COOL closes border to Canada and Mexico live beef imports.

[Ranchero]

They don't buy our cattle cheap. They buy our cattle for about the same price. We don't have as much overhead costs of doing business. We can produce cattle for less. We're more efficient than the US producer. I guess you could say we do it better. And that must hurt your feelings. And when your feelings are hurt you get out your big stick.

Sandbagger 10,446 posts
Oldtimer 14,461 posts
both been members since Spring 2005

I'd say if you spent more time working and actually ranching than talking about it, maybe you would be able to increase your cattle production efficiency like us Mexicans and Canadians.

 

[feeder]

I believe Sandhusker and Oldtimer have so many posts because they still have the will and determination to fight the wrongs a crooked governemnt can bestowe.

 

[Sandhusker]

If you're through with petty insults, let me answer your post;
Yes, you don't have as much overhead and can produce cheaper, but most of that overhead that US producers have is not the result of not being efficient or doing things worse. It is the result of quality of life expenses that we have that you don't, things such as living wages so that our citizen's best option for survival isn't to sneak into another country with nothing but the clothes on their back. We pay higher taxes for such things as infrastructure, feeding and housing our poor (and yours), and to create an environment where our citizens can have a good life and our country can be economically healthy. We pay taxes for such things as law enforcement, so that a drug cartel's murder spree is big news, not an everyday event. Mexico could maybe not be as "efficient" and learn a few things.

Before you brag on efficiency, you better look at the bigger picture. You need to do the same with COOL.

 

[Sandhusker]

I believe Sandhusker and Oldtimer have so many posts because they still have the will and determination to fight the wrongs a crooked governemnt can bestowe.

In the words of Mr. Bartles and Jaymes; Thanks for your support!

 

[Ranchero]

If you're through with petty insults, let me answer your post;
Yes, you don't have as much overhead and can produce cheaper, but most of that overhead that US producers have is not the result of not being efficient or doing things worse. It is the result of quality of life expenses that we have that you don't, things such as living wages so that our citizen's best option for survival isn't to sneak into another country with nothing but the clothes on their back. We pay higher taxes for such things as infrastructure, feeding and housing our poor (and yours), and to create an environment where our citizens can have a good life and our country can be economically healthy. We pay taxes for such things as law enforcement, so that a drug cartel's murder spree is big news, not an everyday event. Mexico could maybe not be as "efficient" and learn a few things.

Before you brag on efficiency, you better look at the bigger picture. You need to do the same with COOL.

Your problems of inefficiency have more to due with having to pay for the costs of murdering innocent women and children in Irag and Afganastan than your self-proclaimed humanitarianism. Do you think your law enforcement is preventing the murder and crime occuring in your own cities? Not. You ought to go take a look at who's providing the ranch hand labor on a good percentage of US ranches, Mexicans that's who. Why because they are better hands and easier to satisfy. Feeding and housing the poor while your millitary is out destroying whole countries in the name of freedom, hah. I'd rather live here, where it is against the Constitution to go to war on any foreign soil. Minding our own business is a good foeign policy. Your inefficiency is due to being the worlds big bully. Mexicans are sneaking across the border to go to work because there is high demand for good workers with good morals and values. Apparently there aren't enough US workers willing to work, they're waiting for a handout from welfare. Just like many of the whining ranchers and farmers with their hands out waiting for a US government subsidy.
Before you go pointing out what's wrong with everybody else you better look at cleaning up your own back yard. Humanitarians don't murder innocent women and children in foreign countries and use their young men as cannon fodder, and then try to convince their citizens it is doing a great service.

 

[mrj]

Ranchero, did you say you were a US citizen who moved to Mexico?

You seem a little out of touch with conditions in the USA, in any case. Murders and other violent crime rates are not very high in most parts of the country. In my own state, the majority of such crimes are perpetrated by Native Americans against their fellow Native Americans, for instance. In southwestern border states, I believe much of the crime of all levels are by legal and illegal people who have crossed the border from Mexico. There is very little violent crime committed by US citizens of European descent upon people of other races.

However there still are more people murdered n some cities/states with the highest populations and strongest gun control laws than there are lost in the war in Iraq.

Re. that war, you just might have a different attitude toward it if your country had been hit with an attack similar in severity and deaths to what we experience on 9-11. Extreme Islamists declared war on all who do not join them in their twisted religion, and that includes Mexican Catholics, BTW. Iraq was an intended stronghold for them to gain a source of fuel for their worldwide war, thus it was attacked pre-emptively, along with their strongholds in Afghanistan. Many in the USA do understand those facts, as stated by Taliban leaders often enough. Some, like you have apparently listened to, insist there was no need for this war. Better learn to follow Extreme Islamist rules if you believe that!!!!

mrj

 

[rustyjeep]

ranchero your post about the war infuriates me. you have no reason to attack our soldiers. I am currently in the middle east and I believe that I am doing a good job helping the people in this country. You and the others debate all you want, but leave the military out of it!

 

[PORKER]

But we know this for sure;

House votes to end access for Mexican trucks
AP
Tuesday, September 9, 2008

WASHINGTON (AP) _ Dismissing a White House veto threat, the House voted Tuesday to end a pilot program giving Mexican trucks access to U.S. highways.

The Bush administration stressed that the United States is obligated, under the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement, to open up American roads to Mexican truckers, and that terminating the year-old demonstration project would have repercussions for American trucks allowed into Mexico. Passage of the House bill, it said "would pose significant and immediate risks to U.S. interests."

But the pilot project, which permits up to 500 trucks from 100 Mexican companies access to U.S. roads, is opposed by trucking, consumer and environmental groups who say it would eliminate American jobs and that Mexican trucks are subject to less stringent safety regulations.

They say Mexico lacks adequate drug testing and hours-of service standards and that the program could contribute to smuggling or insurance fraud.
"I'm outraged that the Bush administration for political purposes would jeopardize the safety of the traveling public in the United States," said Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., chairman of the House Transportation subcommittee on highways.

The 395-18 House vote was well above the two-thirds needed to override a presidential veto. The bill would end the authority of the administration to go forward with the program without congressional approval. The Senate Appropriations Committee has attached similar language to a transportation spending bill, although that bill is unlikely to be enacted before President Bush leaves office.

Congress last December passed legislation banning funding to "establish" a program to allow U.S.-certified Mexican trucks to carry loads across the border, but the Transportation Department said that bill did not apply to a program that had already started. Several groups, including the Teamsters, Sierra Club and Public Citizen, have gone to federal court to challenge that interpretation.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, on the other hand, sent House members a letter urging opposition to the bill, saying the cross-border program "is a long overdue step toward reducing congestion and air pollution at the U.S.-Mexico border while promoting growth and jobs."

 

[Anonymous]

But we know this for sure;

House votes to end access for Mexican trucks
AP
Tuesday, September 9, 2008

WASHINGTON (AP) _ Dismissing a White House veto threat, the House voted Tuesday to end a pilot program giving Mexican trucks access to U.S. highways.

The Bush administration stressed that the United States is obligated, under the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement, to open up American roads to Mexican truckers, and that terminating the year-old demonstration project would have repercussions for American trucks allowed into Mexico. Passage of the House bill, it said "would pose significant and immediate risks to U.S. interests."

But the pilot project, which permits up to 500 trucks from 100 Mexican companies access to U.S. roads, is opposed by trucking, consumer and environmental groups who say it would eliminate American jobs and that Mexican trucks are subject to less stringent safety regulations.

They say Mexico lacks adequate drug testing and hours-of service standards and that the program could contribute to smuggling or insurance fraud.
"I'm outraged that the Bush administration for political purposes would jeopardize the safety of the traveling public in the United States," said Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., chairman of the House Transportation subcommittee on highways.

The 395-18 House vote was well above the two-thirds needed to override a presidential veto. The bill would end the authority of the administration to go forward with the program without congressional approval. The Senate Appropriations Committee has attached similar language to a transportation spending bill, although that bill is unlikely to be enacted before President Bush leaves office.

Congress last December passed legislation banning funding to "establish" a program to allow U.S.-certified Mexican trucks to carry loads across the border, but the Transportation Department said that bill did not apply to a program that had already started. Several groups, including the Teamsters, Sierra Club and Public Citizen, have gone to federal court to challenge that interpretation.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, on the other hand, sent House members a letter urging opposition to the bill, saying the cross-border program "is a long overdue step toward reducing congestion and air pollution at the U.S.-Mexico border while promoting growth and jobs."

Congress last December passed legislation banning funding to "establish" a program to allow U.S.-certified Mexican trucks to carry loads across the border, but the Transportation Department said that bill did not apply to a program that had already started.

About time...They did this before but Bush got an attorney to call an "and" an "or" to go around the intent of Congress and completely told Congress to go to Hell as he was King George and could do what he wanted- and kept it operating...
But now besides all the safety and homeland security/illegal invaders problems its creating because there is nowhere enough people to inspect even a small percentage of the drivers, trucks, or loads-- it has put a large majority of the US trucking firms out of business in the border areas because of the Mexican trucks ability to utilize cheap "government subsidized" fuel....

 

[Sandhusker]

If you're through with petty insults, let me answer your post;
Yes, you don't have as much overhead and can produce cheaper, but most of that overhead that US producers have is not the result of not being efficient or doing things worse. It is the result of quality of life expenses that we have that you don't, things such as living wages so that our citizen's best option for survival isn't to sneak into another country with nothing but the clothes on their back. We pay higher taxes for such things as infrastructure, feeding and housing our poor (and yours), and to create an environment where our citizens can have a good life and our country can be economically healthy. We pay taxes for such things as law enforcement, so that a drug cartel's murder spree is big news, not an everyday event. Mexico could maybe not be as "efficient" and learn a few things.

Before you brag on efficiency, you better look at the bigger picture. You need to do the same with COOL.

Your problems of inefficiency have more to due with having to pay for the costs of murdering innocent women and children in Irag and Afganastan than your self-proclaimed humanitarianism. Do you think your law enforcement is preventing the murder and crime occuring in your own cities? Not. You ought to go take a look at who's providing the ranch hand labor on a good percentage of US ranches, Mexicans that's who. Why because they are better hands and easier to satisfy. Feeding and housing the poor while your millitary is out destroying whole countries in the name of freedom, hah. I'd rather live here, where it is against the Constitution to go to war on any foreign soil. Minding our own business is a good foeign policy. Your inefficiency is due to being the worlds big bully. Mexicans are sneaking across the border to go to work because there is high demand for good workers with good morals and values. Apparently there aren't enough US workers willing to work, they're waiting for a handout from welfare. Just like many of the whining ranchers and farmers with their hands out waiting for a US government subsidy.
Before you go pointing out what's wrong with everybody else you better look at cleaning up your own back yard. Humanitarians don't murder innocent women and children in foreign countries and use their young men as cannon fodder, and then try to convince their citizens it is doing a great service.

Take your blinders off. Your citizens are in our country because your country has nothing but starvation to offer them. People don't leave their families and travel 1000 miles to sneak into another country with nothing because they are easier to satisfy. They do that because there is no hope in their own country. You're just too "efficient".

 

[Ben Roberts]

FACT: something like 2% of total species of meat imported into the US is from Mexico.

Guess: the US exports more than that back to Mexico.....for use by the upper income (40% of their population are very wealthy) plus their tourist business and export trade.

FACT: COOL labels will be on maybe as much as FIVE PERCENT of beef IMPORTED into the USA!!!!!

That is ALL the beef that is sold at retail in LARGE retail stores.

LARGE retail stores are the ONLY ones forced to label imported beef.

ALL beef sold in restaurants, fast food, processed or prepared meals or entrees, or in any way changed from the muscle cuts sold at retail are EXEMPT from COOL law.

Such a lot of hot air and expense for the beef industry over a marketing ploy falsely promoted as a food safety issue. Absolutely shameful.

There are more effective means, currently growing in use, of genuine consumer driven private labels such as Ranchers Renaissance, and other branded beef available in most markets, not to mention the various individuals posting on this site who market their own beef.

A prediction: the effect of COSTLY COOL will be a yawn, at best.

MRJ

Maxine, I agree, everyone that has read this COOL debate from the beginning, knows that I'm not a COOL supporter and never will be, I still don't see the significance in it. I feel that the cattle producers around the world, have greater issues that need to be faced.

 

[RobertMac]

Rustyjeep, there's just some people you just have to ignore (many that you have taken an oath to protect). Know that there are many more of us that appreciate what you are doing for our country and the civilized world.
Thank you for your service and God bless and protect you until you are home again with your family.

 

[HeyNow]

Iraq was an intended stronghold for them to gain a source of fuel for their worldwide war, thus it was attacked pre-emptively, along with their strongholds in Afghanistan. Many in the USA do understand those facts, as stated by Taliban leaders often enough. Some, like you have apparently listened to, insist there was no need for this war

.

Wow thanks for clarifying that for us, and here we thought it was because of weapons of mass destruction..

I guess it was for oil after all, glad you guys are OK with all the men and women that have lost their lives in Iraq (instead of Afghanistan where they should have been to begin with) to line ole G double U's pockets and all his big wig friends..

Good job..

 

[RobertMac]

Iraq was an intended stronghold for them to gain a source of fuel for their worldwide war, thus it was attacked pre-emptively, along with their strongholds in Afghanistan. Many in the USA do understand those facts, as stated by Taliban leaders often enough. Some, like you have apparently listened to, insist there was no need for this war

.

Wow thanks for clarifying that for us, and here we thought it was because of weapons of mass destruction..

I guess it was for oil after all, glad you guys are OK with all the men and women that have lost their lives in Iraq (instead of Afghanistan where they should have been to begin with) to line ole G double U's pockets and all his big wig friends..

Good job..

One of you is totally clueless!

 

[Anonymous]

Iraq was an intended stronghold for them to gain a source of fuel for their worldwide war, thus it was attacked pre-emptively, along with their strongholds in Afghanistan. Many in the USA do understand those facts, as stated by Taliban leaders often enough. Some, like you have apparently listened to, insist there was no need for this war

.

Wow thanks for clarifying that for us, and here we thought it was because of weapons of mass destruction..

I guess it was for oil after all, glad you guys are OK with all the men and women that have lost their lives in Iraq (instead of Afghanistan where they should have been to begin with) to line ole G double U's pockets and all his big wig friends..

Good job..

One of you is totally clueless!

The reason the world questions our actions in Iraq is that the copy of the National Security Estimate recently obtained by Congress, NO where matches the copy released by the Bush Administration to Congress to get preapproval for a preemptive attack- that was heavily censored- and that the last sentence of sums up the situation- " Iraq presents no present threat to the security of the US" which was totally removed from the report- and which now has pretty well been verified by many including Colin Powell who admit they were given false information....

Altho it can't be totally proven, as long as The King George challenges the Constitutional and 200+ year precedent of the division of powers and the Congress's oversight over the Administrative branch (President) by not allowing anyone in the administration to testify.....
It has not only strained and ruined our world credibility- but strained our rule of law and Constitutional Republic worse than it ever has been before- even with Nixon or Clinton....

 

[Ranchero]

ranchero your post about the war infuriates me. you have no reason to attack our soldiers. I am currently in the middle east and I believe that I am doing a good job helping the people in this country. You and the others debate all you want, but leave the military out of it!

rustyjeep,
I did not intend to attack the brave misguided US soldiers. I appolagize to you and your commrades. I only meant to state one of the many reasons that the US is in a economic crisis now. The government has mis-managed its responsibilities to the people. Because of this crisis many people in the US are looking to blame everybody else for their economic difficulties. I know that you and the rest of the brave sodiers, believe that you are doing a good job. I'm sure you are doing the best at fulfilling your mission orders. I am proud of your valor. I would be infuriated too if I were in your place.
Unfortunately for you and the others, you were sent on a mission to line the pockets of King George W's and Dick Cheney's Defense Contractor cronies (ie. Carlyle Group), not to help the people of the countries you are currently ocuppying. These wars have been very costly, and are finacially breaking the USA.
I feel very sorry for you and your soldier brothers and sisters. I pray for your safe return home as quickly as possile. Godspeed.

 

[Denny]

Yes COOL is stopping imports of Mexican cattle. Packers and feedlots are NOT buying Mexican cattle. What makes you think all the consumers want born in the US beef? You forget the US is a nation of immigrants, mostly of hispanic descent ( ie; Mexico). The Mexican/Americans I know prefer beef from their mother country. Most of the US wants to buy food for a lower proce and if that means Mexico and/or Canada origin, they don't care about "Made in America". To prove my point just look at all the other non-"Made in America" products and commodities being happily purchased by US consumers every second. You want to sell Mexico your boxed beef by the millions of tons and have one-way trade only. That's just about how arrogant many US producers think. I'm with you, let the consumer decide, I think it will backfire in your face.

If I were you I would plant acre's and acre's of corn with your low cost's you should be able to finish your cattle and turn a huge profit.You should know that we as the general public have very little pull in what goes on in washington.

I do believe that our country should worry about itself alot more than some other country that includes trade,financial aid,military aid disaster aid etc etc etc.If it were up to me we would import very little if we have enough of our own why buy more thats about as smart as having 3 gallons of milk in my fridge then buying more.

If I hated a country as much as you come across to I would'nt want to sell them anything.

 

[Sandhusker]

Let me ask you again; If demand remains constant, what happens to prices when supply goes up and what happens to prices when supply goes down?

Have I lost you already, MG?

 

[RobertMac]

OT, why are 30 countries helping in Iraq????

 

[Ranchero]

If I were you I would plant acre's and acre's of corn with your low cost's you should be able to finish your cattle and turn a huge profit.You should know that we as the general public have very little pull in what goes on in washington.

I do believe that our country should worry about itself alot more than some other country that includes trade,financial aid,military aid disaster aid etc etc etc.If it were up to me we would import very little if we have enough of our own why buy more thats about as smart as having 3 gallons of milk in my fridge then buying more.

If I hated a country as much as you come across to I would'nt want to sell them anything.

I don't hate any country, I only hate liers, thieves, racisists and bigots. anywhere. And I don't need your advice on how to handle my cattle I'm doing just fine, operating in a peaceful nation. I don't care if The US closes the border to Mexican imports or not, I'll sell my cattle and live just fine. I and my neighbors are true property owners not the bankers. We can make due with much less and still have time for an afternoon siesta.