At Least We Still Have Cheap Cigarettes

[ness]

That's basically all I was saying ness, that it'd be foolish to suggest only one political demographic is taking advantage of these subsidies.

Personally, I have mixed feelings about the farm subsidy program. I've met many farmers in this state, self-identified conservatives, who are happy to receive $30,000 or $40,000 a year in farm subsidies. I don't blame them, free money is tough to pass up. But to suggest conservatives don't participate just doesn't hold water.

Honestly, I don't know what to do about programs like the farm bill. I don't like the idea of continuing to subsidize commodities like corn and soy, and I don't understand why a guy with thousands of acres to work and the highest prices in years couldn't make it on his own. Then again, I see a lot of value in the associated conservation programs. I know a number of farm families who wouldn't have been able to send their kids to college had their income not been augmented through farm subsidies. Many of those students are nurses, veterinarians, teachers, and they're going back to serve rural communities after graduation- to me that's a pretty substantial benefit. I guess I'm just hopeful there's a happy medium between the status quo and cutting the program entirely.

Agreed -- you're kind of a fool if you don't take what's available to you. I just wish we could review these programs, and a lot of others -- really the whole flippin' budget -- and figure out what makes sense given where we are right now. But the programs are so entrenched, nobody wants to cut anything if it might cause some citizen (voter) a little pain, and they just keep adding layers. When the issue comes up, everyone wants to point at something else and say cut that, or that. Or turn it into a red vs. blue thing.

[cnr]

I just wish we could review these programs, and a lot of others -- really the whole flippin' budget -- and figure out what makes sense given where we are right now. But the programs are so entrenched, nobody wants to cut anything if it might cause some citizen (voter) a little pain, and they just keep adding layers. When the issue comes up, everyone wants to point at something else and say cut that, or that. Or turn it into a red vs. blue thing.

Now you're getting to the basis of the whole issue (IMHO). I think there's probably plenty of money being brought into our government and state coffers it's just the dispersement is a little questionable. If we could have some sensible decisions being made maybe we could control this whole crazy financial mess. I never understood the country running in deficit. Don't spend it if ya don't have it. If you get behind tighten your belt and pay it off. Unpleasant, yes, but it's the way it has to be.

[Jack Jones]

Let's not forget a lot of inflated salaries and largesse granted to the higher level that run the programs. This includes travel reimbursements, junkets, conferences, etc....A lot of that is wasted money. The conferences are often simply mini-vacations on the taxpayer dime. With teleconferenceing and video conferencing there is so little actual reason to travel 2-4 hours away for meetings and such. If you start cutting some of that out, you'd see quite the difference.

[ness]

Now you're getting to the basis of the whole issue (IMHO). I think there's probably plenty of money being brought into our government and state coffers it's just the dispersement is a little questionable. If we could have some sensible decisions being made maybe we could control this whole crazy financial mess. I never understood the country running in deficit. Don't spend it if ya don't have it. If you get behind tighten your belt and pay it off. Unpleasant, yes, but it's the way it has to be.

That way of thinking is extinct in Washington. They pay lip service to the notion, but nobody is suggesting significant change that would get us there in a reasonable amount of time.

We had War Bonds in the old days. In WWI, the government borrowed binoculars from citizens and returned them after the war with a nominal fee (I think maybe $1). As few as 50 years ago there was a real emphasis on balancing the budget -- when we had just come out of a world war and had a lot of work to do.

When you owe money, you lose control of your destiny.

[Justin Spencer]

Congress has raised their wages too many times and now you can make a lucrative career out of being a politician. This makes it tough to govern without thinking about re-election, better to not take a stand than risk allienating some of your constiutents. Term limits or lower salaries and maybe we'll see better people in congress. There is a reason second term presidents get alot more done than first term, they don't have to look over there shoulder and worry about re-election (which they shouldn't be doing in the first place).

[Wayne SW/MO]

I voted against it because it didn't make sense to me to fund schools with something targeted for elimination. They already let the casinos pull a fast one on them. Pie in the sky isn't the way to fund education.

[Justin Spencer]

I voted against it because it didn't make sense to me to fund schools with something targeted for elimination. They already let the casinos pull a fast one on them. Pie in the sky isn't the way to fund education.

So now we have no additional money going to education, or we have to pull it from somewhere else. I understand smokers not wanting it, but can't figure out why non-smokers would vote agin it. I understand the casino arguement but surely they learned a lesson from it, just a typical way for the opposition to explain away something that would have been good for the majority, and bad for a small minority.

[Phil Lilley]

I haven't followed all of this thread but...

I think people are just flat tired of tax increases when gov't in general is so irresponsible with what they spend now, in all areas. Right or wrong, people don't want to keep feeding gov't until gov't gets its house in order. To this point, it doesn't seem like gov't cares about it or is making any motion to correct the problem.

[Justin Spencer]

I haven't followed all of this thread but...

I think people are just flat tired of tax increases when gov't in general is so irresponsible with what they spend now, in all areas. Right or wrong, people don't want to keep feeding gov't until gov't gets its house in order. To this point, it doesn't seem like gov't cares about it or is making any motion to correct the problem.

I am also fed up with irresponsible spending, but I think this way a way for the state to keep some money at home without having the federal govt. involved in this tax. If we want more power for the states and less for the feds. we need to continue to find clever ways to raise money on a state to state basis. Other states have figured it out with cigarettes, Missouri has not.

[Wayne SW/MO]

So now we have no additional money going to education, or we have to pull it from somewhere else.

I just believe something more stable then gambling or cigarettes would allow educators to actually plan with some semblance of achieving their goals. You and I know that the extra tax on cigarettes would come from a lot of families that can't afford it.

I'm older then most on here and probably more immune to political promises then some. They may have the best of intentions when the promise is made, but it rarely happens as advertised.