U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Nebraska
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-09-2007, 05:34 PM
 
Location: West Omaha
1,181 posts, read 2,805,245 times
Reputation: 455

Advertisements

Okay, first of all, the same sex marriage issue is COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY UNRELATED!!! Secondly, I didn't support this legislation, so don't preach to me about this issue.

You continually state how rural Nebraska is a drain on the Nebraska economy. That's just misleading at best and an outright lie at worst. Yes, some things are less efficient in rural areas because of large distances and # of people served by an infrastructure, but proportionally they are also allotted less money! Secondly, agriculture IS Nebraska's economy, so quit acting like Omaha is producing all the money in Nebraska and the rural areas just eat it up!! Much of the education dollars are raised via properties taxes at the local level. Much of the roads and education dollars come from the federal government. Also, much of the state money that goes to Omaha infrastructure comes from tax dollars raised because of the strong ag industry in rural Nebraska!

No, your ideas are NOT capitalism...its absolutely communism and socialism. You are suggesting the government dictates where people live and what services will be provided. That is absolutely communist thinking. Capitalism allows for the "markets" to dictate these issues and that's what is happening now!! Also, quit suggesting these areas have "zero economic impact". They have enormous economic impact due to the ag industry. Why you guys can't get this through your head is completely beyond me. You can't force someone to give up their farm! If the economic conditions at some point influence a farmer or rancher to sell their farm to a large corporate farm then so be it. But you let the "market" conditions dictate that...you don't have the government intervene! What happens when you have all the ag product in Nebraska produced by a few corporate farms?? You have no competition is what happens and the basic idea of market driven price minimization is completely out of whack. You've essentially built in a government sponsored monopoly on our food supply...yeah, that's an excellent idea!!

Also, quit suggesting that the "state" supports and maintains these areas! They don't support or maintain these areas anymore than they do in Omaha. You act as though its just a big welfare case and that is totally misleading. There may not be malls and fancy stores in these rural areas, but that's because the market conditions don't allow for it. Why don't you go and see how much more a farmer or rancher contributes to the GNP than you do. How much do you think their farm machinery costs? Well, farm implements regularly cost in the hundreds of thousands of dollars area and most farmers possess several of these pieces of equipment. To suggest that rural areas produce nothing economically because they don't have a "Spago" or a tourist attraction is flipping ridiculous. That is why I said its a different lifestyle. The same arguments you are making about rural farming areas in Nebraska could be made about oil-fields in Texas. Just because they don't look fancy and ritzy hardly means they don't produce alot more than you could imagine!

I would also add that the most efficient thing to do with Nebraska's resources is tear Omaha down and force everyone to live in equally distributed cities of about 20,000 people. Each city would have one large highschool and all the citizens could then work in the fields of Nebraska producing a very efficient agricultural product. All of Nebraska could be farmed and we would quit wasting our tax payer dollars on frivolous expenses like museums, zoos, ballparks, and colleges. Does this sound like a good idea just because this is more economically efficient than our current situation? Probably not! But this idea is in the same spirit as your proposal...both are ludicrous!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-09-2007, 11:27 PM
 
Location: Old Forge, NY
585 posts, read 1,472,322 times
Reputation: 177
mattpaulsen,

Good post. Anyway, Nebraska will end up being one of those states where some will flee urbanization and sprawl seeking a simpler, quieter life. In fact, it's already happening. Some folks are fleeing the front range of Colorado because it's too busy and a dried up desert. They are retiring early and going to WY and NE. Guess what, they are bringing their hard earned cash too....

Also, good luck removing the NE farmer. Some family farmers actually make a good living at it, including my extended family. Also, there's a great deal of money exchanging hands in rural NE. Some only think of the AG biz but there is a great deal going on in regards to manufacturing, utilities, transportation, and tourism....oh...and I80. And then some here want to turn rural Nebraska into a socialist wasteland? Ha! It'll never happen, we've learned from past mistakes and plus there is too much money to be made by so many vendors.

Guess what? Omaha is doing just fine, LOOK AT THE GROWTH! Easterners now are starting to eye you like your downtown streets are made of gold because they realize that NC, AZ, GA, NM and Fl are too damn hot. Sheesh....I can't even believe it's an issue.

Lack of water! It will kill rural NE quicker than anything. After it dampens the rural ag biz of NE, it'll soon suck the life outta Omaha too.

Last edited by Rumblebelly; 04-09-2007 at 11:45 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2007, 11:39 PM
 
217 posts, read 624,015 times
Reputation: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattDen View Post
I was just wondering why rural interests take priority over Omaha in this state. I really think Omaha could go from being the mediocre overall (it has advantages and disadvantages) but overall a very middle of the road place to being exceptional if it just did one thing. Forget about the rural areas of the state that continue to lose population that have decreasing relevance on the state population wise and are a major drain on the city of Omaha's economy.

Personally, I think as far as future highway projects go except for the main Interstate all those capital transportation projects in rural Nebraska should be
forgotten. Why spend so much for infrastructure for such unpopulated areas? With the massive population declines why should the state bother. Omaha could have a light-rail system and a tremendous road infrastrcuture if it werent for rural Nebraska interests and silly, underutilized road projects in the middle of nowhere.

Trolleys, Light-Rails and even a better highway infrastructure would do alot for Omaha and if all the rural special interest for a very few projects were to be written off then Omaha could be a very nice city with that sort of adavanced transportation infrastructure.

Also, as far as the universities why not just have University of Nebraska Lincoln and Omaha and close all the other state colleges in rural areas. I dont see what Peru State, Wayne State and Chadron State's purposes are other then to drain college money from the University of Nebraska Omaha and Lincoln.
After all where the state colleges are located when the students graduate the job oppurtunities in those areas are a drop in the bucket compared to Omaha.

I also think other then the community college in Omaha that the other community college systems really serve little purpose being that the rural economy is so undiverse compared to Omaha and other medium and large cities. So basically it would be a step in the right direction if all the community colleges were closed except for Omaha.

Additionally, it would be nice if Omaha and Lincoln voted as a bloc because between the Omaha metro counties in Nebraska and Lancaster County they have more then enough representation to over-ride rural special interests that seek to drain prosperity from Omaha.

Also as far as regional centers and state nursing homes why should they have those in rural areas not in close proximity to very large hospitals. In my opinion those should also be relocated to the Omaha area.

I just think its a shame that in my opinion this state doesnt have an always Omaha first policy. After all, it is a metro area (CSA) of 860,000 people (including some counties in Iowa) in a state of 1.7 million (Nebraska).
Move nursing home resients away from thie famlies nice, MAtt. Honestly the move hould be mosre stressful for them. Most nusring home people are not critical. The care tehy need is different then what a hosp. provides. Yeah, sometiems there will be emergancies where someone gets sent out. Still they are better off being close to home.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2007, 11:43 PM
 
217 posts, read 624,015 times
Reputation: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattDen View Post
I was just wondering why rural interests take priority over Omaha in this state. I really think Omaha could go from being the mediocre overall (it has advantages and disadvantages) but overall a very middle of the road place to being exceptional if it just did one thing. Forget about the rural areas of the state that continue to lose population that have decreasing relevance on the state population wise and are a major drain on the city of Omaha's economy.

Personally, I think as far as future highway projects go except for the main Interstate all those capital transportation projects in rural Nebraska should be
forgotten. Why spend so much for infrastructure for such unpopulated areas? With the massive population declines why should the state bother. Omaha could have a light-rail system and a tremendous road infrastrcuture if it werent for rural Nebraska interests and silly, underutilized road projects in the middle of nowhere.

Trolleys, Light-Rails and even a better highway infrastructure would do alot for Omaha and if all the rural special interest for a very few projects were to be written off then Omaha could be a very nice city with that sort of adavanced transportation infrastructure.

Also, as far as the universities why not just have University of Nebraska Lincoln and Omaha and close all the other state colleges in rural areas. I dont see what Peru State, Wayne State and Chadron State's purposes are other then to drain college money from the University of Nebraska Omaha and Lincoln.
After all where the state colleges are located when the students graduate the job oppurtunities in those areas are a drop in the bucket compared to Omaha.

I also think other then the community college in Omaha that the other community college systems really serve little purpose being that the rural economy is so undiverse compared to Omaha and other medium and large cities. So basically it would be a step in the right direction if all the community colleges were closed except for Omaha.

Additionally, it would be nice if Omaha and Lincoln voted as a bloc because between the Omaha metro counties in Nebraska and Lancaster County they have more then enough representation to over-ride rural special interests that seek to drain prosperity from Omaha.

Also as far as regional centers and state nursing homes why should they have those in rural areas not in close proximity to very large hospitals. In my opinion those should also be relocated to the Omaha area.

I just think its a shame that in my opinion this state doesnt have an always Omaha first policy. After all, it is a metro area (CSA) of 860,000 people (including some counties in Iowa) in a state of 1.7 million (Nebraska).

Are you sure the nusring home are state run? Here we do not have state run homes. We are run by companies and recive payment from state funds. Only mental hosps here are state run.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2007, 03:04 AM
 
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska (moving to Ohio)
673 posts, read 2,953,175 times
Reputation: 438
Default Ethanol a big bonanza for already rich corn farmers made possible by huge subsidies and anti-urban

Why do ethanol producers need such a big subsidy just so cars can get less miles to the gallon then gasoline?

Farms get huge subsidies totalling in the tens of billions of dollars every year, that is not a capitalist free-market farm program. Its basically special interest pork-barrel bonanza for corn farmers and ethanol. This is just one example of what happens when rural special interests for a small elite take control of public policy.

Ethanol and the increased corn prices because of it are only of benefit to a very small farming elite who are already extremely, extremely affluent at the expense of a vast majority of people.

Ethanol plain and simple is nothing more then politicians from rural areas kissing up to the farming elite so they can have plenty of air-time when election time comes around. Nothing gets a rural farm state politician elected faster then a commercial with a farmer next to their old truck in a pair of overalls looking over a corn field like theyve been in it all day. The reality of it is this in illusion and a case of rural nostalgia.
Those farms are actually have extremely affluent, mansion living brand-new top of the line driving farmers who depend on migrant labor that makes little more then minimum wage to do the dirty work while those extremely affluent farmers get richer and richer.

Not only that but this ethanol craze in my opinion is completely a ridiculous agricultural special interest program also. Ethanol producers get a subisdy of around 50 cents a gallon to produce something with around a 1/3 less BTU units in it.

So basically these politicians from farm areas who like to promote ethanol believe in not just the billions of farm subsidies that go to farmers who drive those brand-new top of the line trucks and live in mansions but the ethanol producers get about a 50 cent subsidy to produce a gasoline which has about 1/3rd less energy then regular gasoline.

Not only that but the meat, dairy and prices of many other groceries will go up substancially due to all this corn going to ethanol. But that doesnt worry the Nebraska farmers while the farmers are driving their top of the line brand-new trucks with all the bells and whistles to go to Omaha for a shopping sprees and gourmet dinners the struggling people in many inner-cities and rural towns (that arent part of the farming elite) around america which have been discriminated against for decades all around the country will struggle even more just to put a decent, nutritiously balanced dinner on the table.

Absolutely incredible that anyone would call this capitalist free-market agriculture! It sounds like a big big bonanza for
corn farmers who have recieved massive subsidies for decades and if thats enough these same corn farmers expect for consumers to fill up there cars with corn which has 1/3 less energy then regular gasoline made possible by around a 50 cent per gallon subsidy for ethanol and if thats enough increased prices for the dinner table.

Last edited by MattDen; 04-10-2007 at 03:47 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2007, 04:08 AM
 
Location: West Omaha
1,181 posts, read 2,805,245 times
Reputation: 455
Mattden,

Well, you've finally stumbled upon something that I actually agree with. The ethanol boom is bad government policy! And so are the large government subsidies that exist in much of agriculture. However, you have it backwards. These subsidies have lead to bad economic planning on the part of many farmers because market factors were taken out of the equation. By getting rid of the subsidies it would force the farmers to react to market conditions and not be able to fall back on subsidies while at the same time over producing a product which only further depresses the market defined price. If the subsidies didn't exist agriculture would be more financially viable...not less.

As far as ethanol goes, well, its just a phase. And I agree that its completely a political decision. Its bad economic and environmental policy.

That said, government subsidies and bailouts exist throughout the country across a spectrum of industries, so these issues hardly suggest that family farming should be abandoned. I would however support a reduction and eventual elimination of subsidies and let market conditions dictate crop production. That much I will agree with.

On another note, it is not only large corporate farms that benefit from the ethanol fad. Any farmer selling on the open market benefits from the inflated corn price. So, all of the farmers are benefiting. I wouldn't worry about increased beef and dairy prices either. As the market condition dictates, the farmers will produce more and more corn...this will then result in a stabilization of corn prices and not substantially increased grocery product prices. In this case the supply (i.e. corn) is for the most part unconstrained.

I also think its a bit humorous that in this post you are talking about farmers driving their top of the line vehicles and driving to Omaha for shopping sprees! First, in your previous posts the standard of living in these rural areas was supposedly very very low...so have you changed your mind?? Secondly, how does driving to Omaha for a shopping spree hurt Omaha??

One final note, if you end up converting all of Nebraska ag to corporate farming what do you think happens to all that profit?? It leaves the state...that's what happens. These corporate farms have no local ties and those dollars would be leaving Nebraska entirely. These issues are very very complex and unless you have a thorough understanding of how the ag industry works ( and I mean a true understand ...not something you've read on the front page of a newspaper) the issue can be deceiving.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2007, 07:23 AM
 
Location: Omaha, NE
1,119 posts, read 3,004,684 times
Reputation: 379
Default ....

You guys, I was just thinking on the spot, I know there are better ideas than what I just came up with, lol, I guess I was having a little fun with it too...
There are ways this problem can be handled, but it will take the federal government to step in and get involved, but believe me I don't think that rural nebraska is draining the state as mattden thinks, lol.... I think rural nebraska is okay I'm a bit worried about the exodus of rural nebraska though...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2007, 09:36 AM
 
Location: Old Forge, NY
585 posts, read 1,472,322 times
Reputation: 177
I totally agree with mattpoulsen. I think the root of the problem is the surplus which drives down the cost of food, destroying the profit margins. However, corporate farming is just going to make it all worse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2007, 11:57 AM
 
Location: My heart is in Wyoming, my body is soon to follow.....
745 posts, read 2,873,143 times
Reputation: 273
Okay, first of all farmers are not rich, that's a city boy delusion. Also, they are in their fields all day. Matt you are obviously one of those city kids that thinks all farmers do is plant their fields and wait around to reap the rewards, which by the way have been very little in past years. Thank God for ethanol so they can finally make a real living. I don't know of any farmer's in the area I'm from using migrant workers. Typically they hire a farm hand or two which are guys from the area to help them farm their land. Maybe you should do a little more research as to how much money each individual farm family is getting from the subsidies, I think you'll be surprised as to how little money it is. I'm so sick of city people thinking they know everything that goes on, on the farm. And where on earth are these farmers that are ALL driving brand new trucks and living in mansions?? Since when is a 100 year old farm house a mansion and a 5-10 year old pickup brand new??
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2007, 06:45 PM
 
40 posts, read 77,445 times
Reputation: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by ehenningsen View Post
Omaha being the biggest contributer to the states economy should benefit the most...
According to http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/us/A0859912.html "Agriculture is Nebraska's dominant occupational pursuit."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $89,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Nebraska

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:17 AM.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top