Entries by Sarpy Sam

I see today is that special day dedicated to the proposition that if a man makes a big enough deal over his lady on this one day of the year, he is immune from showing her any love or consideration for the rest of the year. Yes, happy valentines day.


Now if you are a human being and show your lady love every day of the year, this made up holiday means very little to you since you don't need a special day to show love, you do it all the time with your words and deeds.

I find it interesting that the stock market took such a tumble when the Obama administration released it's financial plan to save the nations bank. Just like all things Obama, it is long on rhetoric and short on details. I guess the old curse continues and we are living in interesting times.

The heifers enjoying there lunch after they got home. I told my Darling Wife that this is the first hay that I put up in 2008 that I have had to feed. So far everything I have fed was put up in 2007 or earlier. My dad always said, "Hay in the stack is better than money in the bank." I agree. Taken 02/01/2009.

Bringing the heifers home to calve. Taken 02/01/2009.

I have a quick question, what is given as one of the main reasons the Great Depression was so bad? Trade barriers between countries.

"Any student of history will tell you that one of the most significant mistakes of the 1930s is when the U.S. embraced protectionism," Lane said. "It had a cascading effect that ground world trade almost to a halt, and turned a one-year recession into the Great Depression."

Now we are seeing the same thing start repeating itself.

'Buy American' Rider Sparks Trade Debate

The stimulus bill passed by the House last night contains a controversial provision that would mostly bar foreign steel and iron from the infrastructure projects laid out by the $819 billion economic package.

A Senate version, yet to be acted upon, goes further, requiring, with few exceptions, that all stimulus-funded projects use only American-made equipment and goods.

Proponents of expanding the "Buy American" provisions enacted during the Great Depression, including steel and iron manufacturers and labor unions, argue that it is the only way to ensure that the stimulus creates jobs at home and not overseas.

Opponents, including some of the biggest blue-chip names in American industry, say it amounts to a declaration of war against free trade. That, they say, could spark retaliation from abroad against U.S. companies and exacerbate the global financial crisis.

You can wrap this "Buy American" up in all the flags and patriotism you want, it's still a trade barrier and could and will cause retaliation which could really hurt us now like it did during the Great Depression. There is an old saying by George Santayana, "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." It looks like our politicians are dooming us to repeat history. [sarcasm]It's going to be a fun ride, isn't it?[/sarcasm]

Our intrepid Governor, Schweitzer, has decided to fight this nasty recession, he wants to raise Taxes. I thought the thing to do in a recession was lower taxes and stimulate the economy, not raise them and strangle a segment of the economy. If I remember right, Schweitzer is always complaining about the high price of energy, and won't raising taxes on energy raise the price for everybody down the road? I guess I'm just stupid yet again for not understanding these things.

Everybody knows about the Stimulus bill being debated in Congress. Either it's almost a trillion dollars of "investment" in our economy or it's a massive "pork" project to assuage the special interests that got President Obama elected. It all depends on your viewpoint. Me, I have a few questions.

I understand that the whole idea of this package is to "invest" (by putting it in quotes you ought to know how I feel about this word) in out infrastructure, roads and bridges and such, and to provide tax relief which are going to stimulate our economy and get it going again. So how much money are we going to pour into infrastructure?

The bill to be voted on today includes $30 billion for roads and bridges, $9 billion for public transit and $1 billion for inter-city rail -- less than 5 percent of the package's total spending.

Less than 5 percent is going to what we could consider traditional infrastructure projects. This really doesn't sound like much of an "investment" to me. This little drop of money probably explains why the largest maker of construction equipment, Caterpillar, recently announced massive lay-offs, 20,000 jobs. It knew that the little drop of money for infrastructure wasn't going to make a difference in its long range plans.

"They keep comparing this to Eisenhower, but he proposed a $500 billion highway system, and they're going to put $30 billion" in roads and bridges, he said. "How farcical can you be? Give me a break."

So, to really help we want to get this money into the economy, right?

The president directly challenged GOP critics who say the proposed legislation would not inject money into the economy for many years.

"Most of the money we're investing as part of this plan will get out the door immediately and go directly to job-creation, generating or saving 3 to 4 million new jobs," he said.

I can understand this. So, how much is injected into the economy "immediately" like the President says?

After Democrats initially estimated the plan would cost $825 billion, the Congressional Budget Office announced this week its total cost would come to $816 billion, with about 65 percent of those funds spent by September 2010.

So I guess two thirds of the money, out the door in a year and a half is what someone, not me, calls "immediately." I would call that a fairly long time if the goal is to save jobs now, not somewhere in the distant future.

As for any Tax cuts in this bill, what little information I can find appears to be a one time rebate to people and a one year patch for the Alternative Minimum Tax provision. Now we tried the tax rebate last year and it didn't seem to help very much so why would we expect this one to do any more? I don't see how it will. Then, why not fix the AMT problem permanently, instead of patching it for one year? Wouldn't that make a little more sense?

Why not give people and businesses real, permanent tax cuts to help stimulate the economy. Think about these quotes and guess who said them.

"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."

"Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government."

"It is no contradiction – the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today's economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates."

"Our present tax system ... exerts too heavy a drag on growth ... It reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking ... The present tax load ... distorts economic judgments and channels an undue amount of energy into efforts to avoid tax liabilities."

So, any guesses who said these things? President John F. Kennedy. Yes, the Democrats favourite past president felt cutting taxes would stimulate real growth and that is what we need today, real growth. Not politicians deciding which industries to throw money at, like health care or alternative energy. But real men and Women, making choices of their own, with their own money, according to what the market is demanding. Not what lobbyist convince politicians that we need, "for the public good."

I don't know, I'm tired of this whole thing. The idiots people of the US have decided they want President Obama guiding them so we are going to get what we deserve and there ain't a damn thing I can do about it. I see the policies of the President and Congressional Democrats are going to not help the recession out, but actually hurt us in the long run. I truly hope I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.

One last thing, if the Republicans were in charge right now, they would be doing just as poor of job trying to fix this problem. All both parties know how to do is "Tax and Spend" and that is only going to make the situation we are in worse. I hope you all enjoy the ride, I'm sure not.

Two different stories caught my eye about drought and cattle dying.

Texas drought worsens, cattle dying

Drought conditions in Texas are so bad cattle are keeling over in parched pastures and dying.

Drought conditions worsened significantly in the past week, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor map released Thursday. Seventy-one percent of the state is now in some stage of drought, up from 58.3 percent last week.

A week ago the two worst drought designations — extreme and exceptional — covered 9.1 percent of the state. This week the two categories cover 15.1 percent of the state, with a circle near San Antonio and Austin widening in all directions. Only the eastern and southeastern parts of Texas are without any drought status.

It all results in death for dozens of cows in Bastrop, south of Austin. At Dr. Lee Davis' veterinarian clinic, up to 10 cows a week have been brought in for treatment over the past month. They fell in pastures from weakness due to lack of grazing forage, and most didn't survive, Davis said.

Argentine ranchers cry help as drought kills cattle

Argentine rancher Gustavo Giailevra has seen 425 of his cattle, a quarter of his herd, die of thirst in the last year and now he watches helplessly as the survivors bellow for water at dry wells.

Argentina's beef industry and wheat and corn production have been devastated by the country's most severe drought since 1961, which has also affected agriculture in neighboring Uruguay, Paraguay and southern Brazil.

The crisis is compounded by the world economic slowdown, which is cutting demand for farm products and draining state finances just as ranchers look to the government for help.

"The situation is terminal," Giailevra said, surveying the stinking cow carcasses on his ranch near the town of Tostado in Santa Fe province in northern Argentina. "We are in God's hands. Our water reserves are gone."

The drought has killed 300,000 head of cattle and caused at least $600 million in farm losses in Santa Fe. Authorities are trucking in water but it is not enough and producers are demanding longer-term solutions.

Damn, I hate to hear about cattle dying because of drought. Not much a person can do about it though. Watch and learn. Sell cattle before they die would probably be best. That is real hard to do too.

"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, totally worn out and proclaiming, 'WOW, WHAT A RIDE!!!'" Bill McKenna

This quote was used in my Uncle's obituary and I just had tom post it here. It's great and really describes the man.

Wolf to go off list in Montana, not Wyoming

Gray wolves in the western Great Lakes and Northern Rockies will be removed from the federal endangered-species list by late February under a plan announced Wednesday by the Bush administration.

Left out of the plan were wolves in Wyoming, where state officials sought a "predator zone" across most of the state within which the animals could be shot on sight. Federal officials said Wyoming law would have to change before wolves there could be taken off the endangered list.

I'm surprised they are trying this again. Not disappointed, but surprised. First off, I don't know what good it will do. The wolf lovers will take it to court right away. It says it right in the article.

Environmental and animal rights groups derided the move as a last-minute effort by the Bush administration to strip protections from an animal they say remains at risk. They promised Wednesday to return to court with another round of lawsuits.

"These guys have been trying for eight years to explain how it could be possible for them to delist the wolves," said Jonathan Lovvorn, a vice president of the Humane Society of the United States. "It's time for them to throw in the towel."

See, they come right out and said that they will spend whatever money is necessary to stop this. It doesn't matter how many wolves there are or how they affect the people living with them. They need to just "throw in the towel" and give up to their want's and desires.

Second on this one will be to see what President Elect Obama does about this. Will he block the delisting like his core constituents want, or will he listen to the people like Ed Bangs, who know whats going on with the wolves.

I'm not worried about it. As much as I would like to see the Wolves in the State go off the Endangered Species list so that they can be intelligently managed, it's not going to happen. Either the courts or President Elect Obama will stop it. Who will stop it first is the interesting question in this.

I guess I don't get it. Not unusual, is it? If I failed to pay $34,000 in taxes, I would more than likely be thrown in jail, but Timothy Geithner does the same thing and President Elect Obama says it's an "innocent mistake" so that the man can serve in high Government office. Innocent mistake my dying ass. The only reason he paid the taxes was to try to get his appointment approved.

What does Montana's senior Senator Max Say about this?

"This is an honest mistake and it's clear there was no intention not to pay it and he did pay immediately, as soon as his mistake was discovered,"

Bullshit. If this was the case why did he wait until he was being nominated for Treasury Secretary to pay some of these back taxes? I though President Elect Obama was for "change." This seems like business as usual for our Government again. Those in power our forgiven their sins while the rest of us have to follow the law. Innocent Mistake? Change? No change here and no Innocent Mistake either, that's for sure.

I really think Matt needs to move into reality on this one about the cost of college textbooks. His solution?

What if a state simply mandated that universities and schools pick up the tab for textbooks that are required for courses? The schools could be allowed to alter tuition to pay for the books -- but the changes in tuition have to be flat or by department. Very quickly, schools would have great incentives to watch the prices of books closely.

What incentive would there be for the university to watch the cost of books? They would just up the tuition more, as if it isn't high enough all ready, since there would now be no accountability for the costs of books. It would be hidden in the tuition fee so publishers and colleges could even charge more than before. Try to say the college can't charge full price for the book, and they will just fold the charge in somewhere else to the people paying for college. Believe me, the colleges won't pay for the books and they will find a way to make money for having to administer the program.

Sorry, rolling the cost of books in with the tuition will only increase prices even further for colleges making the problem even worse not make the cost of textbooks lower. Life don't work that way.

I do believe I have been saying this all along.

Vets wary of disease 'hot-zone'

A federal government plan to carve out the Yellowstone area as an animal disease "hot-zone" faces opposition from some state veterinarians, who worry the move would lower cattle industry safeguards.

Creation of the zone would recognize Yellowstone as the last remaining region in the country where the disease brucellosis lingers. That could ease sanctions faced by some cattle producers when infections occur.

State veterinarians from across the country had backed the idea last year at an annual convention in North Carolina. But several have since said their support hinges on stepped-up efforts to curb the disease in Yellowstone's wildlife - something they say hasn't yet occurred.

I've said all along that the solution for the Brucellosis problem is for the Federal Government to control the Brucellosis in the animals, like elk and bison, under their control in Yellowstone National Park. A special zone is never going to work and it looks like we are starting to see those objections I said would come along.

Creation of a special brucellosis management zone has been pushed by officials in the Yellowstone states of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. They want to limit the economic consequences of future infections.

But backing from state veterinarians outside the region is considered key to the plan's success. They want assurances that Yellowstone's wildlife brucellosis isn't spreading and is actively being addressed.

The special zone is not going to do any good if other states don't recognize that it exits.

If the federal government moved forward absent widespread support for its plan, veterinarians from opposing states could impose their own restrictions on cattle imported from the three Yellowstone states.

Absent further progress on the wildlife front, South Dakota state veterinarian Sam Holland said states such as his own would be reluctant to accept cattle under the proposed Yellowstone hot-zone plan.

"It's going to really limit the market for those cattle," he said.

I hate to say I told you so, but that is the case here. Tackling the Brucellosis issue in wildlife is the key to making this work. As long as the Federal Government exempts itself from controlling Brucellosis the special Zone is never going to work. Why since the Feds make us control Brucellosis are they exempt from the requirement? Why shouldn't they be working on the problem? Either do away with all Brucellosis requirements or follow the law, It's real simple.

Sunday morning it was 25 below, that's Fahrenheit, zero here. The Damn Dodge Diesel gelled up and I had to get the Ford out to rescue it. Yes, I was using cut fuel and had added diesel conditioner so it wouldn't gel and it still did. Oh was I mad.

Then what a change today. It rained, yes I said rained, the whole time we fed. What a change. I don't like the cold but I don't like the rain in January either. Hopefully it will straighten up eventually.

I'm a little confused about something. The politicians agreed to bail out the auto companies if they started to make more cars with better fuel mileage and were more "green." Now I read this.

The dilemma for Congress is that highway and transit programs are dependent for revenue on fuel taxes that are not sustainable. Many Americans are driving less and switching to more fuel-efficient cars and trucks, and a shift to new fuels and technologies like plug-in hybrid electric cars will further erode gasoline sales.

So, they complain that we aren't using enough gas with one hand while trying to get us to use less gas with the other. This really sounds confusing to me. Typical politicians I guess.

Happy New Year, the good times just keep rolling.