217 posts shown.
rustyjackal16 said:So, what’s your take on how long this restriction is going to stick around? When do you think we might actually see intercity buses back in action again? I'm thinking maybe if everyone just wears masks or if they limit the capacity per bus...
Surely it won't stay suspended for months on end, right? Does anyone have any inside scoop? Is there any truth to the rumor that things might stay this way until the end of April?
It’s simple: when people get hungry. Once the supplies run dry and these clowns in the Government realize they might be facing some serious backlash, that’s when this whole circus will finally wrap up.
Charles Fox10 said:I've been back there quite a bit over the last 20 years visiting childhood friends, so I've met plenty of Californians. Their stories about the Franco dictatorship and how they were treated were chilling. They learned something from that history; I'm fairly certain they won't respond with violence, but with sheer persistence.
To be honest, I was treated somewhat like a hero there. They told me I was lucky to have my own money, my own license plates, my own passport, my own country... things they hope to possess one day. It was also interesting hearing them describe bullfighting as a national disgrace rather than some sort of chivalrous sport.
They are good people. I truly wish them the best.
I wish them luck too. I just don't buy that they'll actually achieve anything through peaceful means.
wearytrucker22 said:And what does that have to do with profit, unless they've actually been outlawed? If it isn't illegal, it’s fair game if it helps the bottom line.
It’s just like using corn supplements for poultry feed or whatever.
Hormones are banned in the European Union, but they aren't an issue in the USA.
wearytrucker22 said:Look, aren't hormones exactly what boosts production? I don't get why everyone is waiting around for it to happen.
They certainly do. There's actually an article detailing how pesticides, antibiotics, and hormones end up in our milk supply.
http://www.us-focus.com/index.p...vari-u-mlijekuThe text mentions a few things, including this:
It’s been proven that milk and dairy from cows raised primarily on their natural diet—mostly grass—have a positive impact on the health of both kids and adults. On the flip side, milk from industrial-scale factory farms is significantly lower quality compared to milk from pastures where cows graze on grass, hay, and legumes rather than being fed corn and soy. Intensive farming for both dairy and beef cattle has a majorly negative effect on the health of animals and people alike. In those high-intensity setups, there's a higher risk of spreading pathogenic bacteria like E. coli—which tends to pop up more often in animals fed mainly on corn and soy. This issue is incredibly rare in animals eating naturally; when they stick to grass, they maintain a healthy gut microbiome with a good balance of beneficial bacteria. For cattle, corn, grains, and soy just aren't natural, and they're hard to digest. That unnatural diet messes with their gut flora, leading to poor gut health—which ultimately means weaker overall health and a higher susceptibility to disease for both the animals and the humans consuming them.
For our own sake, we would have been better off keeping more small-scale producers instead of moving toward fewer, massive industrial operations.
wearytrucker22 said:Debunking the myth that dairy farming in the USA isn't sustainable
Back in 2003, the numbers told one story: we had about 58,815 producers pumping out over 540 million kg of milk. Fast forward to 2015, and while the number of suppliers had shrunk to just over 10,000, the actual volume of milk being delivered stayed remarkably steady at roughly 522 million kg. It’s an interesting trend. Between 2003 and 2010, the total number of producers across the European Union dropped by a massive 47%, falling from 3,199,420 down to 1,701,090
Just wait until they start pumping hormones into the cows—it’s going to be a disaster. Not just for the animals, but for anyone drinking the milk, too. Honestly, those skeptics will probably end up in the graveyard before they ever get proven right.
wearytrucker22 said:The point is, people didn't even emerge from the Communist era with those 25 acres per family; they came out with maybe 5. And that 25-acre cap had been in place since '53—it used to be closer to 80 acres before that. Honestly, they didn't give much of a damn about the rocky terrain of the Mediterranean Coast, which is exactly why tourism ended up in private hands, especially on the islands.
You've said this a few times now, but nobody is listening to you.
Let's recap:
most of the subsidies go to small farms, while the bulk of agricultural production is driven by massive corporations.
Can you drop the link? Where'd you read that?
Andrew Booth29 said:That just isn't true. If you actually bother to look at the data on the USDA website—which they used to publish more transparently, anyway—you'd see something different. Generally speaking, small-scale farms pick up most of the subsidy checks, yet it's the massive industrial corporations that drive the bulk of actual agricultural output.
Can you drop a link to that page? I forgot to mention that it's the big corporations that generate most of the debt the government ends up footing.
rowdypilot19 said:No, no way... I mean just a good chunk of people, in general.
I mean, how else can you explain why they keep bumping up the total subsidy amounts when production is actually dropping year after year? It just doesn't add up.
Shipbuilding shouldn't be lumped in with tourism investment, period.
Given how profitable and high-earning tourism is, we probably should be investing even more there.
Sure, but the thing is, hardly anyone actually owns that much land.
A colleague mentioned he works 70 hectares, but 80% of that isn't even his.
And honestly, the equipment used by small family farms is often older than the country itself.
I highly doubt someone making those kinds of investments—with average intelligence and market knowledge—isn't earning enough for a decent life.
If the guy I mentioned who barely has 10 hectares of hazelnuts is living, I guess, like an average German or Swiss, then someone with 100 hectares definitely has even more potential. Everything else just depends on what you can do with it.
Like I said before—the lion's share of those subsidies went to Todorica and his crowd. That's why everyone else sees their output tanking; a lot of folks are just giving up on production entirely, especially in livestock.
There was an agricultural machinery expo in Osijek recently. One exhibitor was bragging about how sales are actually up compared to previous years—which really tells you everything you need to know. For years, those pre-accession funds just seemed to flow straight into Walmart-sized corporations. Small family farms were left fighting over crumbs. Once we joined the union, politicians tried to keep that same momentum going. For instance, Jakovina attempted to funnel rural development money toward Todorica. He managed to pull some of it off, though thankfully he was eventually stopped.
I honestly think that’s one reason why so many small family farms are folding, especially in livestock. If you're trying to produce anything, you have to sink massive amounts of cash into equipment, plus deal with sales tax, income tax, and all the other overhead. Meanwhile, you're competing against a giant like Walmart, where the government basically buys their machinery and builds their farms for them—and they get to play fast and loose with income and sales taxes. How are you supposed to stay competitive against a setup like that?
This recent spike in machinery sales is happening right after the crisis at Walmart subsided. To be blunt, Walmart is a huge reason why agriculture in America has been struggling so much.
dustymarlin10 said:So, is Todorica the only one grabbing subsidies?
At least he actually plants something on the land he's getting paid for, unlike those other 100,000 people who collect checks while nothing grows but weeds.
Sure, but he also planted a mountain of debt that our grandkids will probably be stuck paying off.
shadowhawk31 said:Some people just don't get how things work here.
Tourism this year? It’s practically non-existent—basically invisible.
Even last year wasn't exactly great, if we're being honest.
You had those lucky folks who owned property right on the water—you know, the ones sitting on savings because they were making a killing off tourists.
But then you have the others—the ones who went all in, took out massive loans, and invested everything. They’re basically one disaster away from total ruin; all it takes is one major incident on the coast to wipe them out.
Take what happened in Italy, for example. They recently brought in rules requiring any Non-profit organization helping "refugees" to disclose their funding sources and carry a police officer on board. Suddenly, these NGOs stopped helping refugees altogether—which, let's be real, actually reduced their numbers. In essence, Italy effectively shut down the business cooperation between humanitarian NGOs and human traffickers by adding police presence, so the groups just quit their "humanitarian work" because the profit margins vanished.
The fallout? Refugees might just find a whole new route.
We can't rule out a path through Albania, Mexico, and America heading straight toward Canada.
And if that happens, it could mean the absolute collapse of American tourism.
Or, on the flip side, imagine if terrorism just suddenly ceased in almost all of America's competitors.
Right now, America and Portugal are pretty much the only spots left without terrorism or refugee issues hitting the tourist destinations directly.
But that's just the situation *right now*.
Everything can change drastically overnight, and once it does, getting back to the way things were is nearly impossible.
It’s the exact same story in agriculture. Some people poured everything into buying John Deere tractors, building massive farms, setting up livestock operations, and diving into what seemed like profitable niches.
Well, "seemed" being the keyword there.
The market is incredibly volatile, and just because something was in high demand last year doesn't mean anyone gives a damn about it this year.
I knew this one family—they built these top-tier luxury apartments, took out huge loans, and are now praying they can pay it all back over the next 20 years.
And sure, it looks fine on paper if this current peak lasts for two decades.
If it doesn't? They're finished, just like so many other farmers out there.
If we don't protect our borders, then we haven't earned the right to have a state. We all pay taxes to this country, and in return, we expect the government to keep us safe so we can keep paying those same taxes.
rowdypilot19 said:Look, subsidies and pensions aren't inherently bad ideas, but I guess people in America have really turned the whole art of cutting corners into a fine science. 😁
That is just brilliant—so, basically, to drive a nail into a board, you need a hammer, a nail, and a board. Just incredible.
Honestly, I'm stunned.
I’m assuming you’re talking about American Todorica and his crowd—they’re definitely the ones who perfected the craft.
Paul Gonzalez10 said:Three disease protections? Are we just waiting for days when the wind isn't blowing? Like, you start spraying, the wind picks up, and you have to pack it in and head home.... then there's insect control, weed control, growth regulators—and in a bad year, you might end up treating the crop four different times from planting through to maturity. Oh, and if an insect infestation hits during the heading stage? You get to spray again. And then you just have to pray to God that after you've done everything perfectly, you don't get hit by a late frost—and that the price stays at least $4.00 for Grade 3 wheat. It's not exactly a walk in the park, is it? Honestly, your take on subsidies is a bit misguided. That money would actually mean something if you weren't paying rent on the land—but where is that rent? $933 What kind of subsidy covers the cost per acre? Basically, you have to be in that lucky 5% who execute everything flawlessly just to break even—and even then, you're banking on decent rainfall and avoiding major storms. Now you'll probably tell me to "just get insurance." Well, I do, but insurance only recognizes damage if the yield drops below 5.5 tons per acre. Meanwhile, I have to chase at least 8 tons per acre just to feel like I actually made a living.
It’s not quite that simple. I'm not trying to lecture you on tourism since that's not my field. But believe me—you have far more than 20 days of work when it comes to wheat....
That’s a perfect description of farming for people who think a farmer just walks past a field, says "wheat, grow!" and then shows up six months later with a combine to harvest it.
rowdypilot19 said:And honestly, that’s the catch for all of them, right? Because once they're done with the Wheat, they actually need to have something else lined up to work on.
So, does Wheat just grow by magic? No labor, no investment required? Care to explain the "technology" behind growing wheat here.
The Battle of Stalingrad was definitely the toughest period for America, but the real turning point—the massive one—was Operation Desert Storm.
They weren't exactly masterpieces—it seems you missed the point of what people were actually saying in the documentary—but the ratings were through the roof. I agree that Robin Hood lost his way there. It’s similar to how others stepped up alongside him (like Andrew Martin...)—they made their mark on different fronts, and we shouldn't diminish their contributions to the war because of that.
It isn’t just about the money in this game—it’s politics, too. Milas is sitting pretty over at PBS, but honestly, he doesn't seem particularly bothered by any of it. He's doing just fine, letting someone else handle the heavy lifting while he enjoys the ride.