Sunshine... taxpayer funded farm subsidies in Elk County, KS

[srkruzich]

Just as an aside; there is a difference between susidies and disaster relief.

You are right, and i would go as far to say ok to relief, just wish it was done more efficiently.  I think we have shot ourselves in the foot by allowing government to administer disaster relief.

[Anmar]

Um, constitutional amendments are amendments to the constitution, not just the bill of rights.  Check out the history behind the 3/5ths clause.

[redcliffsw]

Disaster relief is like any other Federal gov't program.  It's not the purpose of gov't.  It won't be done efficiently.
Look into the Greesnburg fiasco.

The 3/5th clause was a yankee scheme.

[redcliffsw]

It's refreshing to see the post by mtcookson about Grover Cleveland. 
Cleveland was the last real Democrat we had a President.  Modern day
Democrats are very much a Republican mix with a lot of Lincoln worship
too.  It's no wonder that the two parties are so much alike even though
they like to debate quite often.

[srkruzich]

Um, constitutional amendments are amendments to the constitution, not just the bill of rights.  Check out the history behind the 3/5ths clause.

Article V reads, "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

[mtcookson]

Check out the history behind the 3/5ths clause.

What do you think the history of it is? Do you think its bad?

It was actually a good thing. It was a compromise between the pro and anti slavery people. The anti-slavery people wanted to only count free people while the pro slavery group wanted all of them counted. Why is this? Because if they were all counted the pro slavery states would have had a larger representation than if the slaves were not counted giving them more power to potentially make slavery legal.

Again, the 3/5 clause was simply a compromise to count only 3 out of 5 slaves (technically "all other persons" for representation purposes. This was NOT, again I say it was NOT to consider a slave only 3/5 of a human. Here is the exact clause: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

It does not, anywhere, anyhow, possibly come close to saying a slave was only 3/5 a human. It DOES say that it will only count 3 out of 5 of all other persons. So... if you owned 5 slaves only 3 of them would be counted for representation. This was a GOOD thing as it reduced the potential representative power of the pro-slavery states (i.e. having a greater majority).

Now that you know the truth of the 3/5 clause, what say you?

[Lookatmeknow!!]

Ok, I did do research and the stuff I came up with about the Constitution was that it was a Living Document. The framers wanted to make it so that it would progress with time. I do see your points! I guess where I am coming from is that do you know what it takes to run a farm? The amount of money and not to mention TIME!! You will never get ahead farming, there is always something that comes up, breaks down, cattle die, and so on. We lost a few calves with that below zero weather, cause our older cows seemed to calve during it. My husband worked from sun up to sun down going around to pastures checking every thing out. He also brought a calf in that was freezing and saved it.

Not that I don't see your point mt, and szur, just feel different about it and will leave it at that!!!

[srkruzich]

Ok, I did do research and the stuff I came up with about the Constitution was that it was a Living Document. The framers wanted to make it so that it would progress with time. I do see your points! I guess where I am coming from is that do you know what it takes to run a farm? The amount of money and not to mention TIME!! You will never get ahead farming, there is always something that comes up, breaks down, cattle die, and so on. We lost a few calves with that below zero weather, cause our older cows seemed to calve during it. My husband worked from sun up to sun down going around to pastures checking every thing out. He also brought a calf in that was freezing and saved it.

Not that I don't see your point mt, and szur, just feel different about it and will leave it at that!!!

Looki understand what it takes to run any business.  I've run a couple myself.   I am now currently investing all that i have and even some of what i don't have into hives.  Want to talk about risk.... I lost my first hives. 800 investment died 2 winters ago.  That was a learning lesson for me. These i have now, another 1000.00 investment are doing good and survived the winter.  I am fixing to split them and triple what i have. The value of my hives will run in the neighborhood of 10k by the time i get them split the hives built and set in place plus i have to feed them for a year if they do not produce enough honey from now til fall.

So yeah i do know what it costs and how hard it is.  Another thing.  I am not eligible for any subsidy anyway on honey.  Secondly I cannot insure my hives. Insurance company won't insure them anymore after ccd came around.
So everything I DO is at risk.  BUT....
I am playing it smart.  I am not going to take all of my honey and sell it this year.  I will keep the bulk of it to feed my new hives during the coming winter.  Then when spring comes, I'll sell what honey i have left over and buy more equipment and split all of my hives again.  That will replace those that i lose, and increase my apiary. 

I have a 1000 hive goal set.  I will set aside honey for feeding purposes, honey for selling, and take the money i make and put enough into new equipment, repairs on old, and the balance goes into a account to pay for the operations.  I'll do that for two years and then pay myself a paycheck.  That way i can operate through hard times as well as good times.

A typical hive is worth over 2500 in july with the honey being the most of that value.   face some of the same risks as does ranchers, but i also face other risks like wind. I've had hives killed because the wind knocked them over.
another problem is theft.  Its easier to pick up a hive than to pick up a steer. 

IF i make it, it will be because i make intellegent and critical decisions.  IF i don't it will be because i didn't

[Patriot]

...there is always something that comes up, breaks down, cattle die, and so on. We lost a few calves with that below zero weather, cause our older cows seemed to calve during it. My husband worked from sun up to sun down going around to pastures checking every thing out.

And you don't think any other business owner isn't subject to setbacks, delays, losses and discouragements (some beyond their control)?  You don't think other business owners risk most all they have to make a go of it?  They do, and in that regard farmers are no different than any other business owner.  I know, I currently run both a commercial service business and an ag operation.  Farmers zip up their pants the same way a grocery store owner does and no amount of self pity is gonna change that.

[mtcookson]

Ok, I did do research and the stuff I came up with about the Constitution was that it was a Living Document.

Absolutely not. It is not a living document, that is fact. The whole living document thing didn't even start coming around till the 20's, if I remember correctly, and by progressives naturally. They try claiming its a living document so that they can interpret or attempt to amend it to match their progressive views.

What the constitution says is what it means, there is no other way. If you don't agree with it, have it amended or just get a constitutional convention and re-write the constitution so that the U.S. can be destroyed as fast as possible.