Hey...you know the saying. If the shoe fits...

Oh please. They are necessary to garner votes and artificially inflate an industry into staying in the U.S. If this guy doesn't get a million dollars I doubt we're all speaking Russian. It's a bailout, plain and simple. I'm not saying that it's wrong or something we shouldn't do, but it's not much different than the reasons we give out EITC and other benefits to people.

What he's saying is that you're a parasite if you get help from the government, unless you are a farmer.

No one I've seen has said that. It's when people make broad ignorant statements like "the other party is socialists" or "the government should stay out of our lives". Then turn around and demand the government get more involved in an issue (illegal immigration) or dictate how people live their lives (read the Texas GOP platform). Do as I say, not as I do.

I don't think you've done that, but guys like the one we are talking about do.

That's fine. If he said I'm against food stamps or welfare checks, so be it. But he called people parasites who "have their hand out for social programs". He has taken $1 million dollars from a social program.

So it isn't the quality of the milk itself, like beef (Prime, Choice, Select, ect.), but the conditions of where the milk came from.

Who is Grade B milk sold to?

I'm so tired of people using billboard signs at their buisiness like it's their own private Twitters feed.

This gem I saw yesterday...
"If our country was a car, the "Check President" light would be on"

Die in a fire dude, and I will never buy shit off of you.

Farm subsidies are not a social program.

Farm subsidies are certainly instituted corruptly and inefficiently, but they are necessary for national security. Relying on other parts of the world for a specific energy source is one thing, relying on other parts of the world for your food supply is something else.

He's a farmer, he gets subsidies, I don't think that disqualifies him from having any opinion about how the government spends its money otherwise (just like it doesn't disqualify lungs from having such opinions). Does it work in reverse? Is someone is on welfare, are they allowed to have opinions on bailouts and farm subsidies?

Technically, no. But there is a direct correlation between the quality of the milk and the conditions where the milk came from.

There are also different somatic cell limits between Grade A and Grade B. Somatic cells being white blood cells that are used to fight off infection. Higher amounts have a negative impact on cheese making.



As a consumer, I doubt you've ever had any Grade B dairy products. Maybe some government cheese a la Matt Foley Motivational Speaker. Grade B ends up going back to the industry and getting dried down for powdered milk that some feed calves with, etc...

That's why I find it comical that people are eager to purchase raw milk from dairies that aren't even good enough for Grade B.

Big +1 one there. I've been saying the exact same thing for years. Imported oil is bad enough. Imported food?

calling farm subsidies "national defense" is a stretch. you could say the same thing about pretty much any industry then. oil industry...check. aircraft industry...check. automotive industry...check.

Can't be relying on anybody else for the means to power our war machine.

Every time I go to Kroger or Publix, most of the produce there is from out of the country.

Time to move to Iceland:

My wife's reaction upon reading her that story "It's any wonder their country went bankrupt"

SI

Today in "Crazy State GOP Platforms" I bring you: Idaho
Idaho GOP Approves Far-Right Platform: Repeal 17th Amendment, Buy Gold And Silver | TPMDC


full details and source documents in the link.


man...Republicans (as a group, broad generalization noted) really are a bunch of sore losers, aren't they??

I honestly don't know if it's a losers mentality or them grasping at straws to try and rescue the floundering ship known as the SS GOP.

There's a lot of weird rural legislators in Idaho. They propose the strangest stuff, this is pretty reasonable and tame by comparison.

The GOP needs to figure out that their opponents are using their platforms against them. And while maybe their platforms express their "perfect America", maybe they should tone it down a bit and focus on the things that moderates can get behind.

I'm getting to the point where I can't respect anyone's political opinion unless they're an independent. How can one willingly register with either of these parties?

Dola - The money/gold standard/metals stuff is something they're really into. That means independence to them, I think. They've proposed actual legislation with that stuff in it, but more sane heads (who are also Republican by the way, as is almost everyone in Idaho outside of Boise) have always prevailed and laughed it off.

I went independent before the 2004 elections and haven't looked back.

Why does that equate to independence? I guess I really don't get it. I mean look...they're going to want stuff from people who don't have access to gold at some point, right? So then what are they going to do?

It's a cute idea...but it's an antiquated idea whose time has come and gone - particularly in this global economy.

They want their own currency seperate from the federal government, basically. They think the dollar will be worthless soon, so they want to have some kind of foundation of a precious metals economy here when the rest of the country implodes (from too much butt-sex or rock music, I imagine).

I do believe they're the fringe, which makes me troubled about the inclusion of this stuff in the party platfrom. I have to believe that state party platforms are put together by the losers of the party, those who aren't actually involved in politics day-to-day.

Because pretty much everyone I have contact with in local and state government here is a Republican, and all of them find the wacky rural legislators amusing and a little backwards. Our Attorney General is an incredibly ethical, independent-thinking guy, not afraid to go against the party. Our governor is mostly the same way. Neither publically favor any right wing kooky stuff. So I don't know who's coming up with these platforms.

Well now, this is interesting. Daily Kos (the liberal mega-blog) found out that the polling firm with whom they've been contracting for a couple of years apparently manipulated their data to some extent.

Apparently some third-party statisticians approached Markos Moulitsas with their findings and, after he asked them to be corroborated, he made the information public.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/20...-Research-2000

Two interesting things to me:

1. In general, Research 2000 had a good reputation. Now given this and a few other high-profile accusations or conclusions of data manipulation, are there a lot of pollsters we can trust?

2. Research 2000's polls for Daily Kos weren't typically wild outliers. So was their real data simply "normalized", or were they just completely making stuff up?

Anyway, anyone who accused Daily Kos of making up their poll numbers now wins a cookie. :D

Interesting

The whole abolish the Fed and return to s gold standard stuff is gaining popularity due to the high profile of Ron Paul and constant pushing from Glen Beck. Like most radical ideas, it seems to provide an easy answer to why so many people are suffering economically.

It's all rather inside baseball, but the charges are flying now. DKos is apparently going to sue for fraud. The lawyers for R2K have sent a cease and desist letter to Nate Silver over his statements and comments on 538. A few tracking sites have pulled R2K data from their aggregates.

More fun with Sharon Angle and abortion:

Just how extreme are Nevada's Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate Sharron Angle's views?

Manders: Is there any reason at all for an abortion?
Angle: Not in my book.
Manders: So, in other words, rape and incest would not be something?
Angle: You know, I’m a Christian and I believe that God has a plan and a purpose for each one of our lives and that he can intercede in all kinds of situations and we need to have a little faith in many things.

So, what do most people believe?

BTW...as it relates to Rand Paul (not sure why the quote is all messed up, it was all supposed to be one)

The irony for the morons in Idaho is that their state is a welfare state. They would be hurting real bad without federal funding to support them. I guess that's one of those things that gets overlooked during the whole "we hate the federal government" propoganda.

They hate it, but sure don't mind leaching off of it to survive.

Count me as one who seems to have been swayed too much by his father and by interviews Rand did before winning the Republican primary. (He was very much anti government spending and also seemed to be anti-war and anti drug war in interviews back in the spring) There are two things that help me keep hope alive...

1) A lot of people think he is playing the game and will ultimately lean way more libertarian if he wins the senate seat. I have to say I am not a fan of this. His father seems to have no problems winning his seat in the House based solely on principles. Of course Ron Paul has had trouble in the past running for Senate/President so maybe this is a strategy you have to use for a bigger office like this.

2) He is probably still a better candidate than 99% of the members of both parties of Congress right now. I am an even smaller fan of this. Yet another "bitch about health care and compromise on endless war and continuing the drug war and turn your back on bashing gays" candidate.

I will eat crow on my Rand "rants" but one has to wonder why all of the mainstream media all over the country was all over his jock (he was big news here in St. Louis for a while) In the age of the internet you have to admit when a national party tries to smears their own candidate it isn't quite as easy to hide as it used to be in the days of three news stations and about a dozen major newspapers.

I will continue to support Ron Paul though.

JPhillips: The principle of the gold standard is quite simple and not really that radical. Your central bank must back their currency with some sort of tangible commodity. As it is the Federal Reserve can just print $4 billion and send it to GM or $10 billion to Greece or God who knows how much to Goldman Sachs. With a better system they would have to justify where the hell they are getting this money from and couldn't just roll out the printing press. Of course Ron Paul wants the Congress to have that power which I can't say is any different than the Fed having it and could possibly be worse. But I do have a problem with bailouts and the welfare state (both for individuals and corporations) and I don't think proposing that they account for tax money is all that radical or crazy an idea.

EDIT: I guess somebody could say they sell bonds to the Chinese to justify the continual printing press. If that is a defense of the Federal Reserve then God help us all.

I don't think Congress having the power COULD POSSIBLY be worse than the Fed having it...I think for sure it would be. 100% no doubt about it.

Can you imagine the fucking pork that would get passed if Congress could just print money willy-nilly?? "Oh sure...let's vote this $50 billion dollar appropriations bill. Each member of Congress gets $250 million of pork for their home state from it as a reward for voting for it."

Also - the members of Congress are not economists. They're not bankers. They wouldn't understand the complex financial ramifications of monetary policy. That's a full-time job.

No doubt. Not sure the current system is a whole lot different than what you describe but I agree wholeheartatly with the sentiment.

The gold standard only protects you from hyperinflation. It also signifigantly limits your ability to adjust during financial crisis or compete with other countries. It may not be a radical or crazy idea, just a retarded one.

At least in the current system the Fed is a separate entity under separate control with its own bureaucracy and not responsible to Congress. And they're also spending all of their time on monetary issues rather than taking vacations every two weeks.

They would be more than happy to opt-out of much of the federal government's "support".

Federal taxes and federal burdens on state budgets limit what any state can do. Which is why the "welfare state" argument is always misguided. All you're doing is mocking them for being poor (and the rural legislators that push this stuff are generally very, very wealthy)

In reality, there's not much left for the state to tax after feds take their share, especially in a poorer state. They want less federal involvement in their affairs because they think, at least in some areas, they can handle their affairs better (even accounting for the net "gain" they get from federal taxes v. support.) And I don't think that part of the opinion is that crazy. Generally, from my experiences in (and unsupported perceptions of) government, a federal tax dollar may provide 25 cents in services, where at the state level, maybe it's 75 cents.

The big problem with going back to the gold standard is that the genie is out of the bottle. There is nowhere near enough gold (or any other valuable commodity for that matter) to cover the amount of currency in circulation worldwide. Going back on the gold standard would be a massive clusterfuck to the world economy. Sure it sounds nice and simple, but there are so many moving parts that it is purely a pipe dream. Every single item in the world would have to be revalued. To see the amount of headache involved, just take a look at the problems the EU had moving to the Euro. That would seem like a piece of cake compared to going back to the gold standard.

"End the Fed" is a chant by the Tea Party where 99.9% of the people don't understand the ramifications. (That includes me, though I would like to think I have a little better background in economics than the Sarah Palin supporters) However this arguement doesn't have to be framed as either we have the free-spending Fed or the free-spending Congress. There are some bills out there that want a full audit of the Federal Reserve (not a takeover) that don't seem that crazy. And when Berneke says it might damage the economy if we knew what was going on count me as one who doesn't say "Well fuck it then"

Can you imagine?

Me: "Where did all of our money go?"
Wife: "Spent most of it, loaned some to friends"
Me: "Where?"
Wife: "You are better off not knowing"

They have every right to demand from their representatives to not take more back than what they paid in. To have their Senator get up and say "we don't want this extra money, just what we paid in". But I don't see that in their platform.

Just the whiny kid who bitches about his Father and then cashes a check every month from him to pay the rent.

I get what you are saying though it seems to come awfully close to arguments I have heard for the genie being out of the bottle on the endless middle Eastern war or campaign finance reform, etc. Speaking for myself and not the libertarians (or the populist Republicans climbing aboard) I think inflation is a big fear of the endless printing press and would like to see some attempt at a balanced budget. My worthless brother-in-law lives his life driving my sister into more and more debt with justifications like "We can't let the kids starve" without admitting there is plenty he could cut back on.

EDIT: I think a lot of people's desire for a gold standard is more aimed at the Republicans/Democrats finding something they don't like spending money on. It's saying the gold standard is utopia but can't we at least try to do something fiscally responsible?

Idaho did turn down a LOT of stimulus money, anything that they thought would require them to permanently increase their own state expenditures once the stimulus money died out. Balanced budget amendments are no joke. You're over budget, you gotta cut shit on the fly.

But they took some free money, and it would have been a huge disservice to the people of Idaho not to. Why would they turn down free money? Do you think the federal government would, in turn, reduce taxes for people living in Idaho?

And of course, as I stated above, the party platform is not representative of the stances that the actual people in power push day to day. The GOP does need to revise how they come up with these platforms.

If they're going to go on a big anti-federal government rant, it is hypocritical to be a welfare state.

Oh, there's that line again.

Who exactly is "a welfare state"? The rich rancher in northern Idaho? The homeless druggie in Boise? Or just the elected officials?

Maybe only non-"welfare states" should be allowed to send representatives to Congress? They have no right saying what the fed should do with their money, after all. The rich should decide for everyone, it's their money!

Yep. Ultra liberal California and ultra conservative Alabama are both technically welfare states, right? It's one of those I will use the term to argue about Texas or Idaho but ignore New York and California. Republican/Democrat paradigm at it's finest.

And it think it's stupid to get mad at someone living in Idaho or someone living in California for their state and federal representatives policies. One man can't bring down the machine.

What the hell does that have to do with being a christian? Oh, wait, it's because she thinks her religion is superior to any other religion or way of thinking and that as an elected official, she will try and impose her religion on others by legislating it.

Idaho gets back $1.21 for every $1.00 they pay in. They are a welfare state.

I don't know where you got anything about the rich deciding anything. Just that if they want the federal government to leave them alone, maybe they shouldn't be sucking so hard from it's teat.

Honest question. Who is the best and who is the worst?

No we're not. We got Prop 8! :D

California is not a welfare state. They pay in much more than they receive back. Same goes for Texas and New York. They are states getting screwed having to support states like Idaho.

The Tax Foundation - Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2005

Seems New Mexico is the biggest welfare state while New Jersey is the one that gets screwed the worst.

If "Idaho" is one person with a cowboy hat sitting at a big desk somewhere, you might have a point.

The real world is a little more complicated though.

The rich rancher is not sucking from any teat. He's putting a ton more in than he's getting out. The single mother puts in nothing and gets a lot out. Neither has much control over what the fed does, or how Idaho's economy works as a whole. There are many others who are not as financially connected to the state, but have opinions about government in general.

Your views, as usual, would treat all these individuals the same. They're in Idaho, so they can't complain. If they move across the border into Wyoming (my best guess as a neighboring non-welfare state, but I have no idea), but otherwise are the same person, they can complain.

When does California become one? We know the federal bailout is coming soon, right? They are broke.