Provincial Liberals slamming the door on buyout?

SkullyCapone wrote:

If the government added sin taxes to your beer companies, disallowed bars and resturants to sell alcohol among all the other strict policies they placed on tobacco you can bet that those beer companies would seek compensation,

It is funny that you mentioned bars and restaurants as it brings up a very good argument to what the government has done to thousands of businesses in this country over the past few years.

Their anti-smoking bylaws have literally killed hundreds if not thousands of bars across this nation. How many of these businesses were compensated for their losses as a direct result of changes made by the government?

I am not saying we don't have sympathy for tobacco farmers but you actually tackled the problem wrong. Instead of asking for a buyout, why were you not asking that the government enforce some type of Canadian content requirement on Canadian cigarettes? That way, you are still in business and earning money while not costing the taxpayers any extra. From what I understand, cigarette consumption is not really down, they are just importing more tobacco from cheaper sources.

I don't know, perhaps you did do that, but it certainly didn't get any mention in the press.

Watchman wrote:

SkullyCapone wrote:

If the government added sin taxes to your beer companies, disallowed bars and resturants to sell alcohol among all the other strict policies they placed on tobacco you can bet that those beer companies would seek compensation,

It is funny that you mentioned bars and restaurants as it brings up a very good argument to what the government has done to thousands of businesses in this country over the past few years.

Their anti-smoking bylaws have literally killed hundreds if not thousands of bars across this nation. How many of these businesses were compensated for their losses as a direct result of changes made by the government?

I am not saying we don't have sympathy for tobacco farmers but you actually tackled the problem wrong. Instead of asking for a buyout, why were you not asking that the government enforce some type of Canadian content requirement on Canadian cigarettes? That way, you are still in business and earning money while not costing the taxpayers any extra. From what I understand, cigarette consumption is not really down, they are just importing more tobacco from cheaper sources.

I don't know, perhaps you did do that, but it certainly didn't get any mention in the press.

Tobacco farmers have asked that the illegal market be shut down for years as well as using canadian product nothing was ever done about it, I thought the illegal market and our fight against it was always clear and out in the open. Tobacco farmers would choose to continue to grow in a stable market over a buyout any day of the week, remember 99% of them put thier entire lifes into thier farms and tobacco.

I dont think I tackled the barr issue wrong at all, while it harmed bars for a short period it is not what bars sell, suppose what they do sell alcohol was banned, then you would see an uproar and yes you would see compensation.

cking wrote:

Yikes! All I asked was if you could start growing after the buyout in the name of a relative. I didn't start the fire. Just asked a question.

And, I happen to have lived my whole life in this area so I KNOW farmers with the big trucks and who they are. And what's up with them. Probably went to school with some of them. Knew their parents. Some of them are wealthy folks...and have been for three generations.

Also...you seem to think in other businesses/careers, there are lots of "freebies"...like therapy, free services. I taught for 26 years and now that I am retired, I pay $450 a month for the extended health plan and dental.
Nothing free about that.

My post was not entirely directed at you but aguy as well

"Im not a buyer im a seller, I run a business, im the truck company not the big gas pig truck buyer and you can bet your butt if you owned a business and the government allowed to let an illegal business flourish just down the road right before your eyes which ruined your business you would cry foul to and ask for help."

-you missed the point entirely

"If it is unhealthy why is it legal?" ...then fast food should be illegal...booze. etc...

I never had any bad experiences with any farmer, and I have nothing against them, I just don't agree with the whole principal of the buyout

SkullyCapone wrote:

I dont think I tackled the barr issue wrong at all, while it harmed bars for a short period it is not what bars sell, suppose what they do sell alcohol was banned, then you would see an uproar and yes you would see compensation.

It may not be what they sell but it relates directly to government involvement in their business. It also certainly did not last for a short period of time, it still is affecting bars on a regular basis to this day.

A case can be made that the governments action as it relates to bars can be seen as similar to government inaction as it relates to illegal tobacco. Both are the results of the government in power making policy decisions that affect businesses directly.

I have never been against transition funding to help out farmers. I think they play a vital role in the economy of this county. What I have been against is people who simply hold quota as an investment and have been renting it out for years to other farmers all of a sudden demanding this buyout. These are not active farmers and in no way help the economy out except lining their own pockets with windfall profits.

I don't think that you and I disagree on much as you are an active farmer and I do agree that you should receive transition funding, it is just some of your fellow investment holders should not.

Imagine how you would feel if the government had instead of giving money to everyone that owns quota had set up 300 million to the 500-600 active growers? Think of how much more you could have done with the extra money to help turn your farm/life around. You could have transistioned much easier to a new crop and continued to provide economic benefits to the county.

Now you are in a situation where some farmers can't get out from under their debt at $1.05 per lb and some investment holders are laughing all the way to the bank with the money that they will receive. Doesn't seem fair does it? I think that and I am not even a farmer.

I wonder if it should not have been distributed in relationship to NEED. Could that make sense? You get more or less based on NEED. Just like the child benefits. If you make too much money, you don't get it. Same as the GST. Beyond a certain level of income, you don't get it. I think this would have been more reasonable. Practical and logical. But usually not the government's way. Then people who were on the verge of losing their farm would receive the most.

I imagine that in itself would open a huge can of worms, but I would like to see a struggling farmer who is in debt get a bigger portion than an agri-business who was just using tobacco as a loss on his income tax! Or to pad an already sturdy bank account.

Help me understand something here...

I just visited CD989.com and read the comments related to Diane Finley..

now, I'm no expert on politics by any means.. but, why is Diane Finley taking so much flack over this?

if Diane Finley who is a conservative member of Parliament and the Federal government (conservatives) gave their share and are waiting on the province to give theirs (and the province is Liberal government) how on earth is this Diane's fault? (especially since Diane IS federal)

is it just me or do people look to just blame someone? blame the Liberals they are in power in the province.. doesn't that make more sense??

Diane Finley gets no complaints from me, those on the kwic board and here know I have supported her all along. It may have taken a while but she delivered as promised but now lets see if the liberals deliver what they promised. Reading that CD site its hard to tell whats serious and whats not, you have a few people pretending to be several people and posting things just to create some fire.

Many people don't know that we have three levels of government and who's who in terms of leadership. It's pretty hard to keep it all straight!

I remember teaching that unit to the grade 5's! What a nightmare! I downloaded photos of all the leaders and we played kind of a sorting game where different portfolios had to be filed under the proper heading: federal, provincial or municipal!

Many people also don't know the responsibilities of each level; for example, immigration and defence are federal/Ottawa; mail is federal/Ottawa; health is mostly provincial but also Health Canada is federal; roads are provincial but some are municipal, etc. A tangled web! It gets very complicated.

Some people just get on the criticism bandwagon. If you just want to spew and you don't like Diane because she wears dark glasses and looks somewhat "shady"...well, then, you won't make very meaningful or intelligent comments. You will blame her for everything...including her husband's shenanigans!