Factory Farms/EPA/Farm Bill

[Ben Roberts]

Oldtimer, how many of your legal challenges, have you lost, how many have you won, to take back the industry? Informing the masses, How is R-CALF informing the masses?

It doesen't take armed rebellion, to take back our industry! Im sorry that you believe that would be "the only next step".

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

 

[cedardell]

Just another example of how the Mafia controls our government. Jo Ann Waterfield is probably encased in cement in a freeway somewhere.

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandhusker, i've said this many times on this site, and i've even ask you without any response more than once. Creekstone falls under the jurisdiction of the USDA. Is R-CALF under the jurisdiction of the USDA? If not, how can they "whistle to their dog" and shut you down? They can't!

On one hand you R-CALF supporters, know and see that government is not going to help you, but on the other hand you support going to Washington D.C. and asking the very arm of the government that you complain about, to save your sinking ship!


Best Regards
Ben Roberts

They didn't shut Creekstone down, either. They just looked at their business plan regarding testing and said, "We're not going to let you do that". That's what they'll do with anybody the packers want stopped. Simple as that, their reasons don't even have to make sense - they didn't with Creekstone.

When you say "Take back the industry", you're talking about taking it back from the packers. It's taken them over 100 years of constant shenanigans to get what they have now, and they're not going to roll over and they're not going to fight fair - you know that. With the USDA, they've got the trump card and we've already seen them play it. Cattlemen "taking back the industry" will be like tring to score a touch down against a team that has the refs in their pocket. You pick up 10 yards and there's a holding flag. You will not score with those refs and cattlemen will not take back a dang thing as long as the packers own the USDA.

I fully support going to Washington because that's where the problem is and you fix what is broken, not cobble something together. Anything less and the problem is still there. If you want to take back the industry, you're talking a power move and their power is in Washington. Seperating the packers from the USDA fixes a lot of problems, from ecoli to the watering down of organic standards.

We don't KNOW the government is not going to help us. We do KNOW they won't if we don't do anything and get in their face. R-CALF is trying to get the rules changed, or back to my football analogy, trying to just get some fair refs calling the game.

 

[RobertMac]

Ben, I don't support R-CALF because of what they have or have not accomplished...I support them because they bring up questions and view points (from cattle producer's perspective) that wouldn't see the light of day with NCBA as the sole voice of the cattle industry. Hope you can make some changes at NCBA!

 

[Tex]

Sandhusker, i've said this many times on this site, and i've even ask you without any response more than once. Creekstone falls under the jurisdiction of the USDA. Is R-CALF under the jurisdiction of the USDA? If not, how can they "whistle to their dog" and shut you down? They can't!

On one hand you R-CALF supporters, know and see that government is not going to help you, but on the other hand you support going to Washington D.C. and asking the very arm of the government that you complain about, to save your sinking ship!


Best Regards
Ben Roberts

They didn't shut Creekstone down, either. They just looked at their business plan regarding testing and said, "We're not going to let you do that". That's what they'll do with anybody the packers want stopped. Simple as that, their reasons don't even have to make sense - they didn't with Creekstone.

When you say "Take back the industry", you're talking about taking it back from the packers. It's taken them over 100 years of constant shenanigans to get what they have now, and they're not going to roll over and they're not going to fight fair - you know that. With the USDA, they've got the trump card and we've already seen them play it. Cattlemen "taking back the industry" will be like tring to score a touch down against a team that has the refs in their pocket. You pick up 10 yards and there's a holding flag. You will not score with those refs and cattlemen will not take back a dang thing as long as the packers own the USDA.

I fully support going to Washington because that's where the problem is and you fix what is broken, not cobble something together. Anything less and the problem is still there. If you want to take back the industry, you're talking a power move and their power is in Washington. Seperating the packers from the USDA fixes a lot of problems, from ecoli to the watering down of organic standards.

We don't KNOW the government is not going to help us. We do KNOW they won't if we don't do anything and get in their face. R-CALF is trying to get the rules changed, or back to my football analogy, trying to just get some fair refs calling the game.

:clap: :clap: :agree: :agree: :agree:

If you don't address the D.C. problems, none of the others have a chance.

Government holds the trump cards. You have to get them from selling those trump cards to the highest bidder, and when they get caught doing it, they need to go to jail, whether they are the president or anyone down below like congressional committee chairs.

 

[Ben Roberts]

INDEPENDENCE


" Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail". Ralph Waldo Emerson




Best Regards
Ben Roberts

 

[Ben Roberts]

Sandhusker, i've said this many times on this site, and i've even ask you without any response more than once. Creekstone falls under the jurisdiction of the USDA. Is R-CALF under the jurisdiction of the USDA? If not, how can they "whistle to their dog" and shut you down? They can't!

On one hand you R-CALF supporters, know and see that government is not going to help you, but on the other hand you support going to Washington D.C. and asking the very arm of the government that you complain about, to save your sinking ship!


Best Regards
Ben Roberts

They didn't shut Creekstone down, either. They just looked at their business plan regarding testing and said, "We're not going to let you do that". That's what they'll do with anybody the packers want stopped. Simple as that, their reasons don't even have to make sense - they didn't with Creekstone.

When you say "Take back the industry", you're talking about taking it back from the packers. It's taken them over 100 years of constant shenanigans to get what they have now, and they're not going to roll over and they're not going to fight fair - you know that. With the USDA, they've got the trump card and we've already seen them play it. Cattlemen "taking back the industry" will be like tring to score a touch down against a team that has the refs in their pocket. You pick up 10 yards and there's a holding flag. You will not score with those refs and cattlemen will not take back a dang thing as long as the packers own the USDA.

I fully support going to Washington because that's where the problem is and you fix what is broken, not cobble something together. Anything less and the problem is still there. If you want to take back the industry, you're talking a power move and their power is in Washington. Seperating the packers from the USDA fixes a lot of problems, from ecoli to the watering down of organic standards.

We don't KNOW the government is not going to help us. We do KNOW they won't if we don't do anything and get in their face. R-CALF is trying to get the rules changed, or back to my football analogy, trying to just get some fair refs calling the game.

:clap: :clap: :agree: :agree: :agree:

If you don't address the D.C. problems, none of the others have a chance.

Government holds the trump cards. You have to get them from selling those trump cards to the highest bidder, and when they get caught doing it, they need to go to jail, whether they are the president or anyone down below like congressional committee chairs.

In the words of Hay Maker,...............Good Luck

 

[Ben Roberts]

Ben, I don't support R-CALF because of what they have or have not accomplished...I support them because they bring up questions and view points (from cattle producer's perspective) that wouldn't see the light of day with NCBA as the sole voice of the cattle industry. Hope you can make some changes at NCBA!

I'm not a member of the NCBA, I was only being facetious with rkaiser.

A person such as I would not even be allowed, above membership level with the NCBA, and rightfully so.

RobertMac, I do wish you well in your ventures.


Best Regards
Ben Roberts

 

[Tex]

Sandhusker, i've said this many times on this site, and i've even ask you without any response more than once. Creekstone falls under the jurisdiction of the USDA. Is R-CALF under the jurisdiction of the USDA? If not, how can they "whistle to their dog" and shut you down? They can't!

On one hand you R-CALF supporters, know and see that government is not going to help you, but on the other hand you support going to Washington D.C. and asking the very arm of the government that you complain about, to save your sinking ship!


Best Regards
Ben Roberts

They didn't shut Creekstone down, either. They just looked at their business plan regarding testing and said, "We're not going to let you do that". That's what they'll do with anybody the packers want stopped. Simple as that, their reasons don't even have to make sense - they didn't with Creekstone.

When you say "Take back the industry", you're talking about taking it back from the packers. It's taken them over 100 years of constant shenanigans to get what they have now, and they're not going to roll over and they're not going to fight fair - you know that. With the USDA, they've got the trump card and we've already seen them play it. Cattlemen "taking back the industry" will be like tring to score a touch down against a team that has the refs in their pocket. You pick up 10 yards and there's a holding flag. You will not score with those refs and cattlemen will not take back a dang thing as long as the packers own the USDA.

I fully support going to Washington because that's where the problem is and you fix what is broken, not cobble something together. Anything less and the problem is still there. If you want to take back the industry, you're talking a power move and their power is in Washington. Seperating the packers from the USDA fixes a lot of problems, from ecoli to the watering down of organic standards.

We don't KNOW the government is not going to help us. We do KNOW they won't if we don't do anything and get in their face. R-CALF is trying to get the rules changed, or back to my football analogy, trying to just get some fair refs calling the game.

:clap: :clap: :agree: :agree: :agree:

If you don't address the D.C. problems, none of the others have a chance.

Government holds the trump cards. You have to get them from selling those trump cards to the highest bidder, and when they get caught doing it, they need to go to jail, whether they are the president or anyone down below like congressional committee chairs.

In the words of Hay Maker,...............Good Luck[/quote]



I will have to say we are getting some darn good retirements so far.

I do think we need to look a little further and see where JoAnn is hidden and who hid her. It would be an interesting trail to follow, as Ralph Waldo Emerson would put it.

 

[cedardell]

The point here is about how the packers illegally control markets and prices. We no longer have a free market system. No outsider can enter the business and have access to a market. It's like I said before my son will have to raise cattle, process them, and sell the meat along side of the road. That is until the
feds move in with their tommy guns and tell him he can't do that.

 

[mrj]

cedardell, TexEcon, and Sandhusker, what political and economic systems are you backing and promoting, since you obviously believe the current one operating in the USA must be replaced?

Are you followers or members of John Birch, Lyndon Larouche, or some other conspiracy based group?

From whom do you get your ideas about the 'ills' of and changes required to improve, the political systems, bureaucracy, and economic systems of the USA?

mrj

 

[Sandhusker]

cedardell, TexEcon, and Sandhusker, what political and economic systems are you backing and promoting, since you obviously believe the current one operating in the USA must be replaced?

Are you followers or members of John Birch, Lyndon Larouche, or some other conspiracy based group?

From whom do you get your ideas about the 'ills' of and changes required to improve, the political systems, bureaucracy, and economic systems of the USA?

mrj

Myself, I'm promoting the concept of fair and transparent markets that is overseen by accountable government. In short, a game with fair rules and non-biased officials that only step in to whistle a foul.

 

[Tex]

cedardell, TexEcon, and Sandhusker, what political and economic systems are you backing and promoting, since you obviously believe the current one operating in the USA must be replaced?

Are you followers or members of John Birch, Lyndon Larouche, or some other conspiracy based group?

From whom do you get your ideas about the 'ills' of and changes required to improve, the political systems, bureaucracy, and economic systems of the USA?

mrj

I am with Sandhusker on this one.

No, mrj, I haven't heard of John Birch, Lyndon Larouche, or other conspiracy groups you make up or have heard of that you think are radical. YOU are the one who needs to belong to a group that speaks for you, not I.

Humans will always have "ills". It is what we do when trying to solve these "ills" that matters. That is why we have elections all the time--to put in people who will solve the problems, not continue to perpetrate them.

 

[PORKER]

TEX and Sandhusker ,you both are right!

 

[mrj]

And you call me a hick bumpkin!

Both groups hold extreme conspiracist views, insisting that various other groups, ranging from the Masonic organizations to the old European banking familes and/or the Bilderburgers (groups I've read the least about). Larouche is more of a Johnny come lately to the same game.

There are views expressed here by some of you that reek of their propaganda materials, so I'm a bit suspicious of the varacity of disclaimers of knowing who they are.

"Fair and transparent markets"......hmnnnn.....would that be the rule proposed which makes transactions between farmer and packer open to the public scrutiny? Is that how all of you do business?

Last night on C-SPAN, I heard your hero, Sen. Grassley, state that his amendment originally had a provision STATING guilt, NOT INNOCENSE, would be presumed and parties accused would have to defend themselves from that position instead of 'the AMERICAN way of presumption of innocense. He proudly stated that had been taken out now. How do we know it will remain so????

mrj

 

[Sandhusker]

MRJ, ""Fair and transparent markets"......hmnnnn.....would that be the rule proposed which makes transactions between farmer and packer open to the public scrutiny? Is that how all of you do business?"

You want to explain that rule to all of us?

 

[Tex]

And you call me a hick bumpkin!

Both groups hold extreme conspiracist views, insisting that various other groups, ranging from the Masonic organizations to the old European banking familes and/or the Bilderburgers (groups I've read the least about). Larouche is more of a Johnny come lately to the same game.

There are views expressed here by some of you that reek of their propaganda materials, so I'm a bit suspicious of the varacity of disclaimers of knowing who they are.

"Fair and transparent markets"......hmnnnn.....would that be the rule proposed which makes transactions between farmer and packer open to the public scrutiny? Is that how all of you do business?

Last night on C-SPAN, I heard your hero, Sen. Grassley, state that his amendment originally had a provision STATING guilt, NOT INNOCENSE, would be presumed and parties accused would have to defend themselves from that position instead of 'the AMERICAN way of presumption of innocense. He proudly stated that had been taken out now. How do we know it will remain so????

mrj

mrj, it is unfortunate that the language was taken out of the bill, but it still didn't stop Senator Brownback from misquoting the amendment that was on the floor. We also found out that Brown back was in real estate law at the university, and wrote two books about it and the PSA, which were not widely accepted as he himself admitted.

His arguments on the floor of the Senate showed he really didn't know what he was talking about so no wonder his books did not sell well.

He probably knew more about the law in a rote way, and not in the economic truths about markets it was addressing. His reliance on Phil Gramm for his economic understanding did nothing but show that he wasn't smart enough to address the issues in the bill and the pending amendments, but was much like you, following a personality with whom he was enamored, not the logic of the discussion or even the logic of the law.

You may not know what you have done by quoting C-Spann, which puts you back in the category of Brownback, not knowing what you are talking about, but let me explain it to you.

The Packers and Stockyards Act is a piece of anti trust legislation which is specific to agriculture, and in particular, the meats or packer industry. It is designed to prevent market power from determining prices producers receive instead of the supply and demand equilibrium. It is meant to prevent a lot of little complex games (which you are just not smart enough to understand) regarding price preferences for an identical product which can and have reduced the prices producers receive from packers and even pushed overall prices down in the market to all producers. RM has argued this is the case for beef, and a lot of it has happened because of breaking of the PSA in pork and poultry, and you don't even recognize it.

I know you want to cherry pick examples, just as Brownback did, to argue over strawmen instead of the real intent or the transactions to be regulated, I will engage, as long as you remain sensible.

As I am writing, the Farm Bill has passed with a veto proof majority but must now go to conference. I don't know the status of all the amendments, so I will let you go for now.

 

[Sandhusker]

MRJ, ""Fair and transparent markets"......hmnnnn.....would that be the rule proposed which makes transactions between farmer and packer open to the public scrutiny? Is that how all of you do business?"

You want to explain that rule to all of us?

I'm still curious about this proposed rule.

 

[Tex]

MRJ wrote:

And you call me a hick bumpkin!

Both groups hold extreme conspiracist views, insisting that various other groups, ranging from the Masonic organizations to the old European banking familes and/or the Bilderburgers (groups I've read the least about). Larouche is more of a Johnny come lately to the same game.

There are views expressed here by some of you that reek of their propaganda materials, so I'm a bit suspicious of the varacity of disclaimers of knowing who they are.

"Fair and transparent markets"......hmnnnn.....would that be the rule proposed which makes transactions between farmer and packer open to the public scrutiny? Is that how all of you do business?

mrj, I don't know very much, if anything about the groups you cited. I don't need to quote other group's material to say what I think I see going on. It is truly unfortunate that you need some kind of bogey man and even when you don't have one, to make them up for other people who post. Maybe you read too much radical stuff instead of dealing with reality. Some people need to be scared into the positions they take and what you post here shows you are one of those people.

mrj, right now, poultry contracts contain language in them that do not allow farmers to talk to anyone about the contract, not their neighbors, or other farmers. If they want to talk to anyone, they should be able to, regardless of what these one sided contracts say.

All producers should have the information on what processors are paying. It determines their market price and is a big decision on what they will take for their production. They do not need to know individual names, but what they are paying for a certain product is important market information. It is THE reason we have such a strong stock market. Buyers and sellers know what the price of their stock is being traded for before they decide what to sell or buy their shares for. It is essential market information for market participants.

Just because you let your fears of someone knowing what you do in your transactions convince you of the need for accurate market information doesn't mean it shouldn't be out there. Do you know WHO buys every stock trade when you know the market price of it? Of course not. Market information isn't about individual transactions, except in the aggregate. Only the stock brokers who took the order know who is doing the buying or selling unless other laws apply as to disclosure. You are just scaring yourself on this one and misleading others as to the meaning of market transparency. Sounds like an NCBA tactic to me.

If you have particular concerns, instead of your fear of individual "public scrutiny" arguments that don't even apply, I would love to respectfully engage in those arguments. Otherwise, I will have to continue to point out how you are being played on your fears by people much smarter than you.

 

[Sandhusker]

MRJ, ""Fair and transparent markets"......hmnnnn.....would that be the rule proposed which makes transactions between farmer and packer open to the public scrutiny? Is that how all of you do business?"

You want to explain that rule to all of us?

I'm still curious about this proposed rule.

MRJ?