• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

DOUBLE THE CHECK OFF ?

DOUBLE THE CHECK OFF ?

  • YES

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • NO

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • UNDECIDED

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

Econ101

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Fix it first. Just throwing more money at it is something the liberals would do.

ditto.

They could start by making packers pay a buck for every head they slaughter and intend to sell. Why should ranchers pay all the costs for advertising for them?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ocm said:
Sandhusker said:
Fix it first. Just throwing more money at it is something the liberals would do.

And the NUMBER ONE fix is to make it cover only US beef.

AMEN!!! This promotion of worldwide beef needs to end-- I'd gladly pay $2-3, whatever if we were promoting our US product and not the Packers generic beef....
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
ocm said:
Sandhusker said:
Fix it first. Just throwing more money at it is something the liberals would do.

And the NUMBER ONE fix is to make it cover only US beef.

AMEN!!! This promotion of worldwide beef needs to end-- I'd gladly pay $2-3, whatever if we were promoting our US product and not the Packers generic beef....

If the worldwide beef oligopoly wants to tax themselves for their additional share, let them do it. Hey, they already have that right.
 

Tommy

Well-known member
All of the above and more was laid out on the table before the Checkoff Task Force, but the NCBA, Farm Bureau stacked committee would have nothing to do with all that. Some on the committee even wanted to raise the checkoff without it going to a vote of the producers.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
The farm bureau has been described to me as a snake in the grass. My personal experience is that this has been true. They are being managed from above, and not on moral grounds. They claim to represent the farmer's interests, but they represent their own. The politicians refer to them for cover on policies that are imoral.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Tell us, are you in the "anti-beef industry as it is" group disciples of Lyndon Larouche?

I ask because my 'other half' picked up a brochure at a rest area on I-90 as we traveled last Sunday. He gave it to me as a joke, so I read the thing to him to endure as penitence. But I couldn't stand much of it, either.

Anyway, it reads like many of you post on economics, evils of corporations, and government, particularly during the GWB administration.

How about it, how many of you espouse those theories?

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, maybe you are swallowing it up without knowing the real source.

More on this later.

Econ, Farm Bureau is a representative organization. The locals send issues and elected rep's to the state meeting and there, those local representatives elect members to represent them and their issues at the national meetings.

Unless you are calling the locals who elect their farmer/rancher neighbors to represent them stupid people making foolish choices, it would be very difficult to justify your assessment of Farm Bureau.

Tommy, are you forgetting that NCBA, as in the Federation Division thereof, is comprised of representatives of virtually ALL beef organizations in the country? Could it be that there is no real mechanism in the law to have a vote of every cattle producer on raising the amount of the checkoff? Fact is, every cattle producer IS represented on the CBB and the Federation because those who do not join organizations are represented by LMA, or so that group claims. Are you disputing that claim?

Econ, why do you want packers to control the beef checkoff? FACT: just about every beef animal ends up at a packing plant. That is a lot of cattle. Therefore, packers would be the extremely dominant group on governing boards.

And, sorry R-CALF/OCM/LMA promoters, beef checkoff dollars absolutely CANNOT, and never has been, used for lobbying and/or building packing plants of our own.

IMO, that is one great part of the law! Keeps checkoff efforts focused on consumer driven, value added marketing improvements.

MRJ
 

Econ101

Well-known member
MRJ,
Until you read the OIG report, you are just an idiot. You might still be one once you read it, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt right now.

Please don't post to me until you have read it as I am tired of typing to idiots.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
MRJ,
Until you read the OIG report, you are just an idiot. You might still be one once you read it, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt right now.

Please don't post to me until you have read it as I am tired of typing to idiots.



Heil Econ! Obviously the only solution to your dilemma of having to associate with we "idiots" on this site would be to turn off your computer and communicate with your apparently perfect person in your own mind: yourself!

MRJ
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
You know, MRJ, you tell us what a great outfit NCBA is and all the great things they do for producers and how you've done this and that for them... But here we have a report that says that producers were bent over royally and blatantly hosed, nobody is disputing what the report said - not even the accused - and you won't even take the time to read it even after I provided you with a link! You're the "see no evil monkey" and judging by NCBA's virtual no comment, they're the "speak no evil monkey". And you wonder why folks think the "C" in NCBA is for "Corporate"?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
You know, MRJ, you tell us what a great outfit NCBA is and all the great things they do for producers and how you've done this and that for them... But here we have a report that says that producers were bent over royally and blatantly hosed, nobody is disputing what the report said - not even the accused - and you won't even take the time to read it even after I provided you with a link! You're the "see no evil monkey" and judging by NCBA's virtual no comment, they're the "speak no evil monkey". And you wonder why folks think the "C" in NCBA is for "Corporate"?

Remember Sandhusker- she herself said that shes just too busy to keep up with all thats happening- apparently she prefers to read only the pro NCBA reports :wink: :roll: :lol: :lol:
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
What's amazing to me is,they can pull something like this off and still have a membership,is there really that many cattle men thinking they are getting good representation from the NCBA ?Or is the membership numbers still top secret ? I keep hearing 24000 ?that seems a little hard to believe......................good luck
 

nenmrancher

Well-known member
You know sitting here reading this post makes me think that the world would be alot better off with out LMA,RCALF, NCBA, PETA and whole bunch of other organizations. Seems to me all the members of both sides do is whine and cry and not do a dam thing to come up with work able solutions. Used to be the beef industry was full of optomists, seems to me as they have gotten old they have become the biggest pessimists in the county and THAT is a very sad thing.
 

Tommy

Well-known member
mj...Tommy, are you forgetting that NCBA, as in the Federation Division thereof, is comprised of representatives of virtually ALL beef organizations in the country? Could it be that there is no real mechanism in the law to have a vote of every cattle producer on raising the amount of the checkoff? Fact is, every cattle producer IS represented on the CBB and the Federation because those who do not join organizations are represented by LMA, or so that group claims. Are you disputing that claim?

Fact is mj that it will go to the US congress for approval, then the whole act can be opened up and amended by them. Then it will go out as a referendum for the producers to vote up or down on it.
You say every cattle producer is represented on the CBB, but that is just your opinion and only an opinion. The LMA does not represent me or a lot of other cattle producers, that is just one more of your bogus statements.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
You know, MRJ, you tell us what a great outfit NCBA is and all the great things they do for producers and how you've done this and that for them... But here we have a report that says that producers were bent over royally and blatantly hosed, nobody is disputing what the report said - not even the accused - and you won't even take the time to read it even after I provided you with a link! You're the "see no evil monkey" and judging by NCBA's virtual no comment, they're the "speak no evil monkey". And you wonder why folks think the "C" in NCBA is for "Corporate"?

Remember Sandhusker- she herself said that shes just too busy to keep up with all thats happening- apparently she prefers to read only the pro NCBA reports :wink: :roll: :lol: :lol:


OT, whatever would you do to make yourself think you are truly important if you didn't have me to bash?

Did it ever occur to you that I have to see the link to take advantage of it?

Is your crystal ball so superior that it can predict when I am away from home, and/ or the computer so that I don't instantly see your attempts to "inform" me? The fact is, I have NEVER SEEN that link, and I really would like to read it.

BTW, do you actually believe EVERYTHING you read which is critical of NCBA, and or USDA whether PROVEN true or not? And, to save time wasted making another nasty post against me, I'm not referencing the OIG report.

Tommy, I well know that real changes must open up the Beef Checkoff law, and that really frightens me. We have a law that works well; which about 70% of cattle producers approve; which CANNOT be used to 'tail up' or subsidize ANY organization; which CANNOT be used to lobby Congress; which has a solid mechanism for a vote to end it if a mere 10% of cattle producers so desire; on top of which, a highly respected study has shown it to return more than five to one on producers' investment in programs.

I really do not want all that good exposed to anti-beef, anti-checkoff, anti-NCBA extremists who can and do lobby an often fickle Congress. It was darn near miraculous that we got it passed in the first place. I would really hate to see it turned into something I cannot support due to the rumors and out-right lies which have been spread about it over the past few years.

BTW, I have heard LMA members state that they protect and represent ALL the producers who do not choose to join a beef organization. Are you a member of R-CALF? Or any other beef organization?

nenmrancher, have you ever checked out the NCBA website to see what the OPTIMISTS in the cattle business are doing, both the Federation Div., and the Policy/Membership Div.?

MRJ
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
MRJ said:
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
You know, MRJ, you tell us what a great outfit NCBA is and all the great things they do for producers and how you've done this and that for them... But here we have a report that says that producers were bent over royally and blatantly hosed, nobody is disputing what the report said - not even the accused - and you won't even take the time to read it even after I provided you with a link! You're the "see no evil monkey" and judging by NCBA's virtual no comment, they're the "speak no evil monkey". And you wonder why folks think the "C" in NCBA is for "Corporate"?

Remember Sandhusker- she herself said that shes just too busy to keep up with all thats happening- apparently she prefers to read only the pro NCBA reports :wink: :roll: :lol: :lol:


BTW, do you actually believe EVERYTHING you read which is critical of NCBA, and or USDA whether PROVEN true or not? And, to save time wasted making another nasty post against me, I'm not referencing the OIG report.


MRJ

Nope Maxine- but apparently unlike you, I do look at both sides of the issue and all the info on it before I make a decision.....The OIG report is just a good example--How can you form an opinion or make a decision on the OIG report if you haven't even read it :???: :lol:
 

ocm

Well-known member
MRJ said:
Anyway, it reads like many of you post on economics, evils of corporations, and government, particularly during the GWB administration.

LaRouche in contending ALL corporations are evil is just as wrong as the position you seem to espouse that NO corporation is evil.

Any human being with power should not be trusted without close scrutiny, whether he be in government or in private industry. Neither the idiots on the left nor right correctly hold this view in their actual practice.

It seems to be your view that the market itself is sufficient scrutiny for those in the private sector. It is not. It is the governments job to enforce honesty, a job that is less intrusive on private industry when there is transparency. Many of us in R-CALF and other organizations just want a little honesty and integrity to be enforced by government and to have openness in the marketplace in order to assist that process.

This is a realistic, not a rigid ideologic approach.
 
Top