Susan wrote:
I can't believe nobody has bashed you on this one yet.
You make a very persuasive argument though.
You make a very persuasive argument though.
21 January 2007 17:51:31
wrote:
I have felt for many years farmers get a free hand out over others. Even small business owners don't get the help farmers do!
21 January 2007 19:54:39
wrote:
Another great editorial. Being in any kind if business is risky. I too have suffered through a huge income loss due, in part, to the changing economy. No one has ever given me a dime, and I don't receive subsidys as most farmers do. I survive because I saved when times were good.
21 January 2007 23:46:31
wrote:
Excellent points! A few interesting things to note here is how suddenly California is in need of federal aid. The state often boasts one of the largest economies in the WORLD, yet it cannot bail itself out of this agricultural crisis. Perhaps less spending and emphasis on psychotic social programs is in order. Also, the price of the products will go up and probably lead to huge profits by some citrus companies so perhaps the Democrat Party will now propose a tax on windfall profits for citrus growers like they did for oil companies following Hurricane Katrina. I smell gouging coming out way when we go buy oranges at the store! Let's face it- that state is in a state of chaos and has been since it sold its soul to teh far left. The good news is now perhaps their government will spend less time worrying about whether parents may discipline their own children or not...
22 January 2007 09:36:33
wrote:
Okay, so all farmers want a hand out because California citrus farmers have their hand out. Many Ohio farmers speak of how good they do have it that it all balances out in the end. They have lean years and good years but yet they keep at it. I know a lot of people that would like to start their own business but are afraid to put there entire livelihood on the line. Farmers do that everyday. Yet, if they didn't who would we depend on. I don't say that they deserve special treatment but it is just like any other group. Don't lump them all together. We cannot lump all the disaster victims together either. Colorado has done nothing to beg such as New Orleans. People will take what you give them. They will also keep taking as long as you keep giving.
22 January 2007 12:03:31
wrote:
I have known Ohio Farmers not to plant in fields because the government paid them not to plant anything in the fields. I don't know if this program is still going on or not. I know this was an Ohio or Federal Program for the farmer back in the 60's. I had family that was farmer at the time and they made more money from the Government in during nothing. It wasn't even a relief program do to bad luck either. That was wrong!
22 January 2007 16:36:14
wrote:
I agree with your assessment that farm subsidies are wrong. Karen made a good point that "People will take what you give them. They will also keep taking as long as you keep giving." It doesn't seem like you "lumped them (farmers) all together" though. There are plenty of farmers out there who don't take the government handouts. I think it's fine to point out the wrongness of giving federal aid to California farmers and shouldn't be taken as an insult to all farmers everywhere.
22 January 2007 16:53:28
wrote:
Speaking of getting on the badwagon and becoming a bunch of blog bobbleheads.
Farmers and food producers are "special." Every successful nation on earth PROTECTS their farmers.Example--in Rodeshia(sp) the government protected their farmers and they EXPORTED food, when the rebels took over--Zimbabwe cannot now feed itself.
We like to think that Americans have a genetic edge over other races and other nations but the real FACT that makes us such a productive nation is--six inches of top soil between the Appalachian and Rocky Mountinas.
With so much farmland we can focus on "other" PRODUCTIVE venues. We pay farmers to "rest" some of their land for two main reasons--to rebuild nutrients and for wildlife recovery--both SMART land management principles.
We are ONE nation and when disaster hits in one part--the still productive part helps out.
Yes--most growers and farmers have crop insurance--but there are many more individuals involved than just them who live day-to-day.
Today it is California and by the way a crop that is VERY beneficial to our health that need help--tommorrow it could be our corn and soybean growers.
The system has flaws--but is a good one. We LEARNED a lesson during the 1930s in Oklahoma about good land management--some who write these blogs have forgotten. They have also forgotten that MOST of the world's population is not suffering from being FAT!
I find your "soutions" are NOT based on the "Golden Rule."
Enlighten us--just WHAT is the Libertarian agenda besides anarchy and "their" interpertaion of the Constitution?
Farmers and food producers are "special." Every successful nation on earth PROTECTS their farmers.Example--in Rodeshia(sp) the government protected their farmers and they EXPORTED food, when the rebels took over--Zimbabwe cannot now feed itself.
We like to think that Americans have a genetic edge over other races and other nations but the real FACT that makes us such a productive nation is--six inches of top soil between the Appalachian and Rocky Mountinas.
With so much farmland we can focus on "other" PRODUCTIVE venues. We pay farmers to "rest" some of their land for two main reasons--to rebuild nutrients and for wildlife recovery--both SMART land management principles.
We are ONE nation and when disaster hits in one part--the still productive part helps out.
Yes--most growers and farmers have crop insurance--but there are many more individuals involved than just them who live day-to-day.
Today it is California and by the way a crop that is VERY beneficial to our health that need help--tommorrow it could be our corn and soybean growers.
The system has flaws--but is a good one. We LEARNED a lesson during the 1930s in Oklahoma about good land management--some who write these blogs have forgotten. They have also forgotten that MOST of the world's population is not suffering from being FAT!
I find your "soutions" are NOT based on the "Golden Rule."
Enlighten us--just WHAT is the Libertarian agenda besides anarchy and "their" interpertaion of the Constitution?
23 January 2007 07:52:56
Susan wrote:
Zlotnik, if it weren't for your inability to write a comment without calling people names, I'd actually take some of what you say seriously.
23 January 2007 14:10:52
wrote:
Susan "Dearest" aka "Mother Dearest"--Lucente trashes America, the President, and now the orange growers in California who provide jobs and pay taxes and YOU and the rest of Lucente's followers all pile on--the name for that is "bobbleheads."
Dearest Susan--WHY are you so offended for being called what you are?
And again--your post had NOTHING to do with the orange growers--just a shot at me.
P.S. I STILL don't like you, so stop trying to get on my good side.
Dearest Susan--WHY are you so offended for being called what you are?
And again--your post had NOTHING to do with the orange growers--just a shot at me.
P.S. I STILL don't like you, so stop trying to get on my good side.
23 January 2007 16:47:41
Susan wrote:
Zlotnik, I have no desire whatsoever to get on your "good side". Why? Because for one, you have no "good side". And for another, you've proven yourself to be a holier-than-thou opinionated my-way-is-the-ONLY-way verbally abusive tyrant....even those who sometimes agree with you don't want to be on your "good side". Get over yourself.
Can't figure out why someone who loathes Lucente and everything he writes, believes and stands for, continues to keep reading his column and visiting his blog. I wonder how many tv shows you hate but watch from start to finish anway. Sounds to me like you just like to bitch. After all, what is that saying you are so fond of??? Oh yea..."If it walks like a duck..."
Can't figure out why someone who loathes Lucente and everything he writes, believes and stands for, continues to keep reading his column and visiting his blog. I wonder how many tv shows you hate but watch from start to finish anway. Sounds to me like you just like to bitch. After all, what is that saying you are so fond of??? Oh yea..."If it walks like a duck..."
23 January 2007 17:51:57
Lucente wrote:
Marine Mom,
Exactly. Why should farmers get a handout because of poor planning when the rest of us do not? Weather is the cost of doing business as a farmer. If you do not take that into consideration, you need to find a new business.
-tjl-
Exactly. Why should farmers get a handout because of poor planning when the rest of us do not? Weather is the cost of doing business as a farmer. If you do not take that into consideration, you need to find a new business.
-tjl-
23 January 2007 19:39:25
Lucente wrote:
Carl,
Exactly. For some reason, however, there are some farmers who think they should not have to engage in good business planning because they think it is our responsibility to bail them out.
-tjl-
Exactly. For some reason, however, there are some farmers who think they should not have to engage in good business planning because they think it is our responsibility to bail them out.
-tjl-
23 January 2007 19:40:22
Lucente wrote:
Anti-Californication,
Well said. Don't expect the hyprocritical Democrats to call for an orange tax, though. Big oil, in their minds, is evil so safe to gouge. Farmers, on the other hand, are not good political targets, so they will be given special treatment.
I have never met a Democrat who can be consistent in his or her views.
-tjl-
Well said. Don't expect the hyprocritical Democrats to call for an orange tax, though. Big oil, in their minds, is evil so safe to gouge. Farmers, on the other hand, are not good political targets, so they will be given special treatment.
I have never met a Democrat who can be consistent in his or her views.
-tjl-
23 January 2007 19:42:49
Lucente wrote:
Karen,
It is true that some farmers take risks. However, as I said before, weather is something they should plan for. I have nothing against farmers. But I don't think the government should bail them out everytime they have hard times. Farming should not be, nor does it have to be, subsidized. Many farmers flourish without government welfare.
-tjl-
It is true that some farmers take risks. However, as I said before, weather is something they should plan for. I have nothing against farmers. But I don't think the government should bail them out everytime they have hard times. Farming should not be, nor does it have to be, subsidized. Many farmers flourish without government welfare.
-tjl-
23 January 2007 19:45:50
Lucente wrote:
Wubba,
Exactly. It is not an insult to farmers for me to denounce agricultural subsidies or farm disaster aid. It is all immoral and illegal.
-tjl-
Exactly. It is not an insult to farmers for me to denounce agricultural subsidies or farm disaster aid. It is all immoral and illegal.
-tjl-
23 January 2007 19:46:48
Lucente wrote:
Susan,
Well said. Zlotnik's name-calling and bitterness is either the sign of a weak mind or a weak position. I suspect both.
-tjl-
Well said. Zlotnik's name-calling and bitterness is either the sign of a weak mind or a weak position. I suspect both.
-tjl-
23 January 2007 19:48:37
Lucente wrote:
Zlotnik,
How wrong can one person be? How can you claim to be a conservative and do nothing but advocate liberal causes? How can you be so narrow-minded that if someone speaks out against farm subsidies, they must hate farmers? If they speak out against an unjust, illegal and immoral war, they must be anti-American.
Of course, farming is a special profession. We all have to eat. However, that does not mean it is OK to steal my money and give it to those in the agricultural business because of poor planning on their part. And why should the government pay farmers to rest their fields? If it is beneficial to do so, then farmers should do it themselves. That is called good business practices.
Of course I am following the Golden Rule. I would not want people taking my money at the point of a gun and giving it to others so I refuse to support any plan that takes money from one segment of the population gives it to another. Besides, there is no arguing that such aid is simply unconstitutional.
Finally, the libertarian agenda is freedom, the same agenda that our Founding Fathers had when they committed treason and overthrew their government. I think we all know which side of that conflict you would have joined. I guess you are a Tory at heart.
Why does freedom scare you so much? Why do you have such hatred for living in a free society?
-tjl-
How wrong can one person be? How can you claim to be a conservative and do nothing but advocate liberal causes? How can you be so narrow-minded that if someone speaks out against farm subsidies, they must hate farmers? If they speak out against an unjust, illegal and immoral war, they must be anti-American.
Of course, farming is a special profession. We all have to eat. However, that does not mean it is OK to steal my money and give it to those in the agricultural business because of poor planning on their part. And why should the government pay farmers to rest their fields? If it is beneficial to do so, then farmers should do it themselves. That is called good business practices.
Of course I am following the Golden Rule. I would not want people taking my money at the point of a gun and giving it to others so I refuse to support any plan that takes money from one segment of the population gives it to another. Besides, there is no arguing that such aid is simply unconstitutional.
Finally, the libertarian agenda is freedom, the same agenda that our Founding Fathers had when they committed treason and overthrew their government. I think we all know which side of that conflict you would have joined. I guess you are a Tory at heart.
Why does freedom scare you so much? Why do you have such hatred for living in a free society?
-tjl-
23 January 2007 20:06:28
![[Valid RSS]](http://www.lucente.org/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
[COLUMN] No aid for citrus farmers
Here we go again. Farmers in California have their hands out demanding the rest of us give them money because they had a bit of bad luck.
A freeze earlier this month destroyed about 75 percent of California’s citrus crop. The estimated damage is about $1 billion. (To put that in perspective that is only 0.28 percent of what the United States has spent in Iraq.) The tragedy — let us not mince words, it is truly a tragedy — means that thousands of farmworkers, packers and truck drivers are facing months of unemployment. Less important, it means consumers across the nation will likely see the price of citrus fruit rise dramatically.
Calif. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has promised monetary aid to those affected, regardless of immigration status, and is begging the federal government for disaster relief.
I truly feel sympathetic for these people. I know firsthand what it is like to suddenly find yourself unemployed because of factors beyond your control.
However, that does not mean those farmworkers should be permitted to raid the public treasury to compensate for their loss. Such disaster aid is immoral and simply unconstitutional.
Of course, modern-day politicians do not care about the rule of law. Passing out money from the public treasury to any group that shows some sort of adversity is quickly becoming a national pastime. Politicians today don’t give a flying hoot about the Constitution or the rule of law. They only care about buying votes. After all, when Schwarzenegger and President Bush pass out checks to these poor farmers, the farmers, at least the logic goes, will remember the benevolence come Election Day.
It wasn’t always that way. We used to have politicians who actually demonstrated real leadership by denying such largesse from the public treasury.
For example, in 1887, a full century after the signing of the Constitution, President S. Grover Cleveland, a Democrat, vetoed a bill appropriating $10,000 in federal aid to buy seeds for Texas farmers suffering from a drought, saying he could “find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution.”
What? A president who actually read the Constitution?
Cleveland had nothing against the farmers. He simply knew that passing out public money to farmers who have run into trouble was unconstitutional. It would be irresponsible to hand out this money. Being a good steward of the public treasury is more important than buying votes from farmers.
Still not convinced?
Well, then, let us see what the primary author of the Constitution had to say on the matter.
In 1794, a congressman introduced a bill appropriating $15,000 for the relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo, modern-day Haiti, to the United States. U.S. Rep. James Madison stood on the House floor and spoke out against the bill.
The future president of the United States said he could not “undertake to lay (his) finger on that article of the federal Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
Madison, who was the primary author of this nation’s charter, knew better than anyone else the limits of the federal Constitution.
Still, some will argue that there is a higher law; that we have a moral obligation to help our fellow man in need.
I can’t argue with that. After all, the very basis of my libertarian beliefs is the golden rule, which is repeated in the Christian Bible: “Do to others as you would have them do to you” (Luke 6:31).
But there is nothing good or just about the government forcibly taking my money and giving it to others. There is nothing Christian in supporting the forcible taking of money from one person and giving it to another, even if the thief does so in the name of the government.
Sure, these farmers could use some help. That is what charity is for. Let those who wish to help do so. Open your checkbook and help them, but don’t force me to help at the point of a gun. Government charity is not charity at all.
In the end, Robin Hood, regardless of how noble, was still just a thief.
category | Column
author | Lucente