• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Deadline approaching: Ottawa wants answer from Prairies on AgriStability program

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #13
    Agriville is like going to the coffee shop to discuss the days news with a bit more depth. Sometimes interesting and fun, but not that important to the future of the world. LOL

    Comment


      #14
      Originally posted by Hamloc View Post
      Chuck2 you constantly talk about how irrelevant posters on “agrisilly” are, why do you continue to post?!
      Someone has to put the silly in Agrisilly. It's a tough full time job to overwhelm all the serious ag related topics with silliness, but Chuck is up to it.

      Comment


        #15
        A5, you have provided more than your fair share of silly.

        What are your thoughts on the proposed changes to Agristability?

        Comment


          #16
          Originally posted by jazz View Post
          Toss it right in the dumpster, add the funds to crop insurance.

          If we had a drought on the scale of the 1930s that program still wouldnt pay out a dime. Its a waste.
          Absolutely correct Jazz.

          Comment


            #17
            Originally posted by Oliver88 View Post
            Absolutely correct Jazz.
            Not one farm organization is asking for that and its not going to happen. So why would you turn down very good improvements? Sask and Manitoba like the changes they are just concerned about paying for them.

            Comment


              #18
              I hope the powers at be, have a look at your moisture map before they decide crude oil is unsustainable and take us down a path of veg oil based fuels.... the canola chart says they didn't look.

              Comment


                #19
                Originally posted by chuckChuck View Post
                Not one farm organization is asking for that and its not going to happen. So why would you turn down very good improvements? Sask and Manitoba like the changes they are just concerned about paying for them.
                They are not improvements, they are just putting the program back to where it was prior to 2013...almost..

                I repeat they are not improvements and for it to be considered as such is stupid.

                Comment


                  #20
                  Originally posted by chuckChuck View Post
                  Not one farm organization is asking for that and its not going to happen. So why would you turn down very good improvements? Sask and Manitoba like the changes they are just concerned about paying for them.
                  Improvements on paper do not improve bankability. It doesn't matter how much funding they add or tweak the wording, the formula and reference margin is the problem.

                  Crop insurance has a similar problem, but at least they are bankable in current yr disaster and always have coverage for spring mishaps like establishment from flooding or beetles. And you dont have to submit another layer of accounting records to qualify or pay out. Everything is adjusted on the ground in near real time.

                  Comment


                    #21
                    Originally posted by chuckChuck View Post
                    A5, you have provided more than your fair share of silly.

                    What are your thoughts on the proposed changes to Agristability?
                    Well thanks for asking.
                    I am not in Agristability or crop insurance. I don't want a fiscally and morally corrupt government subsidizing farmers or any other business.

                    I support personal responsibility, and taking measured risk, not dependance on the nanny state. Subsidies, insurance and supports have had the opposite effect to what is intended. Taking away the risk only allows the big to get bigger faster, and I believe you are against that.

                    Comment


                      #22
                      I also want to add that all Of these government programs easily turn into a carrot and stick , As they try to find ways to enforce their Definition of sustainability and Emissions regulations.
                      To take advantage of these programs will probably mean Enrolling in every other harebrained scheme they come up with in the name of the environment. We will end up throwing good money after bad chasing an ever moving goal post, with still no chance of seeing a return on investment.
                      If Chuck and by extension the NFU are in support, then we should be running the other way.

                      Comment


                        #23
                        Originally posted by chuckChuck View Post
                        [ATTACH]7681[/ATTACH]

                        Less than an inch of soil moisture in the red zone and less than 2 inches in the pink zone.
                        Great timing for a massive increase in carbon tax on farmers 👎

                        Comment


                          #24
                          lots on here are good with it ?
                          gotta wonder WTF is rattling around in their F KN heads
                          Canada a country which is a natural sink , one of the most highly regulated in the world and one of the cleanest ??? how can these Sheeple be so simple as to not realize its just a liberano cash grab ??????
                          meanwhile numbnut's pals are building record amounts of coal fired generators

                          Comment

                          • Reply to this Thread
                          • Return to Topic List
                          Working...