Another Gov't Program


Well-Known Member

Now on the one hand some of this makes sense as it makes it easy to ID livestock when needed and on an individual/private basis I could/would commend such efforts. However it will cost taxpayers to do this but this is where I have a serious bone to pick with gov't and those who want gov't to do this and that. From the op-ed above read this sentence again but think about all the lobbying and wheeling and dealing in Washington and let this sink in.

"Agribusiness giants support NAIS, because they want the federal government to create a livestock database and provide free industry data."

You don't seriously think for a minute that some Congressman somewhere came up with this bright idea do you? Here's how the deal really works. The agribusiness realized it needed this database to make it's operation more efficent but really didn't want to foot the cost because of the drain on earnings. The solution was presented by some agribusiness rising star that we could sell this idea to the gov't under other pretenses and get them via the US taxpayer to foot the bill and they, the agribusiness, sit back and reap the gravy off of the gov't handout otherwise known as corp. welfare. Where does it end folks and how far are you willing to let this go on and on?

And for toppers I'm sure the agribusiness paid out some nice campaign contributions to those politicians who supported and pushed this measure through for them. This right here is exactly how Washington works and they politize every issue they can in order to manipulate us into footing the bill. Then behind the scenes is some various interest, in most cases a corp. one, who greatly benefits on what otherwise should have been a private matter and listed on that corporation's expense ledger.

Wake up people!!!!!!!!


From the promised LAND
What, you want the business that make the money off the venture to foot the bill to track animals so we can know where it was born, what fields it was in during its life, any other animals it has come into contact with etc etc? Currently that is a system that we can track mad cow disease with, but without the chip.

Funny, we can tell already where each cow has been, be able to certify where one with mad cow disease came from, but yet we dont have a clue as to how many illegals are in this country? All we can do is guess between 2 and 20 million?

Thats what we need, the gooberment to be in charge of another program. They do it so well.



Well-Known Member
I know this wasn't a thread about immigration but your comments got me to thinking. I wonder how fast American business interests would run from illegal immigrate workforce if when they were found to have them employed that at that point they were forced by law to pay for the entire process of making them documented workers or transporting them back to wence they came, pay for not only any current or future health coverage needs but if it was found that these same people have taken any gov't services that said company would by law under threat of asset forfeiture to be held responsible to repaying any gov't agency the amount equal to aid and assistance paid out while these folks were here illegally?

Can they do that? Well consider precedence of law in the case if you are found with an "illegal substance" that the car in which you drive can be taken under asset forfeiture or a home seized if drugs are found inside. Some businessmen conducting legit business but having to be found holding large sums of cash at the time have had the cash asset seized under the pretense claimed by the gov't that the money was intended for the purchase of illegal drugs when the facts clearly show the intent was for legit business purposes. Oh yes, the precedence is there but will someone have the thought processes to stretch it to that end?

I'd love to watch a law and order self proclaimed moralist and a civil libertarian debate this legal issue on C-Span or something. I like pondering issues out on the raw edge like that.

Thanks D-Boy for making me think in that direction.