I couldn't believe my ears when I first heard about this story.  It seems that there is actually a Raisin Administrative Committee which is overseen by the Department of Agriculture.  Their job?  To seize almost half (47%) of a raisin farmer's crop.  In return, the raisin farmer might receive some money after the raisins are sold and the Raisin Administrative Committee "covers their cost".  To quote the Wikapedia article linked above:

 

 

 

The profits from the raisins, often seized for no payment, are then used to pay the expenses of the committee or pay back farmers for their seized produce. In one recent year, $65,483,211 was made, although it was all spent, with none left over for farmers, according to the review of one recent year.

 

What got my attention is the Fifth Amendment of The Bill of Rights states that private property can not be taken for public use, without just compensation.  This was challenged by one particular farmer, and the case made it to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.  Of course the liberal 9th Circuit Court disagreed and said that the Fifth Amendment only applies to real estate.   :wacko:

 

The case has made it to The Supreme Court, and it appears that the court will probably rule in favor of the farmer.

 

Here are a few news articles related to the story.

 

From Fox News

From The LA Times

From USA Today

 

This is just another example of how government has gotten too big.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I couldn't believe my ears when I first heard about this story.  It seems that there is actually a Raisin Administrative Committee which is overseen by the Department of Agriculture.  Their job?  To seize almost half (47%) of a raisin farmer's crop.  In return, the raisin farmer might receive some money after the raisins are sold and the Raisin Administrative Committee "covers their cost".  To quote the Wikapedia article linked above:

 

 

What got my attention is the Fifth Amendment of The Bill of Rights states that private property can not be taken for public use, without just compensation.  This was challenged by one particular farmer, and the case made it to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.  Of course the liberal 9th Circuit Court disagreed and said that the Fifth Amendment only applies to real estate.   :wacko:

 

The case has made it to The Supreme Court, and it appears that the court will probably rule in favor of the farmer.

 

Here are a few news articles related to the story.

 

From Fox News

From The LA Times

From USA Today

 

This is just another example of how government has gotten too big.

This feels like a joke. It just sounds so absurd 

---

As usual, The Daily Show gets to the heart of the matter.

 

http://on.cc.com/P7Mjh5

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

It's a ridiculous use of the government.  It's one of the many examples of government that doesn't benefit anybody.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

a bunch of welfare baby farmers complaining about big government? laughable.

---

And cause I was a gazillionaire, and I liked doin it so much, I cut that grass for free.

As usual, The Daily Show gets to the heart of the matter.

 

http://on.cc.com/P7Mjh5

Jones brought up some very raisonable points.  :whistling:

---

It's a ridiculous use of the government.  It's one of the many examples of government that doesn't benefit anybody.

Can someone explain the purpose of regulating the supply/price of produce via this manner or subsidies? Is it something the farmers are in favor of? I know next to nothing about this. 

---

It's a ridiculous use of the government.  It's one of the many examples of government that doesn't benefit anybody.

Expect for such inconsequential things like infrastructure, national defense and public safety. 

---

As usual, The Daily Show gets to the heart of the matter.

 

http://on.cc.com/P7Mjh5

 

The Daily Show is not one of the places where I choose to get my news sources.  Unfortunately, for many on the left, this is their primary source for "news".

 

Can someone explain the purpose of regulating the supply/price of produce via this manner or subsidies? Is it something the farmers are in favor of? I know next to nothing about this. 

 

The primary intent was to regulate prices during the Great Depression.  This was part of the "New Deal".  They (the government) wanted to artificially keep the price of raisins higher in order to benefit the farmers.  This in turn was supposed to "revitalize" the agriculture sector and "boost" the economy.

 

However, what it has turned into is basically the government "robbing" the farmers in order to sustain their bureaucracy.  I mean really... do we really need a Raisin Administrative Committee?  Especially when part of their sole purpose is to fund itself?  Exactly how many people work for the Raisin Administrative Committee and at what kind of salary?  How exactly do they manage to spend $65,483,211?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

The Daily Show is not one of the places where I choose to get my news sources. Unfortunately, for many on the left, this is their primary source for "news"<span style="background-color:rgb(247,247,247);">$65,483,211?
</span>

No offense but there's a very good argument to be made that the daily show provides a much better glimpse into reality than fox news does...

---

this year the stat of Georgia decided that all Vidalia onions could not be sold until may 4th (pretty sure may 4th). the reason for this is each farmer acting independently wanted to be first to market. the problem was it created a huge problem with quality. the farmers that would have been first to market will lose lots of money. on the flip side there image will be kept intact. big government intervention is not all bad.

---

And cause I was a gazillionaire, and I liked doin it so much, I cut that grass for free.

The Daily Show is not one of the places where I choose to get my news sources.  Unfortunately, for many on the left, this is their primary source for "news".

 

It's a better news source than the right's primary source for 'news' foxnews.  MSNBC is not any better either.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

The Daily Show is not one of the places where I choose to get my news sources.  Unfortunately, for many on the left, this is their primary source for "news".

 

I was posting it well aware it is satirical.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

It's a better news source than the right's primary source for 'news' foxnews.  MSNBC is not any better either.

 

I get most of my news from the Drudge Report, he kind of hits it all on one page.

---

I find John Stewart to be on the same Level as Rush Limbaugh, Oddly enough I find both of their programs entertaining and find myself agreeing with both of them on various subjects.  

---

I find John Stewart to be on the same Level as Rush Limbaugh, Oddly enough I find both of their programs entertaining and find myself agreeing with both of them on various subjects.  

Same level as Rush?


I don't find the two similar at all.  Even back when I was a conservative I couldn't stand Rush.  I'd say Rush is closer to Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Same level as Rush?


I don't find the two similar at all.  Even back when I was a conservative I couldn't stand Rush.  I'd say Rush is closer to Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.  

 

They both present the news in the form of entertainment with their political slants on it. 

 

Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are political activist not entertainers. 

---

They both present the news in the form of entertainment with their political slants on it. 

 

Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are political activist not entertainers. 

 

You find Rush Limbaugh entertaining?

 

You need to get out of the compound more.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

They both present the news in the form of entertainment with their political slants on it. 

 

Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are political activist not entertainers. 

 

Jon Stewart tends to attack the left pretty hard sometimes too.  Rush's attitude toward women is something I find vile..  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

You find Rush Limbaugh entertaining?


You need to get out of the compound more.

Different issues I agree with them on certainly not everything.

---