Tractor Shortages

[ovrszd]

Is that supposed to be a dig at me because I happen to be able to retire? Or did I misunderstand? Because that would be a pretty ignorant thing to criticize someone for.

Jealousy.

 

[Hay Dude]

Merry Christmas guys!

 

[hornett22]

Merry Christmas guys!

To you and yours as well my friend

 

[jezreel]

Anybody hear. . . I think there’s a tractor shortage happening. Least that’s what I heard 26 pages ago

 

[DonaldP]

Government is interested in only one thing: ensuring the continuity of government. If government is the answer, then you're asking the wrong question.

I called into a radio show a couple of weeks ago...

They were talking about how local cities and town have public meetings to discuss issues and resolutions, and then they go into executive session when they're not supposed to and decide what they are going to base their decision on instead of letting the public know what they are basing a given decision on, in the public view.

I stated that "Needless to say you can hold those folks accountable for such hidden decision making by bringing an article 78 against them. The Article 78 will compel the agency to go back and follow the correct procedures. Basically a tool that provides the people a way to force the government to follow the procedures set in place to allow the public to see and have input about what's going on. (Including education, Taxation, Capital Improvements, and just about every aspect of our lives with respect to the local governments around us".

So the radio host was familiar with the Article 78... but he stated that it was too expensive for the people to generally bring it against a town or village board. ($5,000 to $10,000 to file it). Way too much for a single individual that might have been treated unfairly.

So to make a point I responded with this...

"hmmm so why wouldn't a community put together a few folks that it could trust to take donations from the constituents to manage resource like legal entities and such to thwart that kind of thing. I would think that based on the size of the community there would generally be smart enough people to do that... you know, to protect the public interest."

"In fact", I said... "We could even post positions for such a group, searching out in each community those folks that would be willing and capable of heading up such a project. we could call them ... hmmm... ELECTIONS"

"Additionally", I said, "We could ask for donations from the local constituents to generate the funding to help support the kinds of things that would benefit the community at large. you know... kind of like TAXES..."

"And finally", I said, "we could basically toss out the actual governmental bodies that are there to do the very things we would be assembling the same thing from scratch in order to support the local community in the things that protect us, and provide for us-albeit fairly instead of in an underhanded way that wastes our tax dollars."

My point was this:

1) That every year or two, WE vote in the people that we ask to manage our rights. If we make the wrong choice then the consequences can be major... even for minor positions. Clearly, if someone that's either assigned by someone we vote into office or that we vote into office, is behaving outside of the realm of the public interest, then there was definitely a mistake made there in our voting. Those errors trickle down to increased taxes, costs out of our pockets.

2) If by chance we have several "power hungry or self righteous" types that happen to get past our vetting process (the run-up to the elections), then the public should have legal recourse to compel those folks to do their jobs, WITHOUT COST, or at the cost to the INDIVIDUAL(S), not the community itself (via taxes).

Why should the government be much different than a businesses? After all... if they are making a profit (shown or not), shouldn't they be treated the same?

3) For all elected officials currently, there are few if any "Errors or Omissions" clauses in their positions that hold them personally accountable for anything. And, the costs of that behavior is still the responsibility of the local taxpayer. Generally local and state governments are "Self Insured".

What this means is that if there is a legal challenge, your tax dollars pay out 100% of the claim, not an insurance company. If it's an "errors and omissions" issue (lets say somebody makes a decision because they like the color purple for example and that choice causes a legal issue to arise), there is no individual accountability to the person or persons making that poor decision, other than to vote them out of office next time. The tax payer still pays for that persons bad decision making.

To be fair, maybe the elected official should be personally accountable for their "Errors & Omissions" just as companies and businesses are. Maybe they should retain Insurance to cover any financial responsibility that their poor judgement, or Errors & Omissions may generate. Leaving the taxpayer free and clear monetarily from the poor judgement or decision making of incapable or non "professional" officials.

Just a thought.

 

[Hay Dude]

DonaldP,
We need more people involved in the process the way you demonstrated. There’s so many ways we could make things better.

 

[5030]

No tractor shortage here. Not in the market for a new one anyway.

 

[Hay Dude]

Its now gone from no inventory to spotty inventory here. Local observations:
Kubota dealer has maybe 5 new pieces and 10-15 used various makes.
AGCO dealer just got 10 new Fendts and thats about it.
Case-IH/Kubota dealer has a few new 500HP tillage and pan puller tractors and some new Kubotas.
Deere dealer has maybe 3 new tractors and a few round balers
New Holland dealer has very little inventory.

 

[5030]

You need a new Fendt Vario.... Right up your alley.

 

[Steppenwolfe]

I called into a radio show a couple of weeks ago...

They were talking about how local cities and town have public meetings to discuss issues and resolutions, and then they go into executive session when they're not supposed to and decide what they are going to base their decision on instead of letting the public know what they are basing a given decision on, in the public view.

I stated that "Needless to say you can hold those folks accountable for such hidden decision making by bringing an article 78 against them. The Article 78 will compel the agency to go back and follow the correct procedures. Basically a tool that provides the people a way to force the government to follow the procedures set in place to allow the public to see and have input about what's going on. (Including education, Taxation, Capital Improvements, and just about every aspect of our lives with respect to the local governments around us".

So the radio host was familiar with the Article 78... but he stated that it was too expensive for the people to generally bring it against a town or village board. ($5,000 to $10,000 to file it). Way too much for a single individual that might have been treated unfairly.

So to make a point I responded with this...

"hmmm so why wouldn't a community put together a few folks that it could trust to take donations from the constituents to manage resource like legal entities and such to thwart that kind of thing. I would think that based on the size of the community there would generally be smart enough people to do that... you know, to protect the public interest."

"In fact", I said... "We could even post positions for such a group, searching out in each community those folks that would be willing and capable of heading up such a project. we could call them ... hmmm... ELECTIONS"

"Additionally", I said, "We could ask for donations from the local constituents to generate the funding to help support the kinds of things that would benefit the community at large. you know... kind of like TAXES..."

"And finally", I said, "we could basically toss out the actual governmental bodies that are there to do the very things we would be assembling the same thing from scratch in order to support the local community in the things that protect us, and provide for us-albeit fairly instead of in an underhanded way that wastes our tax dollars."

My point was this:

1) That every year or two, WE vote in the people that we ask to manage our rights. If we make the wrong choice then the consequences can be major... even for minor positions. Clearly, if someone that's either assigned by someone we vote into office or that we vote into office, is behaving outside of the realm of the public interest, then there was definitely a mistake made there in our voting. Those errors trickle down to increased taxes, costs out of our pockets.

2) If by chance we have several "power hungry or self righteous" types that happen to get past our vetting process (the run-up to the elections), then the public should have legal recourse to compel those folks to do their jobs, WITHOUT COST, or at the cost to the INDIVIDUAL(S), not the community itself (via taxes).

Why should the government be much different than a businesses? After all... if they are making a profit (shown or not), shouldn't they be treated the same?

3) For all elected officials currently, there are few if any "Errors or Omissions" clauses in their positions that hold them personally accountable for anything. And, the costs of that behavior is still the responsibility of the local taxpayer. Generally local and state governments are "Self Insured".

What this means is that if there is a legal challenge, your tax dollars pay out 100% of the claim, not an insurance company. If it's an "errors and omissions" issue (lets say somebody makes a decision because they like the color purple for example and that choice causes a legal issue to arise), there is no individual accountability to the person or persons making that poor decision, other than to vote them out of office next time. The tax payer still pays for that persons bad decision making.

To be fair, maybe the elected official should be personally accountable for their "Errors & Omissions" just as companies and businesses are. Maybe they should retain Insurance to cover any financial responsibility that their poor judgement, or Errors & Omissions may generate. Leaving the taxpayer free and clear monetarily from the poor judgement or decision making of incapable or non "professional" officials.

Just a thought.

This is a great idea!! Then... we could also use the same scenario to decide which is better; HST or gear drive tractors...