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, duckman2000, PinTeal, finsnfeathershunter

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: 262
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: 277
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: 775
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: 775
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: 675
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: 578
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: 2472
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: 578
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:30 pm

Re: Sac river water update

Postby marsh-mello » Wed Feb 26, 2014 6:42 pm

Calikev wrote:
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.


Good post Kevin I agree...
Charter member of the "I only shoot bar belly geese club". I'm a Bar belly goose purist!
marsh-mello
hunter
 
Posts: 578
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:30 pm

Re: Sac river water update

Postby Mallards Only » Wed Feb 26, 2014 6:44 pm

I don't ignore any information. I look at the facts and make informed decisions based on fact. You, on the other hand, just like to argue about stuff you know nothing about. (I didn't quote your lengthy rant which says pretty much nothing but you know I'm talking about you.)
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 6:50 pm

As long as you added yourself to the list I'm all good.

While you're checking facts try some of these on for size...

http://www.ctj.org/corporatetaxdodgers/ ... Report.pdf

marsh-mello wrote:
Here add yourself to this list of other smart doctors...enjoy the host as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19LUncgG8VA
Last edited by marsh-mello on Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:56 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: 578
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:30 pm

Re: Sac river water update

Postby Nabs » Wed Feb 26, 2014 7:00 pm

So when someone needs help because of bad decisions in their life, it is the taxpayers obligation and responsibility to provide food through SNAP, housing through section 8, health services through Medi-cal, and cash assistance through welfare. Got it!

As far as states that provide welfare benefits above teachers salaries, it was in the link I provided, lazy debating socialist does not want to look at any evidence provided, if it does not match your thinking it must not be true I guess.


P.S. Median is not Average
User avatar
Nabs
hunter
 
Posts: 742
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:35 pm

Re: Sac river water update

Postby marsh-mello » Wed Feb 26, 2014 7:16 pm

Nabs wrote:So when someone needs help because of bad decisions in their life, it is the taxpayers obligation and responsibility to provide food through SNAP, housing through section 8, health services through Medi-cal, and cash assistance through welfare. Got it!

As far as states that provide welfare benefits above teachers salaries, it was in the link I provided, lazy debating socialist does not want to look at any evidence provided, if it does not match your thinking it must not be true I guess.


P.S. Median is not Average


You know what sometimes bad things happen to good people too... :huh: Catastrophic medical issues, accidental death of main provider, losing a job, getting divorced and having to still have responsibility for several children...mostly women who stayed at home or worked part time and were raising kids and do not have career incomes, the working poor who might need help while they address their education or retraining to get a hand up, etc....no but you and MO know they all are lazy moochers. :fingerpt: You two really need to find some real facts and not just continued regurgitating some contrived disparaging stereotypical dogma while ignoring the real fleecing of tax payers. If you stop spoon feeding yourself the pablum and dogma of extremist politics you might have come across this gem in the actual study. "Contrary to stereotypes, there is no evidence that people on welfare are lazy or do not wish to work."

BS to your PS....

I posted BOTH average AND median...both over 50 thousand...you made a bold claim and I asked you to back it up by providing specifics and you provided nothing...empty hollow information not included in your link...move on. Name two states where you can make over 56,000 a year average teachers wages as you claim in welfare... you said there were 8? Seems if it was there or you knew you'd be thrashing about yourself to show me "I told you so"... If you can't your just blowing smoke and got called out on it. It's that simple. No one qualifies for every program and gets assistance from all at the same juncture so lumping them all together and fabricating some mythical person who makes 60 thousand on welfare is...fraudulent to say the least. These supplemental programs are designed and means tested to keep people and mostly children housed and fed...no one is taking any Hawaiian vacations on this level of minimal sustenance.
Charter member of the "I only shoot bar belly geese club". I'm a Bar belly goose purist!
marsh-mello
hunter
 
Posts: 578
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:30 pm

Re: Sac river water update

Postby Mallards Only » Thu Feb 27, 2014 7:48 am

marsh-mello wrote:
Here add yourself to this list of other smart doctors...enjoy the host as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19LUncgG8VA

I guess there's smart-stupid and then just plain stupid like Maher and you. Maher doesn't have any more proof of his claims than you but, somehow, you all think you know it all when it's clear you know nothing.
Mallards Only
hunter
 
Posts: 277
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:49 pm
Location: Chico, CA

Re: Sac river water update

Postby marsh-mello » Thu Feb 27, 2014 7:52 am

Mallards Only wrote:
marsh-mello wrote:
Here add yourself to this list of other smart doctors...enjoy the host as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19LUncgG8VA

I guess there's smart-stupid and then just plain stupid like Maher and you. Maher doesn't have any more proof of his claims than you but, somehow, you all think you know it all when it's clear you know nothing.



Of course your creamy layer of Michelle Bachmen is showing through just a bit, she's famously known just a bit too for making up her own facts and spreading her own form of TEA party drivel in much the same manner as you do...I'm glad you enjoyed the link :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Charter member of the "I only shoot bar belly geese club". I'm a Bar belly goose purist!
marsh-mello
hunter
 
Posts: 578
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:30 pm

Re: Sac river water update

Postby Mallards Only » Thu Feb 27, 2014 9:10 am

You just proved my point.
Mallards Only
hunter
 
Posts: 277
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:49 pm
Location: Chico, CA

Re: Sac river water update

Postby Nabs » Thu Feb 27, 2014 11:36 am

The statement is in the link I provided, care to show how the average teacher salary is $56,000? Because it says so in the link you provided? I agree that if you take a pay scale for teacher salaries and do an average of the scale you may come up with 56,000. that does not mean teachers actually make that much.

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/All_K-12_Teachers/Salary#by_Years_Experience

The fact that you want to argue amount of welfare received versus how much someone makes at a job show how absolutely retarded your point of view is. You (and everyone for that matter) are not entitled to anything for nothing.


As far as hard times welfare and food stamps, I call bull crap, typical liberal bullshit, if you cannot afford what you want, ask the government. And to answer your question, No, you are not entitled to anything you do not earn. Need food stamps to eat while watching cable television or talking on your cell phone?

<start sarcasm> If the government spends more than it takes in, it does not have a spending problem it has a revenue problem (means more taxes needed). <end sarcasm>
User avatar
Nabs
hunter
 
Posts: 742
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:35 pm

Re: Sac river water update

Postby duckdoa » Thu Feb 27, 2014 11:47 am

Bam! Pow! Zing! Maybe it would be easier to set up a time and place for a non-celebrity boxing match? I would pay $10 easy to watch! Opening round would be 2 minutes of verbal bashing followed by 2 minutes of duking it out for 3 rounds, if anybody is left standing they take home the money and a small DHC trophy. Winner, winner chicken dinner.
The sky is falling, the sky is falling! Oops that's just ducks and geese...
duckdoa
hunter
 
Posts: 260
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Sac river water update

Postby Nabs » Thu Feb 27, 2014 12:01 pm

duckdoa wrote:Bam! Pow! Zing! Maybe it would be easier to set up a time and place for a non-celebrity boxing match? I would pay $10 easy to watch! Opening round would be 2 minutes of verbal bashing followed by 2 minutes of duking it out for 3 rounds, if anybody is left standing they take home the money and a small DHC trophy. Winner, winner chicken dinner.


Oh come on, you know we cannot do that, according to the leftist socialist agenda, everyone must take home an equal amount of the money whether they show up or not, everyone gets a participation ribbon no matter how well or poorly they do.

Oh and in the 2 minute verbal bashing, will edits be allowed?
User avatar
Nabs
hunter
 
Posts: 742
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:35 pm

Re: Sac river water update

Postby Mallards Only » Thu Feb 27, 2014 1:34 pm

If the "duking it out" part was anything like the "intellectual" discussion, it would be a quick fight. My money's on Nabs. Of course, MM would claim that it was unfair because Nabs brought facts and common sense to the fight rather than worthless rhetoric and stupid sarcasm.
Mallards Only
hunter
 
Posts: 277
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:49 pm
Location: Chico, CA

Re: Sac river water update

Postby marsh-mello » Thu Feb 27, 2014 8:10 pm

Nabs wrote:The statement is in the link I provided, care to show how the average teacher salary is $56,000? Because it says so in the link you provided? I agree that if you take a pay scale for teacher salaries and do an average of the scale you may come up with 56,000. that does not mean teachers actually make that much. Uhhh...Yeah when you take the actual salaries and average the actual data it does.

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/All_K-12_Teachers/Salary#by_Years_Experience

The fact that you want to argue amount of welfare received versus how much someone makes at a job show how absolutely retarded your point of view is. You (and everyone for that matter) GREAT we agree then subsidies for Agri-business and Corporate America which would be included in EVERYONE are not entitled to anything for nothing.

As far as hard times welfare and food stamps, I call bull crap, typical liberal bullshit, if you cannot afford what you want, ask the government. And to answer your question, No, you are not entitled to anything you do not earn. Need food stamps to eat while watching cable television or talking on your cell phone? If you want to single out abuse then we will probably agree but until then when you rail against the entire system and impune everyone with inaccurate and ridiculous stereotypes it just makes you wrong.

<start sarcasm> If the government spends more than it takes in, it does not have a spending problem it has a revenue problem (means more taxes needed). <end sarcasm>


Let me see I post information from the primary science based educational authority with links to the supporting data and tables for the information they use to provide reports to Congress and anyone else who needs information and FACTS. You post a link from a blog which makes an unsubstantiated "statement" with no background or supporting data to support a creation of some mythological person in which they perform an analysis of a previous study reaping every maximum program benefit ever invented by man to come up with a phony equivalency number? Yeah I can see as can everyone else where you get your "FACTS" which are the sole driving issue for forming your pre-formed opinions. Let's not forget the false stereotype stigma you and MO try to envision, how you can sleep at night full well knowing you are going to get a visit from Jacob Marley and three ghosts around Christmas. :lol3:

Here's lesson 101...to find the US teachers average salary you would add up all the "average" salaries teachers actually make from each state then divide that by the number of states. Perhaps you could write to the NCES and tell them how in your vast plethora of learning you understand math and simple addition and division and statistics better than they do.

Who Is NCES?
The purpose of the National Center for Education Statistics' website is to provide clear, complete information about NCES' mission and activities, and to serve the research, education and other interested communities. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for collecting and analyzing data related to education in the U.S. and other nations. NCES is located within the U.S. Department of Education and the Institute of Education Sciences.

Nabs wrote: 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


Don't be mad at me...I just asked you to back up this outlandish claim. You started down this road, I just clarified it for you once you decided which direction you were headed. Heck I even made it easy on you I only asked you to name two states. I guess when you use the term "research" or "facts" it means different things to you and me? :huh:

Politics, Government support for Corporate America and Welfare...the only thing missing so far if we want to have a real conversation is Religion. :lol3:
Last edited by marsh-mello on Thu Feb 27, 2014 10:34 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: 578
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:30 pm

Re: Sac river water update

Postby Nabs » Thu Feb 27, 2014 9:31 pm

GREAT we agree then subsidies for Agri-business and Corporate America which would be included in EVERYONE are not entitled to anything for nothing.


And there in lies the rub, Agri-business and Corporate America employ hundreds of thousands of people, it is estimatated that every dollar produced by Agribusiness returns 3 dollars directly to the economy.

As far as NCES being the end all final say on teachers salaries, that is like asking City Hall how much of my water and sewer bill is spent to provide that service (their answer will always be, Why all of it of course).

Of course the Department of Education feeds numbers that match their agenda, they are a government agency that depends on taxpayer money to establish budgets, the bigger the salaries, the bigger the budget.

Top 10 Hourly Wage Equivalent Welfare States in U.S.
State Hourly Wage Equivalent
Hawaii $17.50
Alaska $15.48
Massachusetts $14.66
Connecticut $14.23
Washington, D.C. $13.99
New York $13.13
New Jersey $12.55
Rhode Island $12.55
California $11.59
Virginia $11.11

Anyone of the above states is an insult an an affront to every working American in the country.

And you have it wrong when you say I do not recognize, I simply do not care to be forcibly stolen from to put a roof over someone else's head or food in someone else's stomach. I am tired of being robbed (taxed) to pay for someone else's poor decisions,lack of ambition or simple bad luck.
User avatar
Nabs
hunter
 
Posts: 742
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:35 pm

Re: Sac river water update

Postby marsh-mello » Thu Feb 27, 2014 9:39 pm

No agenda just the straight facts. What would even be the hidden agenda there anyway to show they get paid not enough so they could beg for more? Wouldn't that make MORE sense if there was one? Hence the figure might be "lower" if you were right? Come on there isn't a conspiracy under every rock you turn over. Good grief.

Equivalent is the operative word here...means they do not receive those amounts, nothing even close to it, but receive some services like access to medical services, etc. I have little faith in an arbitrary and capricious analysis and figure which has attributed and heaped on benefits of multiple programs all of which no one individual comes close to receiving at one time. The folks who put the stats you cite together have as much of an axe to grind as you do. You should also know those would be the maximum contrived figures as the benefits are means tested so the majority who work do not come even close as they receive reduced benefits and some services like medical are programs provided through employment.
Last edited by marsh-mello on Thu Feb 27, 2014 9:47 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: 578
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:30 pm

Re: Sac river water update

Postby Nabs » Thu Feb 27, 2014 9:47 pm

Hell you won't even admit that the SNAP program costs more that all farm subsidies. and you can pull every one of those figures from your own links, I did, farm subsidies equaled 13 to 21% of the SNAP program depending on where I pulled the numbers from Your links.

You and Slow have a couple things in common, biggest one is that neither one are ever wrong in your own mind.

Nice Job brushing the statistics I provided under the rug, they don't suit your agenda, they must be wrong.
User avatar
Nabs
hunter
 
Posts: 742
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:35 pm

Re: Sac river water update

Postby marsh-mello » Thu Feb 27, 2014 9:52 pm

Nabs wrote:Hell you won't even admit that the SNAP program costs more that all farm subsidies. and you can pull every one of those figures from your own links, I did, farm subsidies equaled 13 to 21% of the SNAP program depending on where I pulled the numbers from Your links.

You and Slow have a couple things in common, biggest one is that neither one are ever wrong in your own mind.

Nice Job brushing the statistics I provided under the rug, they don't suit your agenda, they must be wrong.


Agenda? That would be to root out waste at every level. If there is abuse in SNAP by all means identify it and root it out. If there are large Agri-business who in the final analysis could make it without billions in handouts ,which are really only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to corporate subsidies so don't hold them up alone with regard to SNAP, then why shouldn't those corporations who make billions in profit and still pay no taxes be getting a free ride off both our backs? Think about that for a second and if you can accept that FACT then we might have some common ground.

This conversation is really all about that double standard which some have problems understanding...but perhaps a position more easily understood if they benefit personally.
Charter member of the "I only shoot bar belly geese club". I'm a Bar belly goose purist!
marsh-mello
hunter
 
Posts: 578
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:30 pm

PreviousNext

Return to California Duck Hunting

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], JRS and 22 guests