MORE DAMNED GOVERNMENT CONTROL

[HAY MAKER]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/01/health/policy/01food.html
When are these folks going to get it through their head we need less government,I don't give a damn whether its good for the country or not..............WE NEED LESS GOVERMENT,PERIOD.
good luck

 

[Anonymous]

Part of the problem is the growing industrialization and globalization of the nation's food supply. Nearly a fifth of the nation's food supply and as much as three-quarters of its seafood are imported, but the F.D.A. inspects less than one pound in a million of such imported foods. The bill gives the F.D.A. more control over food imports, including increased inspection of foreign processing plants and the ability to set standards for how fruits and vegetables are grown abroad.

Right there is one of the main reasons this bill passed 73 to 25...That and the fact the new multinational corporate conglomerate producers and importers have shown for years that it is easier for them to keep crib fulls of attorneys employed fighting lawsuits against the deaths and injuries from tainted foods they produce/import than it is to make safe foods...

The Consumer Be Damned- As long as they're profiteering has seemed to be the new business motto we've seen with all the recalls and tainted food productions...

 

[Shaft]

WE NEED LESS GOVERMENT,PERIOD

Now Hay Maker, that sentiment is tough to reconcile with your anti-packer stance. as OT will no doubt tell you, it was Teddy Roosevelt's legislation that spelled the end of the Beef Trust.

Who's going to force the packers to allow fair competition on cattle prices if not the government? You? I'd pay good money to see that.
good luck

 

[HAY MAKER]

WE NEED LESS GOVERMENT,PERIOD

Now Hay Maker, that sentiment is tough to reconcile with your anti-packer stance. as OT will no doubt tell you, it was Teddy Roosevelt's legislation that spelled the end of the Beef Trust.

Who's going to force the packers to allow fair competition on cattle prices if not the government? You? I'd pay good money to see that.
good luck

What makes you think the packers need force to pay a fair price for cattle,dont you think they have been wrongly accused enough ?
good luck

 

[RobertMac]

...that spelled the end of the Beef Trust.

Really???? The Beef Trust back then only had about 40% market share on beef...their real monopoly was on refrigerated railcars and cold storage...they controlled all transported foods to the big city markets. Much food was processed and sold locally back then and wasn't able to be controlled by the 'Beef Trust'.(That's a clue)

Today's 'Beef Trust' has over 90% market share on fed cattle...there is almost no local marketing of food. The Government is not the friend of free, independent markets. Corporations have used Government regulations to put their competition out of business. This bill will be the last nail in the coffin to bury free markets...this may be the end Ben Roberts was telling us was coming. Who's to blame? Look in a mirror!

 

[Mike]

WE NEED LESS GOVERMENT,PERIOD

Now Hay Maker, that sentiment is tough to reconcile with your anti-packer stance. as OT will no doubt tell you, it was Teddy Roosevelt's legislation that spelled the end of the Beef Trust.

Who's going to force the packers to allow fair competition on cattle prices if not the government? You? I'd pay good money to see that.
good luck

The "Beef Trust" was taken to court in 1905 for anti-trust measures but little was done because in the end "Swift" was not dissolved, and the packers still owned the stockyards.

They were forced to give up stockyard ownership well after Roosevelt had left office.

Haymaker is right. We need LESS government intrusion.

Government doesn't solve problems, government IS the problem. Ronald Reagan

Robertmac is right also. The refigerated rail cars were the monopoly of the packers, which had started using that monopoly to transact other goods through the rails to gain a bigger marketshare of all goods.

 

[RobertMac]

WE NEED LESS GOVERMENT,PERIOD

Now Hay Maker, that sentiment is tough to reconcile with your anti-packer stance. as OT will no doubt tell you, it was Teddy Roosevelt's legislation that spelled the end of the Beef Trust.

Who's going to force the packers to allow fair competition on cattle prices if not the government? You? I'd pay good money to see that.
good luck

The "Beef Trust" was taken to court in 1905 for anti-trust measures but little was done because in the end "Swift" was not dissolved, and the packers still owned the stockyards.

They were forced to give up stockyard ownership well after Roosevelt had left office.

Haymaker is right. We need LESS government intrusion.

Government doesn't solve problems, government IS the problem. Ronald Reagan

Robertmac is right also. The refigerated rail cars were the monopoly of the packers, which had started using that monopoly to transact other goods through the rails to gain a bigger marketshare of all goods.

Good to hear you didn't get blown away today! :shock: :wink:

 

[Mike]

Good to hear you didn't get blown away today!

The sirens went off, nothing but rain here.........................

Glad tho'. Grazing just now coming up........................... :roll:

 

[redrobin]

The Government is not the friend of free, independent markets. Corporations have used Government regulations to put their competition out of business.

Right on target RM. Some people get it , others just can't figure that out.

 

[Shaft]

Well boys and girls, we have come full circle on the packer question.

If government intervention isn't the answer, then what do you propose? Besides complaining loudly and long on ranchers.net that is. What's the answer going forward? As many seem to agree (myself included), at this rate the beef industry as we know it (family cow/calf producers, for example) will disappear completely within the next twenty years or so.

What do you propose to do about it?

 

[RobertMac]

Well boys and girls, we have come full circle on the packer question.

If government intervention isn't the answer, then what do you propose? Besides complaining loudly and long on ranchers.net that is. What's the answer going forward? As many seem to agree (myself included), at this rate the beef industry as we know it (family cow/calf producers, for example) will disappear completely within the next twenty years or so.

What do you propose to do about it?

We do the same thing we did Nov. 2, but take a bigger swing. There are politicians that have committed crimes that any of us would be put in jail for...yet they still have jobs. We have to vote the corruption and power out of Washington. Educate yourself, educate your friends.

 

[Ben H]

I don't care if there were some good parts in the bill, some needed things, the problem is it's part of the structure being built that all these bills have had pieces of.

What really pisses me off is that Farm Bureau supported this bill. Bob Stallman was recently at our State annual meeting and was talking about how FB is a true grassroots organization. How politicians will ask him why he can't change on something, he says he represents what the members have voted. I have my doubts that a majority of members supported this bill.

http://maplight.org/us-congress/bill/111-s-510/360488/total-contributions

 

[Anonymous]

How ironic!

The same guys who cry for LESS GOVERNMENT REGULATION are the ones who want more government regulation to socialize the fat cattle markets, more government regulation to label beef, government regulation to stop imports, government regulations to pick and choose who can and who cannot own fat cattle, and the list goes on and on.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.


~SH~