I post links from the "liberal EWG" site, and you take the handouts.
Just simply posting your hypocrisy. Spin it however you want if it helps you sleep at night, but bottom line is you take handouts from the Federal government you seem to despise so much.
I don;t despise the federal govt when it operates within our Constitution.
As to hypocrisy, you and other consumers are the ultimate recipient of these "hand outs" and you gladly take them every time you go to the grocery store.
And yet you never once mention that.
THAT is the simple truth without any "spin".
But hey I like how you think sharing a bit of education on the Constitution and it's requirement regarding a taking is "spin"...........spoken like a good liberal.
- - - Updated - - -
The oil companies wanted to drill on a wildlife refuge in Alaska. It was less than 1% of the land they wanted to drill on. With all the wild land in Alaska I think it was reasonable to let them drill. The logging companies tried to convince everyone that they would go out of business if they didn't get to log old growth timber. The bunny huggers tried to use and owl to turn it into an environmental issue. Old growth was less than 1/10 of 1%. Again reason should dictate in this case that they can't have it. Now we look at the badlands with only 5% designated roadless. Reasonable again should say they can't have that last five percent. For the oil companies reason is in their favor, for the logging companies and pro road people reason is not in their favor. The oil companies wanted less than 1%, but the timber and pro road people want it all. That's unreasonable. Better??????
Plains please educate yourself before making accusations and claims.
You are using a tried and true liberal method of making inflamatory claims to stir up support even if they are not true.
- - - Updated - - -
The federal government subsidizes crop insurance premiums to lower the cost and create an affordable option for the farmer.
They select which policy they want depending on coverage and cost, then the farmer gets billed for his acreage that he insured. The subsidy never gets into the actual producers hands, his premium is just partially taken care of.
If this wasn't an option, a vast majority of producers would be unable to afford it, and this would risk our countries food supply mores so than the expense of the program.
A farmer does not have a choice on the subsidized premiums, it is built into the policy, and even if GST didn't want a percentage of his policy to be covered in the farm program, he has no choice.
I don't farm, but I cant understand when people try to make it sound like a farmer is somehow "living on the system" for something they cant control.
The problem arises when like a typical govt program a loophole is found to exploit the program.
Over and over again in virtually every aspect of govt at the Federal level, the programs and management they design allows for fraud and abuse and manipulation. And that is why someone like myself has a hard time with people wanting more and more govt control at the Federal level on anything including public lands.
I have asked before for folks ot provide examples of programs and depts ran by the Federal govt that are run more efficiently and productively when compared to private or even state programs.
Anyone want to share some?
- - - Updated - - -
Plainsmans version.
Now we look at the badlands with only 5% designated roadless. Reasonable again should say they can't have that last five percent.
the actual truth.
"The delegation requested Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue and Attorney General Jeff Sessions work with North Dakota and the affected counties to find a “mutually acceptable settlement.”"
