The Republican Party Today

[clarksvol00]

I really do not have a firm answer on that. It is true they benefit from government subsidies. On the other side of the coin, they are subjected to tremendous amounts of government regulation, which only increases from year to year. I've other posts on the topic I will not repeat here.

Not so easy when you flip the demographic.

 

[landscapingvol]

Seems like a dodge. I thought the concept was that you shouldn't be voting if you're accepting government "largessee."

I never made that statement. I am just stating huge differences between the two. Farmers provide much needed commodities, welfare leeches provide absolutely nothing and are a drain on the economy. Anyone who can and should work, should be working/paying taxes. It's pretty simple

 

[hog88]

Do the crime, do the time, I guess. Can vote if you receive farm subsidies every year.

That's a whole different subject, we should do away with all farm subsidies and of course the prices controls that go along with them. Let ag be a free market.

 

[landscapingvol]

Not so easy when you flip the demographic.

Nah it's pretty easy to distinguish between the two scenarios, if you have ever farmed you would know what life is like for most farmers. The vast majority of people couldn't or wouldn't farm if given the opportunity. Sitting on the couch collecting government benefits when you can and should be working is hardly comparable

 

[hog88]

After the last 6 and especially after the last 2 presidential elections I really can't understand how anyone thinks more people voting is a good idea.

 

[landscapingvol]

That's a whole different subject, we should do away with all farm subsidies and of course the prices controls that go along with them. Let ag be a free market.

Do some farmers cheat the system? Absolutely just like anything else in life but if the market determined prices for nearly every commodity with maybe the exception of beef and pork, most things would be almost unaffordable if it is made from corn or wheat. Both of those commodities are almost unaffordable to plant now and require massive amounts of fertilizer

 

[clarksvol00]

Nah it's pretty easy to distinguish between the two scenarios, if you have ever farmed you would know what life is like for most farmers. The vast majority of people couldn't or wouldn't farm if given the opportunity. Sitting on the couch collecting government benefits when you can and should be working is hardly comparable

All I'm doing is addressing the assertion that being a recipient of government "largesse" makes you unqualified to vote. Farmer may work hard, but he's going to vote for the guy who protects or increases his subsidies. He, like welfare recipient, is receiving a government benefit and if he votes, will likely vote in his best interests.

 

[hog88]

Do some farmers cheat the system? Absolutely just like anything else in life but if the market determined prices for nearly every commodity with maybe the exception of beef and pork, most things would be almost unaffordable if it is made from corn or wheat. Both of those commodities are almost unaffordable to plant now and require massive amounts of fertilizer

Hey, people want to throw up farm subsidies all the time and equate them to welfare or other entitlement programs so I think they should have the opportunity to live in a subsidy free market.

 

[landscapingvol]

All I'm doing is addressing the assertion that being a recipient of government "largesse" makes you unqualified to vote. Farmer may work hard, but he's going to vote for the guy who protects or increases his subsidies. He, like welfare recipient, is receiving a government benefit and if he votes, will likely vote in his best interests.

One is providing a much needed service, the other is providing nothing and if you don't contribute to society then you shouldn't have a say in who runs said society

 

[hog88]

All I'm doing is addressing the assertion that being a recipient of government "largesse" makes you unqualified to vote. Farmer may work hard, but he's going to vote for the guy who protects or increases his subsidies. He, like welfare recipient, is receiving a government benefit and if he votes, will likely vote in his best interests.

Great point and you have convinced me.

 

[landscapingvol]

Hey, people want to throw up farm subsidies all the time and equate them to welfare or other entitlement programs so I think they should have the opportunity to live in a subsidy free market.

Not everything farmed is subsidized, most vegetables are unsubsidized and are sold at market value which is why most of them fluctuate dramatically in price. They are dependent upon the weather or a natural disaster. The reason the price of milk, eggs, and bread remain relatively stable is because most people rely on them and if a bad drought or low harvest occurred many people would starve. Farmers have would have no incentive to grow corn or wheat if not given heavy subsidies because corn and wheat are extremely susceptible to heat/drought. Those same farmers could make significantly more money raising cattle or hogs. It's a double edged sword because we couldn't raise cows, pigs, sheep, or chickens without corn and wheat.

 

[landscapingvol]

Not everything farmed is subsidized, most vegetables are unsubsidized and are sold at market value which is why most of them fluctuate dramatically in price. They are dependent upon the weather or a natural disaster. The reason the price of milk, eggs, and bread remain relatively stable is because most people rely on them and if a bad drought or low harvest occurred many people would starve. Farmers have would have no incentive to grow corn or wheat if not given heavy subsidies because corn and wheat are extremely susceptible to heat/drought. Those same farmers could make significantly more money raising cattle or hogs. It's a double edged sword because we couldn't raise cows, pigs, sheep, or chickens without corn and wheat.

Not to mention dairy farming is very difficult work and not very lucrative as is raising chickens

 

[hog88]

Not everything farmed is subsidized, most vegetables are unsubsidized and are sold at market value which is why most of them fluctuate dramatically in price. They are dependent upon the weather or a natural disaster. The reason the price of milk, eggs, and bread remain relatively stable is because most people rely on them and if a bad drought or low harvest occurred many people would starve. Farmers have would have no incentive to grow corn or wheat if not given heavy subsidies because corn and wheat are extremely susceptible to heat/drought. Those same farmers could make significantly more money raising cattle or hogs. It's a double edged sword because we couldn't raise cows, pigs, sheep, or chickens without corn and wheat.

New Zealand eliminated subsidies, it was eased in but prices on everything beef and dairy spiked all imported food stuff was already high. They lost a lot of farms but things stabilized after 4-5 years, sad thing is they are back to introducing subsidies again.

We would be just fine after some initial pain if all subsidies were eliminated and ag was allowed to operate in a free market.

 

[hog88]

Not to mention dairy farming is very difficult work and not very lucrative as is raising chickens

I know all to well.

 

[landscapingvol]

New Zealand eliminated subsidies, it was eased in but prices on everything beef and dairy spiked all imported food stuff was already high. They lost a lot of farms but things stabilized after 4-5 years, sad thing is they are back to introducing subsidies again.

We would be just fine after some initial pain if all subsidies were eliminated and ag was allowed to operate in a free market.

Maybe, but New Zealand's climate is much different than the Midwest. A prolonged drought would devastate the US food supply much more than normal. It would be interesting to see how removing most subsidies would impact the US market long term.

 

[GroverCleveland]

Not so easy when you flip the demographic.

Has someone said it was easy? I've been following this thread and I have not seen a serious "Oh, this is easy" statement. Because it is not easy does not mean there is not a problem.

 

[RockyTop85]

OK. Let's take it from there. Why is it extreme to require a citizen to prove citizenship and residency in the voting location?

There are two similar terms that were being thrown around "vested" and "qualified". "Vested should apply to the issue of citizenship and residency - that someone is a US citizen and a resident of the place where the vote is taken. I live in a county and less than a mile outside a city limit. Although I'm often directly affected by what the city does; I don't have city residency, and I rightfully cannot vote on city issues. I also own another home in TN but don't spend the majority of my time there, so I don't vote there ... or in two places even though what happens there directly affects me. Citizenship and residency seem to be a pretty sound basis for being vested, and it is not extreme in the least to have to prove such.

Mental incapacitation, criminal conviction, minimum age would seem to be "qualifiers" if they are allowed by law. There could be more things that go into that category - the welfare vs income issue, for example.

In the end being vested by virtue of citizenship and residence should be considered absolutes. Qualifiers would be attributes not solely based on "being" or being here vs their - minimum age as covered by the 26th Amendment, for example.

I never said it was extreme to require people to prove citizenship or residency. I explicitly said they were easily distinguishable from more extreme suggestions. This is why you need to go back and read the conversation. You’re arguing with the wrong person.

 

[clarksvol00]

Great point and you have convinced me.

I think the only thing you're convinced of is that there need to be voting restrictions and those voting restrictions would favor people who think like you.

 

[hog88]

Maybe, but New Zealand's climate is much different than the Midwest. A prolonged drought would devastate the US food supply much more than normal. It would be interesting to see how removing most subsidies would impact the US market long term.

Instead of .gov backed crop insurance a private market insurance product would emerge to fill the gap, yes it would be hugely expensive but without the .gov involved it could be passed along to the consumer. Things would eventually level out.

 

[hog88]

I think the only thing you're convinced of is that there need to be voting restrictions and those voting restrictions would favor people who think like you.

Again, you are putting words in my mouth and are wrong.

 

[BreatheUT]

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the people discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. " - Alexander Fraser Tyler

I believe @hog88 is addressing the conundrum put forth by Mr. Tyler. The premise is the electorate should be made up of responsible voters who have skin in the game. The FFs believed in this with attempts like eligible voters being limited to property owners, the idea being those who owned property and thereby paid taxes on it, were less likely to vote for bloated government which inevitably becomes corrupt. I have to say I agree with the premise.

We have too many people today who are voting based on what they believe the government can provide them as if money grows on trees in government orchards. And the Democrats are seriously pushing the idea that sixteen year olds should have suffrage. Not no, but hell no.

Good stuff

 

[clarksvol00]

Again, you are putting words in my mouth and are wrong.

I've have not said you've said that, but I think whatever restrictions you and the disenfranchisement crowd come up with would do exactly that.

 

[luthervol]

Some don't realize what a functioning govt looks like and have no clue that are voting based on showmanship and brain washing.
When Trump entered the race in 2015, did not think he would win the nomination, but knew if he did he would Win.
Stated it would not end well for the Republican and felt he would damage the Republican to a degree but not beyond repair. I was wrong.

All his success is based on self promotion and a base group of followers. I honestly believed that people would see through him and his 7+ Bankruptcies, along with the numerous times he short changed lawyers, Companies, and others by threatening to file bankruptcy after work completed. A liar, a thief, a con, a cheat, and just evil. He has assets, but donors continued to pay his legal bills and he hasn't yet liquidated a single asset. Yet followers continue to send him money which is like throwing money into a fire.

As for Biden, more of the same but he is politically opposite of Trump. Corruption, lies, and other flaws exist. Although the opposite of Trump, Biden as a choice isn't any better. End Products are pretty much the same and Congress will continue to be dysfunctional.

Both are a waste of Taxpayers $$$$ and both have followings that will vote for one to keep the other out. So we are at a Stalemate.
Any argument for one is a plus for the other and vice versa.

The only person to fix this is the Voter. Republicans are not going to turn on their own, nor will the Democrats do it either. So we are pretty much stuck in a 2nd Grade scenario.

Again, that's why I continue to say that the primaries are really the only place where you can make a difference.

 

[hog88]

I've have not said you've said that, but I think whatever restrictions you and the disenfranchisement crowd come up with would do exactly that.

I don't care who a person votes for or why, I just want people voting that are informed and voting for the future of the country and not deciding on what's best for me today. Hence why your argument regarding farm subsidies swayed me.

 

[RockyTop85]

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the people discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. " - Alexander Fraser Tyler

I believe @hog88 is addressing the conundrum put forth by Mr. Tyler. The premise is the electorate should be made up of responsible voters who have skin in the game. The FFs believed in this with attempts like eligible voters being limited to property owners, the idea being those who owned property and thereby paid taxes on it, were less likely to vote for bloated government which inevitably becomes corrupt. I have to say I agree with the premise.

We have too many people today who are voting based on what they believe the government can provide them as if money grows on trees in government orchards. And the Democrats are seriously pushing the idea that sixteen year olds should have suffrage. Not no, but hell no.

Democracy didn’t cease to exist when we created the social safety net. There are people who live off of it and people who abuse it.

They’re a small minority of voters who have no hope of sustaining a filibuster against a coalition of “responsible,” propertied, or tax paying members of society. If you think that’s true, go build a coalition of people to overturn it. Otherwise, you’re just in favor of denying those people the right to vote and subjecting them to a dictatorial government so you can have your way.