How to send your farmer to jail Update on Tester Amendment Post 239

[Katy]

Quote:
They may control the processing but they don't control what I consider the production. To me the production still belongs to those of us who have the cow herds.....we are the ones who produce the calves.

 

[ivan3]

Q9 wrote: 3/5 clause, what in Heaven's name does that have to do with Lincoln's dictatorship?

The shooting war got under way in the Kansas Territory, within spitting distance of the Missouri Border, in 1854. There was a slight pause (late 1850's) then Edmund Ruffin lit the taper, literally (some contemporaneous journals mention this - others think it was Ruffin's friends fluffing Ruffin's image). Lincoln was where the `weasel word' "other persons", written into the Constitution as a euphemism for `Slavery', was going from the time the founders found it necessary to include the phrase in order to preserve the illusion that "all men are..." and all of that.

The 3/5th `Clause' allowed for ehancement of total representation, by Southern Slave States, while only paying 3/5th tax on those `other persons' that resulted in the enhanced representation.

Imagine that there is a nation with two towns. In one town there are 300 people. In the other there is a graveyard with 1000 occupants, and me (live next to church graveyard). Imagine, as well, that those in the graveyard are my slaves (they don't mind).

Each of the citizens in the other town pay taxes ($1.00 per person) and can elect one rep. for every hundred citizens. They send three reps. and pay $300.00 in total taxes I (only voting citizen) pay full taxes but, I only pay 3/5 of the tax rate for my, ah, `zombies' (don't like the concept of slavery) ($601.00 tax total). And, I get to send 6 reps as well (got to hire some folks to do this

) that both the town and I get to send two senators (Connecticut Compromise) doesn't really decrease the imbalance much. Pretty sweet deal for a slave owner, methinks; all 6 of my reps will support my position/the three reps from the other town have to field and then shape three hundred different opinions into a plan on how to counter my `Zombie Power'. This disparity did grate on free state citizens for nearly a century. I mentioned Lincoln as he is only the most consequential character in the tragedy. I asked whether 3/5th was a sweet deal for slave owners.

It is history, it is not something I can use an eraser on, I don't consider what others did in the past as the play book for the current game but, rather, as a cautionary tale. I was kind of worried that you were going to say that the 13th amendment, because it resulted as a consequence of the `unlawful' "dictatorship" of Lincoln, was the `fruit of the poisonous tree'; glad that we agree that it is legit. Zombies are bad enough, zombie owners with an edge on federal power="effusion of blood"

Q9 wrote: Yes, dying in a government internment camp is much better than being murdered. Also, last I checked, it wasn't typical for people to go around killing due to ethnicity in America. Did it happen occasionally? Yes, but not often. Prejudice would be an issue (remember Freedom Fries?), but murder? I don't think so. It's all hypothetical, though

Go read up on J.Edgar Hoover's activities concerning other ethnic groups during WWII

Treatment of Native Americans? Jim Crow `laws'?

ed: formatting​

 

[knjinnm]

"through over-regulation."

Haaaa ... What regulations ...Haaaa .... what over-regulations Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Export pollution to China along with American jobs Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

 

[mame1616]

Quote:
They may control the processing but they don't control what I consider the production. To me the production still belongs to those of us who have the cow herds.....we are the ones who produce the calves.

I'm talking about the companies who own the animal basically from conception to the freezer case. Not all companies are like that, but those are the ones I meant, where the farmer is contracted to merely look after the company's animals. In a lot of cases those type of companies do control how the contractor raises the animals by controlling or demanding certain conditions, which the farmer must comply with or risk losing his/her contract.

 

[booker81]

Quote:
The majority of livestock is not run how the Tyson video in Food Inc works. For beef, the majority of "production" - aka cow-calf operations (like Katy states) occurs over a hundreds of thousands of farms.

This is a good article that describes beef production and sales. The bottleneck occurs at slaughter.

http://www.r-calfusa.com/in_the_news/2010/n101019-impact.htm

There are still a handful of small slaughterhouses around (I can think of three locally, one of which is operated by a high school friend). Again however, they wouldn't be able to process the millions of cattle necessary to keep up with demand, which is lowering. There were more when I was young, and they are gone not because they were shut down by the top 4, but because of "public" crying - city folks moved out and didn't want to live by a slaughterhouse and harassed the owner until he shut down, or in the case of the local horse slaughter guy, "the people" pushed for legislation to make him illegal (and therefore screwed over a LOT of horse owners who depended on him as the end point for animals that were ready for an end). The horse guy was a nice gentleman, and owned his own horses, and would keep the ones for slaughter in a quiet, well cared for manner until it was time. He supplied the zoos with horsemeat, which the big cats preferred (according to a close friend who is a longtime zookeeper in the nearest zoo.) Now, he's out of business, and the big cats eat beef - more expensive and not as liked.

The consumer wants low beef prices, so the store they purchase from contracts for cheaper beef. Their contract with a packer is lower, so the contractor will lowball on feed lots to keep their margin. The lots will lowball the rancher to keep their margin, and the rancher has to accept to keep the sale. The lowball will affect how many and what quality of beef they will raise the next year.

If you look and dig around, you can still find slaughterhouses that sell to the public, or you can find a farmer who will sell you a cow or a side of one. The local Craigslist here is littered with offers for pork and beef sales. I last spent $150 total for a half pig, including processing and smoking, which averaged to about $2/lb for ALL cuts, bacon to hocks. This cuts out the Cargill, Tyson and other slaughterhouse giants, and keeps the farmer a little more solvent. She received $300 a pig, minus $60 for processing, so about $1.20 a pound live weight, which is much nicer than the market price (yesterday it was about $48/cwt, or $0.48/lb). By cutting out the feedlot, the trucking, and the store, I pay less for meat, my processor friend makes some money, and the farmer makes almost 3 times what they'd get from a lot. I think that pork in my freezer is far superior to the pork in the store as well, though it cost me less. It does however impact the sales of packing giants and even my local store.

There are options, one just has to learn to exercise them.

 

[seedcorn]

This thread SCREAMS that the public has NO IDEA about their food source. They read an article or watch a video, if it agrees with their slant on life, they take it as the gospel. So many things stated that couldn't be farther from reality. We in Ag need to do a better job of communicating but the public has to be willing to learn.

Want cheap food but don't want to live near animal facilities. Want manure used as fertilizer but don't want manure spread near them because it stinks. I've always wondered as people move out into the country, where do you want farmers to raise livestock, in town w/septic system or pay to have it run through local sewage??? I don't know how many times a question is asked that some don't like the answers to, they shut their ears, close their eyes and go back to their mindless montra "I want it raised 1920 style but cheap. I want local lockers but am unwilling to pay higher costs or the inconvience of going to one place to buy meat, another for vegetables, etc......

 

[tnchickenut]

Quote:
What's worse with our Government is that we just talk about how bad it is and act very little. Do you think your senators are reading this thread??? Write them and tell them what you think!!

 

[Dunkopf]

We have a meat locker in the town next to us. We used to purchase a side of beef every year at tax return time. I can't remember the hanging weight, but we paid about 900-1200 depending on size. Everything custom cut and wrapped. They would buy cows depending on what they got for orders. They also had a walk in freezer where you could store your meat for a monthly charge. A side of beef fills up a freezer real nice.

As for the horses. Yes that is an unfortunate side effect of that bill. Our Senators at the time voted against it. My wife wrote Ken Salazar and asked him why and he gave the reasons that you mentioned. The videos that were on line showing horses that were still alive hanging from hooks were very graphic. They even had a filly that was about 6 months old hanging from a hook. I can understand why the public was incensed. The problem was that the auctions were filled with a lot of horses that were young and healthy. Their owners just couldn't afford to keep them and people don't like to buy untrained horses. You can't even give them away now. So the meat buyers would hang out at the auctions and buy for real cheap. I don't even know what they do with the horses now. I heard they ship them to Mexico.

We have 3 horses that aren't trained. They are like very expensive dogs that hang in the pasture and look pretty. I kid my wife that she should write a book on cooking horse meat. There's a lot of people in the same position as us. They may need some extra meat in the future. My DW doesn't find me amusing.

 

[Katy]

Quote:
They may control the processing but they don't control what I consider the production. To me the production still belongs to those of us who have the cow herds.....we are the ones who produce the calves.

I'm talking about the companies who own the animal basically from conception to the freezer case. Not all companies are like that, but those are the ones I meant, where the farmer is contracted to merely look after the company's animals. In a lot of cases those type of companies do control how the contractor raises the animals by controlling or demanding certain conditions, which the farmer must comply with or risk losing his/her contract.

Can you post the names of the companies that you know do that?

 

[Katy]

Quote:
I totally agree and have said it repeatedly.