FACTUAL comment re. NCBA & GIPSA & P&SA

[mrj]

Most of us have neither time nor patience to indulge those who specialize in cheap shots, so will post the facts on this new thread.

NCBA policy supports full enforcement of P&SA and that is on record.

What is the purpose of trashing the Secretary of Ag and the GIPSA administrator, when the problems pre-date them both?

James Link was brought in to clean up GIPSA and had alredy begun housecleaning well before the OIG report came out that criticized GIPSA's practices.

MRJ

 

[Sandhusker]

Most of us have neither time nor patience to indulge those who specialize in cheap shots, so will post the facts on this new thread.

NCBA policy supports full enforcement of P&SA and that is on record.

What is the purpose of trashing the Secretary of Ag and the GIPSA administrator, when the problems pre-date them both?

James Link was brought in to clean up GIPSA and had alredy begun housecleaning well before the OIG report came out that criticized GIPSA's practices.

MRJ

But what about the problems? Why the silence? Don't they think there are any problems?

 

[mrj]

NCBA leaders have had discussions with USDA about issues/problems.

Some things are handled more effectively with reasonable, serious discussion of problems and solutions than via useless, hysterical, self serving press releases.

Out of curiosity, why have you and others been attacking NCBA for not shouting and wailing and attacking USDA publicly, when that rarely solves any problem?

MRJ

 

[Sandhusker]

NCBA leaders have had discussions with USDA about issues/problems.

Some things are handled more effectively with reasonable, serious discussion of problems and solutions than via useless, hysterical, self serving press releases.

Out of curiosity, why have you and others been attacking NCBA for not shouting and wailing and attacking USDA publicly, when that rarely solves any problem?

MRJ

What problems did the NCBA discuss with USDA?

Who has been asking for shouting and wailing?

 

[mrj]

NCBA leaders have had discussions with USDA about issues/problems.

Some things are handled more effectively with reasonable, serious discussion of problems and solutions than via useless, hysterical, self serving press releases.

Out of curiosity, why have you and others been attacking NCBA for not shouting and wailing and attacking USDA publicly, when that rarely solves any problem?

MRJ

What problems did the NCBA discuss with USDA?

Who has been asking for shouting and wailing?

What problems do you think they should be discussing with USDA? I doubt that is completed. Let's hear your ideas on what the problems are. My take is that NCBA would be discussing anything in our Policy book that USDA could affect. You may be able to access that at www.beef.org.

It seems to me that some on this site have been complaining because NCBA has not been publicly critical of USDA, haven't you?
I equate that to "shouting and wailing", which may not apply to you as much as to others, but you are, at times, in the attack and criticize NCBA camp.

MRJ

 

[the chief]

Today's lesson in effective action

First, let's all humble ourselves and realize how horribly wrong we have all been about the NCBA. First, they use inaction as a ploy to lull the USDA into sleep so that they can then secretly sneak around and make sure that someone in Washington DC is actually enforcing the laws that were designed to protect cattlemen and ranchers.

Then NCBA will issue a carefully worded statement that would stymy a lawyer that politely expresses their "concerns" about lack of enforcement of PSA act of 1929.

This is how GOOD organizations make it look like they are doing something and cover their tracks and their asses at the same time.

End of lesson.

 

[Sandhusker]

NCBA leaders have had discussions with USDA about issues/problems.

Some things are handled more effectively with reasonable, serious discussion of problems and solutions than via useless, hysterical, self serving press releases.

Out of curiosity, why have you and others been attacking NCBA for not shouting and wailing and attacking USDA publicly, when that rarely solves any problem?

MRJ

What problems did the NCBA discuss with USDA?

Who has been asking for shouting and wailing?

What problems do you think they should be discussing with USDA? I doubt that is completed. Let's hear your ideas on what the problems are. My take is that NCBA would be discussing anything in our Policy book that USDA could affect. You may be able to access that at www.beef.org.

It seems to me that some on this site have been complaining because NCBA has not been publicly critical of USDA, haven't you?
I equate that to "shouting and wailing", which may not apply to you as much as to others, but you are, at times, in the attack and criticize NCBA camp.

MRJ

MRJ, you're answering a questions with a question. I'll ask it again; "What problems did the NCBA discuss with USDA"? You mentioned that they have had discussions. I'm curious as to what NCBA thinks is a problem.

 

[Econ101]

Most of us have neither time nor patience to indulge those who specialize in cheap shots, so will post the facts on this new thread.

NCBA policy supports full enforcement of P&SA and that is on record.

What is the purpose of trashing the Secretary of Ag and the GIPSA administrator, when the problems pre-date them both?

James Link was brought in to clean up GIPSA and had alredy begun housecleaning well before the OIG report came out that criticized GIPSA's practices.

MRJ

MRJ, what you are really saying is for there to be no action, just talk. All the while, the industry and individual farmers/ranchers pay the price.

It is about like asking the district attorney to use his powers to talk to criminals and ask them to be nice, as that seems to work better than prison.

And you wonder why people have formed and joined rcalf?

The OIG report shows the results that can be accomplished with your methods. It aint good.

You seem to be clueless without your packer stamp of approval.

 

[mrj]

Econ, Sandhusker, chief, you guys are all attack, bluster, charges and claims against NCBA........and what have you ever cited as proof of your claims and charges?

Really, all of you SAYING that NCBA is controlled by packers, or that USDA is doing NCBA's bidding, that packers are cheating producers, or that members have no control of NCBA does not make any of that true!

You are viciously making your stupid claims and so proudly demanding answers of me, yet you never answered any of my points.

Where is your proof of any of those charges?

Why aren't Johanns and James Link given any time to sort out the problems and deal with them? Or wouldn't that fit your agenda of very publicly airing any POSSIBLE, even FICTITIONAL dirty linen that may be found within USDA?

MRJ

 

[ranch hand]

Why aren't Johanns and James Link given any time to sort out the problems and deal with them? Or wouldn't that fit your agenda of very publicly airing any POSSIBLE, even FICTITIONAL dirty linen that may be found within USDA?

How much time do they need? Seems like they were made aware of it for many years now. So they report on them is fictitional or is there a problem?

 

[Econ101]

There are well documented problems. The biggest problem is people who support them blindly without accountability. MRJ, that happens to be you on this forum. It also happens to be NCBA.

 

[mrj]

There are well documented problems. The biggest problem is people who support them blindly without accountability. MRJ, that happens to be you on this forum. It also happens to be NCBA.

Econ, that is not true. I have stated previously that I want anyone who is found guilty of a crime to be punished, and I do not care who it is.

I believe the members and leaders of NCBA have the same position.

You, on the other hand, want them punished without a trial, it appears.

You insist we take your word, and the accusations as proof of guilt.

I would like to let the hearings play out, and any legal proceedings resulting from those hearings must prove people are guilty befofe I can accept your word on anything.

MRJ

 

[Mike]

MRJ, You have missed the whole picture concerning the Gipsa Investigation by the OIG and GAO.

If GIPSA DOES NOT INVESTIGATE THE COMPLAINTS, THERE WILL NEVER BE A GUILTY PARTY. EVER. CAN'T HAPPEN.

Please understand what you are saying. You are saying that you will wait for someone to be found guilty in a court of law, when in fact, no one will ever go to court because they are not being investigated.

It's the same thing as you calling the police to a burglary and giving the police the info, and they throw it away when they leave your house!

1800 complaints and only 2 investigated, and those 2 were minor infractions.

 

[HAY MAKER]

There are well documented problems. The biggest problem is people who support them blindly without accountability. MRJ, that happens to be you on this forum. It also happens to be NCBA.

Econ, that is not true. I have stated previously that I want anyone who is found guilty of a crime to be punished, and I do not care who it is.

I believe the members and leaders of NCBA have the same position.

You, on the other hand, want them punished without a trial, it appears.

You insist we take your word, and the accusations as proof of guilt.

I would like to let the hearings play out, and any legal proceedings resulting from those hearings must prove people are guilty befofe I can accept your word on anything.

MRJ

It is true you blindly support this group that have done lttle for the cattle man,and witout R CALF pointing this out they would still be blatantly ignoring the cattle mans needs,you know this and so does everyone else that reads this board.
R CALF is the cattle man's choice,they are working for the cattle man.................good luck

 

[Econ101]

There are well documented problems. The biggest problem is people who support them blindly without accountability. MRJ, that happens to be you on this forum. It also happens to be NCBA.

Econ, that is not true. I have stated previously that I want anyone who is found guilty of a crime to be punished, and I do not care who it is.

I believe the members and leaders of NCBA have the same position.

You, on the other hand, want them punished without a trial, it appears.

You insist we take your word, and the accusations as proof of guilt.

I would like to let the hearings play out, and any legal proceedings resulting from those hearings must prove people are guilty befofe I can accept your word on anything.

MRJ

Mike's right on this one. It seems you keep wanting to comment on this wihout reading or understanding the OIG report, MRJ. I am still waiting on the NCBA comment on this. Is it so ridiculous that you can not tell us what they told you? You had no problem calling me a "liar" on this, why don't you just come out with it?

 

[Tommy]

Mike...1800 complaints and only 2 investigated, and those 2 were minor infractions.

Does the NCBA have an opinion on the above statement MJ? Surely someone there at the NCBA headquarters could issue a statement on this.

 

[Econ101]

Things are moving faster than NCBA can respond. I would like a response from the NCBA on the reported non-action by the USDA against JoAnn Waterfield for her thwarting GIPSA. MRJ, would you please call your friends at NCBA and ask for a response?

 

[mrj]

You "anti" business/NCBA/USDA fanatics sure have yourselves worked up into a tizzy!

It is quite understandable that you fail to realize there would be such incompetence in the world as that attributed to Ms. Waterfield of GIPSA infamy.

What I really would like to see is a copy of all those complaints she supposedly mis-managed. Being of somewhat suspicious nature when the usual naysayers like Johnny Smith of Ft. Pierre auction are all ranting the same song, I wonder how many of those "complaints" were generated by like-minded cohorts and are totally fallacious.

Surely all of you can find the number for NCBA, or the email address, and ask your own questions.

I have the confidence of knowing honest people in the organization, and have no fear that they are doing the right and honorable thing in addressing issues re. GIPSA.

Given your history of attacking nearly every action and utterance of NCBA, why would I want to supply you with another opportunity?

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

You "anti" business/NCBA/USDA fanatics sure have yourselves worked up into a tizzy!

It is quite understandable that you fail to realize there would be such incompetence in the world as that attributed to Ms. Waterfield of GIPSA infamy.

What I really would like to see is a copy of all those complaints she supposedly mis-managed. Being of somewhat suspicious nature when the usual naysayers like Johnny Smith of Ft. Pierre auction are all ranting the same song, I wonder how many of those "complaints" were generated by like-minded cohorts and are totally fallacious.

Surely all of you can find the number for NCBA, or the email address, and ask your own questions.

I have the confidence of knowing honest people in the organization, and have no fear that they are doing the right and honorable thing in addressing issues re. GIPSA.

Given your history of attacking nearly every action and utterance of NCBA, why would I want to supply you with another opportunity?

MRJ

MRJ, if those complaints were investigated we might know the answer to some of your questions. The fact is that there are so many complaints that are not investigated at all. GIPSA doesn't even have the capacity to tell if a complaint, even if true, were a violation of the law. That is how incompetent they are. They need everything spelled out for them because they can not make any kind of judgement. That means a lot more regulations. It is a vicous circle of incompetence.

Given your history of supporting NCBA on everything, I wouldn't expect you to stick up for any producers. There is an old saying that Tam just learned. What comes around goes around. I don't wish that on anyone, even you, but that may be what has to happen to change your mind.

 

[Mike]

Mike Caughlin, GIPSA director of office policy and litigation support, said there are no provisions for restitution when producers are harmed by packers found to have violated the 81-year-old PSA.

"All we're after is compliance ... and possibly to collect some money for the U.S. Treasury" in the form of fines, as in the Farmland case, he said.