to add capacity and reduce the possibility of floods downstream. Heck, if you’re worried the deer will all run to the lake’s edge and throw themselves off in desperation of trying to find a route across other than swimming, we could add wildlife overcrossings.
marsh-mello wrote:Not even addressing land ownership issues. Habitat has been fragmented and built over destroying and isolating quite a few habitats already...you think just building more reservoirs and housing more people is a solution? I don't have the ability nor does anyone else to stop people from having sex and overpopulating. Such is the reward for having freedom and free will...I don't even hear a murmur about addressing these pressing future issues from ANYONE. I see a problem with no immediate solution until the chit really hits the fan...then like most folks knee jerk reaction it will probably be too little too late.
If you do not think deer, and waterfowl and upland habitat has been built over, fragmented and it has had a net negative effect of populations then talk to your grandfather or anyone else who has been around for more than one generation. Yeah they are still there with their ranks thinned allowing only token tags in some zones and how many people do you hear complaining here about the very thing I am talking about? So let's go ahead and thin them some more willy nilly right?


Urban sprawl has done a thousand times the fragmentation of habitat damage that reservoirs have, and without any of the positive side effects like reservoirs have. Trying to blame the eco-damage and vast deer drownings on dam building is akin to blaming private jet aircraft for all the air pollution problems in California, it kills whatever credibility you had on the issue.

marsh-mello wrote:How many people are living right where you just suggested? I know because I used to live there within a mile of the bear river myself in Placer County and there were plenty of houses and house developments mighty closer to the river then mine. Try again...we already have over 1400 impoundments remember.


I checked out the link you added regarding the list of the dams already in California. And with the exception of only 14 dams (predominantly built in Southern CA) on the list, or 1/10th of 1%, ALL 1400 were all built before 1975… nearly forty years ago. Care to guess what the State of CA’s population was forty years ago? It was 19,953,134 in 1970. I couldn't find an accurate number for 1975, but let's say 21 million for giggles. The population is currently at >39,000,000, or just about double what it was back then. Do you seriously think the current water supply system was designed back then to provide an adequate water supply for double the demand back when built? Of course not, the engineers that built the existing infrastructure assumed we would not get stuck on stupid in the following 40 years and stop building to meet the current needs.
marsh-mello wrote:The CVP is a dynamic entity and it has ongoing costs for all of us. Not just once and done...all users have a stake and obligation to the mitigation.
http://www.usbr.gov/newsroom/presskit/f ... ordid=3001

Bottom line, unless we add capacity to our water storage system, this state will die a slow economic death. That death will come faster if the global warming folks have it right and the Sierra snowpack mega-reservoir we’ve all become accustomed to and historically relied upon becomes a thing of the past. Capping California’s population is political suicide; no politician will ever seriously propose that. Without developing more water sources, and as more people consume the limited water available, the farmers (and the wildlife) will all be shoved aside so the voters can get a drink.


marsh-mello wrote:
High Sierras wrote:And those ecosystems you talk about were shattered decades ago by humans and towns and houses and reservoirs and interstate highways. A few more dams aren't going to make the Sierra deer herd wander off into the Nevada desert looking for the good old days.

Yeah we have a water shortage because of an unprecedented drought...let's build lots more reservoirs...we can do it in lots of places :huh: As hunters I figure we have always been conservationist in the best sense of the word...in this case conserving is doing nothing? Really?

No, you’re the one proposing do nothing and hope the problem goes away on it's own, or at best you're advocating “Let’s all learn to live with less”.
Apparently I’m the radical whack job proposing we develop our water resources so we can do more than just sit around and watch the wildlife and our State’s economy die off for lack of a competent water supply.
High Sierras
hunter
 
Posts: 669
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:34 pm
Location: above the snow line most of the year

Re: Sac river water update

Postby 3200 man » Tue Feb 25, 2014 4:59 pm

If you mean Competent Leadership , I agree !

With all this talk , there is not ONE drop of water more , going down our rivers so , lets talk of the present time like now !

Where do we get water for irrigating , this year ? and maybe next year too !
3200 man
hunter
 
Posts: 2790
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 10:30 am

Re: Sac river water update

Postby High Sierras » Tue Feb 25, 2014 5:10 pm

3200 man wrote:If you mean Competent Leadership , I agree !

With all this talk , there is not ONE drop of water more , going down our rivers so , lets talk of the present time like now !

Where do we get water for irrigating , this year ? and maybe next year too !


But if you only live in the present time without planning, you will remain in the camp of " just learn to live with less" crowd. And at this point, the legacy of the "no more dams" dems means you don't get more water for irrigating this year, or possibly next.

It took us 40 years of apathy to get to this point, it would take us ten more to build our infrastructure back up to a meaningful level, and that's without the greenies doing everything in their power to slow the process to a crawl, or assuming we could find the funds to build them with the current debt of 17+ Trillion hanging over our heads.

Or we can all wait until it rains again and declare the need to update our infrastructure 'unnecessary'. Until the next drought.
High Sierras
hunter
 
Posts: 669
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 » Tue Feb 25, 2014 6:58 pm

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. 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 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? 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.
Last edited by marsh-mello on Tue Feb 25, 2014 8:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Charter member of the "I only shoot bar belly geese club". I'm a Bar belly goose purist!
marsh-mello
hunter
 
Posts: 572
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:30 pm

Re: Sac river water update

Postby Nabs » Tue Feb 25, 2014 8:04 pm

I got it all figured out, We can stop the farmers subsidies, they can all sell their farmland to developers who in turn can put in low income housing, which will be filled with section 8 tenants who can spend their food stamps to buy food from the stores.
User avatar
Nabs
hunter
 
Posts: 732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:35 pm

Re: Sac river water update

Postby marsh-mello » Tue Feb 25, 2014 8:27 pm

Nabs wrote:I got it all figured out, We can stop the farmers subsidies, they can all sell their farmland to developers who in turn can put in low income housing, which will be filled with section 8 tenants who can spend their food stamps to buy food from the stores.


How about this instead we take all the subsidies and "other payments" money given to farmers since the great depression, Include all SNAP payments, couple that with all the money given to wall street bankers, add that to all the money given to Exxon and all other multi-national corporate billionaires, then add to that half the money given to Congress to appropriate on worthless and exorbitant war machines and military bases and countries all over the world, then take all the money spent the last 10 years on the Iraq war and split it up and give it all back to ourselves...hell we will all be millionaires, retire, buy beach front property and sip margaritas the rest of our gray days.

Either that or we would all be politicians... :eek:

:lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:
Charter member of the "I only shoot bar belly geese club". I'm a Bar belly goose purist!
marsh-mello
hunter
 
Posts: 572
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:30 pm

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/
User avatar
Nabs
hunter
 
Posts: 732
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: 572
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: 3626
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.
User avatar
Nabs
hunter
 
Posts: 732
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.
User avatar
Nabs
hunter
 
Posts: 732
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: 572
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.
User avatar
Nabs
hunter
 
Posts: 732
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: 572
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: 3626
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: 3626
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.
User avatar
Nabs
hunter
 
Posts: 732
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: 572
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
User avatar
Nabs
hunter
 
Posts: 732
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: 572
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: 572
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: 277
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: 572
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 10 guests