Comment history

Sex offender registry compliance varies across Kansas counties

"deported" and "in prison in another state" = tie for best possible outcome.

September 18, 2011 at 10:58 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas reforming some welfare rules

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

September 18, 2011 at 10:53 a.m. ( )

Kansas reforming some welfare rules

Farm subsidies directly influence supply.
Derrr ...

September 18, 2011 at 10:46 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Famous criminal Clyde Barrow may have gotten start robbing banks in Lawrence

That's the word you were looking for ... or for which you were looking.

September 18, 2011 at 10:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

September 18th Overnight Law Enforcement & Fire/Medical wrap up

Let's hear it for disturbances without weapons!
... they're so much easier to get over.
Hope it's a trend.

September 18, 2011 at 10:42 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

States lose track of some sex offenders

Why is a guy who was convicted of "sexually assaulting a 10-year-old girl who has cerebral palsy" not behind bars? Good grief.

September 18, 2011 at 10:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas reforming some welfare rules

Does all that mean that if subsidies are cut, prices for those listed items won't go up? I beg to differ. They will go up, regardless of who is getting the subsidy, if the subsidy is withdrawn.

As to,
* It is landowners, not tenant farmers or farm workers, who benefit from subsidies. *
... that sounds a little like nonsense. "Benefit" is your word. If the landowner is paying a "farm worker" with money received from a subsidy, did the worker not "benefit" from the subsidy? I guess there is not benefit if you really, really, really don't want to see one.

I agree that it ends up looking like welfare to the rich, but I really do believe that, at least in their inception, and at least to some extent to this day, the subsidies are directed at boosting the supply of the product being subsidized, regardless of who is growing it. The consequence you are pointing out is that the people who own the most land where it is being grown are the ones who get most of the subsidy ... well, duh! The purpose, though, is being served, by getting those landowners to grow what the Government wants them to grow.

Please note that my observation is NOT a "free market" argument ... far from it. My point is that the Government has decided that IT is going to decide what is grown, and it does that by throwing money at favored products. Whether the Government ought to be doing that at all is quite another debate. The point is accurate though, that the subsidy is directed at the product, not the producer, and you can get the subsidy by growing the desired product no matter who you are, and you "benefit" from the subsidy if you are growing the product, working for someone who is growing the product, supplying goods and services to the one growing the product, or ... pay attention, because this is the real objective ... if you BUY or use the product.

We want milk to be cheap, so we subsidize milk, no matter who produces it. Period. Do you not get that part? If we cut the milk subsidy, the supply will drop, the price will go up, the quality will suffer, and kids won't be able to drink milk. The Government has decided that would be bad, so they subsidize milk, even if Ted Turner has cows.. They're probably right.

September 18, 2011 at 12:54 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas reforming some welfare rules

Olive Garden seems to be a good test of your theory in the Eco Devo arena. We'll see how that goes, but I tend to think that if you look at Bauer Farms, somebody would have built a taco drive-thru near 6th & Waka without a double-secret sales tax kickback, so ... yeah. that's a good point.

I think a lot of people are misinformed as to farm programs, though. My understanding is that they have always been geared more to the PRODUCT than to the PRODUCER. That is, the aim is to make sure that we have an adequate supply of safe, domestic food products, which also are relatively cheap (albeit subsidized). The focus was not on WHO was growing a crop, but on WHAT crop they were growing. I still think that is the case, but it becomes politicized if some of the people who look at the incentives to grow a certain crop happen to be "wealthy" too (although, that would seem to also make them more able to carry out the policy of food production that the subsidies were meant to bring about).

Anyways ... I don't think it is well-informed to equate "economic development" handouts with farm program incentives. If the Eco Devo payments are eliminated, the impact would be that some jerkwad company might build its plant or warehouse or whatever in a different place; whereas, if the farm subsidies are cut, the impact would almost certainly be higher prices in the marketplace for those commodities ... wouldn't it?

September 17, 2011 at 9:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Two people transported after injury accident near McDonald's on 23rd Street

My god, in a Geo Metro you have to allow a LOT of space around you ... I cannot even imagine driving one on 23rd or Iowa, and especially not with a child in the front seat. Was this their first trip to Lawrence?

September 17, 2011 at 8:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas reforming some welfare rules

*you don't work until daddy works.* ???!!!???

What in the world does that mean?
Why would you have four children your cannot provide for?
Did it seem likely that the father(s) would step in, or were you just counting on SRS to pay your way?

I mean this question earnestly. My wife and I have 4 children also. We both work, and have since we were teens. Even when we both had solid, steady jobs, we were scared to death of how we would be able to start a family. We were determined to work as hard as we had to, to make it happen, and it has been hard. It sometimes seems particularly hard when we see things like our neighbor ... unmarried, with a house full of kids whose fathers are absent, and perhaps undeterminable ... having satellite TV installed, while we took on extra jobs and cut our expenses so we could pay for our health insurance and give our kids what they needed. Then, as our kids hit the age when they could do it (and sometimes a little before the law would really allow) our kids also went to work, to buy the things they needed, and a few they just wanted. The pride they take in providing for themselves is an absolute gift. They are unlikely to ever hold out their hands and DEMAND that someone else pay their way.

Welfare is servitude. Aim low and you'll end up there.


September 17, 2011 at 8:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )