• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Hows George W going?

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Australian Cattleman said:
Hows Mr Bush going in the eyes of most Americans?
Our Prime Minister is doing well and continues to run our country well.

Those who know how to appreciate a good thing
appreciate Mr. Bush. Both of our countries have much
to be thankful for.
nr said:
Those who know how to appreciate a good thing
appreciate Mr. Bush. Both of our countries have much
to be thankful for.

Ditto!!! I can't say anything bad about the man... Can you get any better than a president that's a rancher?

I hear your fella' is an ardent anti gun owner type. Also heard you and your Kiwi neighbours are now about to get in to country wide knife control.

Any truth to this?

A rancher who is slashing the farm program.

"Agribusiness is one of the biggest recipients of such taxpayer doles."
NOT Family Farms and Ranches"

" Bush has proposed a cap on farm subsidies of $250,000, down from approximately $1 million."

"Under federal law, payments are supposed to go only to people who are "actively engaged in farming," but the report said, many people not involved in farm operations have received large subsidies.Moreover, it said, individuals who on their own could receive no more than $180,000 for a farming operation sometimes set up a partnership of three partners, each receiving $180,000 in subsidies, thus tripling the total amount of payments to the farming operation."

"Subsidies to farmers do not benefit the family farm and in fact run them out of business, according to Senator Grassley of Iowa. "When 10 percent of the nation's farmers receive 60 percent of the payments, it erodes public confidence in federal farm programs. Unlimited farm payments have placed upward pressure on land prices and contributed to overproduction and lower commodity prices, driving many family farmers off the farm."

But then again R-Calf if your getting in excess of $250,000, up to $million, from them, I would be p#$#$d to that they were cutting my pay to $180,000.

rancher who pledged $300 million in food aid to tsunami victims but instead of buying the food from American farmers decided it would be cheaper to buy the food over in Europe and ship it

Actually it was part of the USAID's entire budget not part of the Tsunami $350 million, if you have facts that show the US money went directly to buy overseas product then please show them, not just a wild accusation. because it is two seperate situations. One of the rifts was that we in effect bypassed the UN and headed up our own aid program under the US-AID banner.
in fact if you go to thier site you will see a Total USDA Humanitarian Assistance Committed: $12,000,000 . and by checking fact sheet #36 you can see a break down of the spending. I'm sure a high school graduate could pull the direct food figures out and see if they add up to 12 million or not?

"The spokesperson of the WFP in Aceh mentioned that this rice was coming from the US. (9) According to the WFP, the US has already donated some 20,450 tonnes of rice to tsunami regions, most of it coming from pre-positioned stocks in Dubai. "

Now one to your issue with President Bush,

and while I would prefer that every bushel of grain given away be purchased from American farmers, I can see that for every bushel of grain bought from any source, will leave a gap in the global market, and the American Farmer will be able to sell thier product to fill the short fall created by US AID taking that grain off the world market.

Link will provide you with the fact you are looking for.:

and part of the reason;
Organisations fear that the massive arrival of free food in will trigger a price collapse, making it even more difficult for the local economy to recover completely and possibly threatening the agricultural capacity that has survived the disaster.

Their concerns are justified. In Somalia in December 1992, for example, food aid poured into the country, despite the worst of the crisis being over and a good local harvest. The imported food drove down the prices received by local Somali farmers by 75 percent, forcing many of them to abandon their land and join the queues for imported food handouts. Some farmers complained that relief agencies wouldn't buy their food because the US government only provided them with funds to buy food from US companies.

"Everybody recognises the need for emergency food aid. The situation is a catastrophe and the displaced population does not have any other means to feed itself."

So by making this within the ability of the US AID to buy locally they will in effect prop up the local economy allowing it to free itself from our aid,

the other option is to feed them forever?

While I disagree with the amount allowed of $300 million, And disagree with the policy as a whole, I am not going to say it is a completly bad policy, there are few merits, Time to delivery of first arrived product, proping up local markets, ect. But "Reduced taxpayer costs" is in itself wrong as it will in the loss of our productivity, cost US the tax reciepts from the products market gain.

But it is easier to look at the why of the policy, then throwing out a claim with little to any facts to back it up.
Billons of dollars are wasted through government spending every year and now your going to start counting pennies at the expense of the American farmer? You and Dubya can ..............

Was that your response?

If so maybe you should take remedial reading.

instead of attempting to copy and paste what was written, you should have read it. But I'll sum it up instead.

no one is buying grain from europe to give to the tsunomi victims.

the plan for world aid is seperate.

It an answer to a problem. aid not getting to victems in time of need and collapsing thier local market.

I even said While I disagree with the amount allowed of $300 million, And disagree with the policy as a whole,

But if you want to blame Bush for your inability to read, then that's your problem.

as for the insult, was that really needed? why stoop to such levels?
R-Calf, " You have already proved your ignorance by being a rancher and supporting your industries worst enemy."

Our industries worse enemy is Bush? Really? Is he spouting anti-beef messages? Is he providing fodder for the anti-meat groups? Is he allowing crippling anti-business agenda or environmental regulations to harm the economy? Is he our enemy for proposing cuts in excessive farm programs? Is he our enemy for supporting trade with other countries? How well do you think we would fare under strict isolationist policies? Would you rather John Kerry would have been elected?
R-calf Maybe you could show your smarts by figuring out how to do a quote correctly,

you start by placing you curser over the Quote button and right clicking, then Paste the desired Quote.
then push the Quote button again.

So it ends up like this

Then press the preview key to see how it looks. (that way you won't look as stupid as the rest of the Bush haters).

By the way most every one on here can read, you re-pasteing thier words makes you look as if you can't.

By the way why mis-represent a organization by using thier tag, in violation of the copy right laws?
By the way STEVE how I doubt their are to many cow/calf producers out there in Wildwood New Jersey since your agenda is purely politically driven and you have no iron in this fire.........good day.

there are NO cow calf productions in Wildwood. and by no means am I a serious rancher. But to say I have no Iron in this fire is incorrect.
The beef in my freezer didn't come from the supermarket.

But when you make incorrect statements with no facts to support them you degrade the organization you claim to represent and by avoiding the discussion you show your ignorance of the industry. It appears you learned little in College other then the liberal playbook. only by open discussion will any thing ever be solved.

By the way ain't this the Political Bull site?
R-Calf said:
Making my living predominantly through ranching makes subsidies irrelevant to me. However calling BUSHY a friend to agriculture is by far and away a longshot. He sure is p#$#%g off the Haves and the Have mores........I mean his base.

Looks like GW has been treatin' ya purdy good here.

Where do you folks stand on Bushs proposals to increase the income that s.s. tac applies to? Also the the latest proposal of a consumption tax? That one concerns me the most. I feel a cosumption tax would hurt the economy. Of course it wouldnt hurt the rich folk much. That would be my biggest concern. JR
I feel that SS would be better suited if the Walfare type programs were shifted from them to thier correct budget and not funded by the plan. then re-investing that same income to cover some of the transition costs.

As for the increase in the income level, I will be effected by the increase yet feel I will get little to no extra benefit, so it becomes a tax increase. And I hate tax increases. I unfortunatly am young enough that by opting to invest privatly I would be able to recover some of the loss, I never expected to draw SS, and planned for a private retirement. that planning paid off and if SS is fixed it would be an added bonus. not just for me but for many fellow Americans.

I'm am somewaht in favor of a consumption / sales tax >>>Only<<< if it is replaced by an equel or greater reduction in other income based taxes..But that wont happen so it would be just another tax increase.

AS for the c-sales tax the liberals did the same with a luxury tax a while back, it just made American products costlier, and the Japs started the Lexus and Acura brands to fill the cost gap. The boat builders out here ALL went under, as buying shifted off shore.

I want $5.00 gas as much as I want huge tax bills. If I face a short fall I cut spending, if I have a program that is producing no results I cut the program. I feel that GW is lighting a fire under Congress to start fixing the mess that past congresses has created. the end result will look nothing like the idea first floated.

One of the scams congress pulls every year is hidden programs under other good programs. SS has several welfare programs that suck alot of money out to fund an under-class of poor, by working a little harder that lose the benefit, so they stay at that poor level, the same happens with the Ag dept and food stamps. taken from either budget and the resulting Ag budget would look great, as would the SS budget, I did a paper on this for and Economics class and the results were scary. the congress does not want the public to know the Real numbers spent on the welfare.

Any program that hinges Health, Money, Home, and Food on the recipient staying poor, will work , ,,,,Rather then earn more they will stay poor.

I could not take a couple dollor an hour raise a better job would give me if I had to give up the benefits that were recieved from these programs. the cost would be to high to recover. so with out a reason to lift oneself up most just stay on the welfare program.
Steve did I read your post correct that gw is lighting a fire under this congress to fix the mess that the past congress had made. Is that past mess the billions of dollars of surpluss your talking about. Im sure glad he took care of that problem, now we are in a mess and you know exactly how it will be fixed, by the middle class.
ez now said:
Steve did I read your post correct that gw is lighting a fire under this congress to fix the mess that the past congress had made. Is that past mess the billions of dollars of surpluss your talking about. Im sure glad he took care of that problem, now we are in a mess and you know exactly how it will be fixed, by the middle class.

If you believe there was ever a "surplus" under Clinton, you are misinformed. That was all how it was put on paper. All him and George Sr did was ride on Reagan's coattails.
come on bull burger thats what is wrong here you know there was surplus in the billions thats the lies i dont like seeing people argue about lets just all tell the truth. look, a lot of people like gw policies they deffently dont benefit the working people, take social security,healthcare, and we all know he is not much for the unionworkers. ps im not calling you a liar i just cant see how you could say there was no surplus

Latest posts