Only One Stood Up for Producers in the House.....

[Tex]

Tex, that is a particularly sick twist you take in equating meat packers with deviant priests AND that packers are sexual deviants molesting grown men and women marketing cattle. You have reached a new low for this website.

Adults failing to succeed up to their wishes in marketing cattle to packers, IF proven still is far different than children being sexually molested, and it is grotesque that someone would come up with your scenario.

Why don't YOU, since you present yourself as so well informed on what you see as injustice, take your evidence to some fine plaintiffs' attorney. If there is actionable material there, there SURELY are some who would go after the deep pockets some believe packers have.

mrj

mrj, the analogy isn't about molestation. It is about the ability of good people to hide huge faults of the organization they support and to continue to hide those faults even as it erodes the very reasons for their existence. This was the problem with the Catholic Church. I still think there are good men and women in the Catholic Church who did not partake in this particular sin (no, I am not talking about the molestation here, but the hiding of it).

It is unfortunate that claims were not investigated by the Catholic Church in their scandal. I find it equally offensive that the leadership of the NCBA would not look into the allegations in the specific cases that GIPSA cited and I find it especially offensive that they would get up in front of Congress with pre typed testimony handed to them that proves they know nothing about the issues and are being used as packer pawns.

Don't count yourself as a victim here. You are not. You haven't even looked to see what is going on nor have you tried. You have instead yielded a blind eye. That is the sin of the Catholic Church.

Tex

 

[mrj]

Again Tex, you expect us to believe you, while hiding your identity, rather than those who many of us DO know, while you accuse them of not knowing what they are saying.

It is one things having NCBA staff to craft ones possibly stumbling, VERY possibly profane (as mine might be testifying about this rule change, if I were prone to using such language), and most likely too lengthy statement into something concise and too the point to be read as his personal and organizational testimony before a group one may find a bit daunting to confront.

It is also very possible that the person reading that paper wrote it himself.

It is quite something else to make the accusation you are with NO verification of the reliability of it.

Further, NCBA is NOT an investigative agency and should not be expected to function as one.

Whatever gave you the idea that I feel I'm "a victim"........that is the strategty used by those of you SUPPORTING the GIPSA rule changes!!!!

How many times has it been written in support of the changes, and by how many different people, directly, or implied, that cattle producers cannot fend for themselves in the market place today and new, onerous rules must be placed over the markets to protect them from themselves?

That is not only presenting cattle producers as victims, it is telling them that they are, and need 'big brother' to help them market their cattle.

mrj

 

[Tex]

Again Tex, you expect us to believe you, while hiding your identity, rather than those who many of us DO know, while you accuse them of not knowing what they are saying.

It is one things having NCBA staff to craft ones possibly stumbling, VERY possibly profane (as mine might be testifying about this rule change, if I were prone to using such language), and most likely too lengthy statement into something concise and too the point to be read as his personal and organizational testimony before a group one may find a bit daunting to confront.

It is also very possible that the person reading that paper wrote it himself.

It is quite something else to make the accusation you are with NO verification of the reliability of it.

Further, NCBA is NOT an investigative agency and should not be expected to function as one.

Whatever gave you the idea that I feel I'm "a victim"........that is the strategty used by those of you SUPPORTING the GIPSA rule changes!!!!

How many times has it been written in support of the changes, and by how many different people, directly, or implied, that cattle producers cannot fend for themselves in the market place today and new, onerous rules must be placed over the markets to protect them from themselves?

That is not only presenting cattle producers as victims, it is telling them that they are, and need 'big brother' to help them market their cattle.

mrj

How many times has it been written in support of the changes, and by how many different people, directly, or implied, that cattle producers cannot fend for themselves in the market place today and new, onerous rules must be placed over the markets to protect them from themselves?

I think that was the same reasoning Phil Gramm gave for getting rid of the Depression Era Glass Steagal Act, mrj. The market place can defend itself. I guess we all see how that one worked out.

You still haven't looked to see the underlying cases that show how these economic laws already on the books protect the industry from downright fraud, have you?

You are like many in the Catholic Church how said, no, it couldn't be that priests are molesting boys, but you haven't even looked into it.

You and the NCBA are to be faulted for thinking you are so high and mighty and belong to such a great organization that actually allows fraud to perpetuate itself in the industry. I know how they got tricked into it. It isn't hard to see. It wasn't hard for Eve to trick Adam into biting the forbidden fruit. At least they knew they naked after they did it. You won't even do your homework or think deeper than your easily manipulated seeming self interests. Do you think the same thing was occurring with the Catholic Church and how so many priests got away with what they did?

mrj, you are making choices here. It is of blind support. That might be fine for following Christ, but if it has anything to do with humans, you better get a little more realistic. You were given the power of knowlege of good and evil. You just haven't exercised it. If there is one critic that can be given to the meat packer talking pointers, it is this. That is why many cattle organizations have split with NCBA.

I for one want the NCBA to do a real investigation, clear any wrongdoing, and go on to become the organization it was meant to be---not an organization filled with leaders who are duped or willingly support market frauds by meat packers with this law. This law was specifically made to prevent that from happening. You didn't even know the operational part didn't pertain to anyone but meat packers and market frauds. You are still stuck on meat packer talking points. Everyone at the top of a ponzi scheme thinks they should be the next one to be paid off. Just ask Bernie Madoff's top clients who were.

Do your homework or support the fraud. Many people are just a whole lot smarter than you just because they did their homework and you just took someone else's talking points to class.

Tex

 

[Beefman]

Poor Tex, I'm sorry that you do not understand that I, along with NCBA cattle producer members, all have a mind of our own. We are not followers.

Because you disagree with policies MEMBERS of NCBA support, in fact originate, you refuse to believe we are not led by packers.

That says something about where you get YOUR direction!

I DO understand that improving our cattle and getting the benefit of doing that via either our own, or others selling on grid, in 'branded' systems, or other similar marketing plans is in great danger if the proposed rules are implemented.

Those rules are supported by people who want the higher prices without the work others have done.

Not that I do not understand the processes, but I do not play your games.

I'm not one who has to have someone to blame for my family's management or marketing decisions if things don't go as we intend.

mrj

It is obvious to me, mrj, that you do not understand the issues in depth and continue to misrepresent them.

I have given you the tools and the direction to get to the real issues and you have proven that you can not or will not.

This isn't about some stupid fight between rcalf, CBB, NCBA or other groups. It is about the actual facts that they are talking about. You have shown the competency of NCBA leadership when it comes to the facts which I alleged was low to nonexistent.

They and yourself are either incompetent on the actual issues or you are competent and you are really helping meat packers consolidate the industry.

I put you in the former by your own actions.

I will give you an analogy here. I have a lot of respect for many, many people who are in the Catholic Church. I believe they are upstanding Christians and follow the main and most important constructs of Christianity. Many have dedicated their lives to being a Christ follower.

I am not Catholic however, because I believe that Christ is the intercessor for mankind, not the Pope, however good he may be. If the Catholic Church structure, in its human failings, allows priests to molest boys, I think that is a failing of the Catholic Church and it shows the fallacy of following humans over Christ.

The first main schism over the church was over idols which illustrated the same point. Mankind has a tendency to believe in something that they can comprehend with their senses, including an image of God. This tendency was dealt with in one of the ten commandments.

I believe your unfailing support of NCBA regardless of the actual issues (similar to the molestation of boys here by the priests) means that are incompetent on this issue and will go with the image or the substitute for the real thing.

I am all too willing for you and the leaders of the NCBA to open their eyes to the molestation taking place in the industry in the cases cited, but I do hold them and you accountable for protecting that molestation until you do.

It is up to the members of the NCBA to actually represent the interests of producers, especially if they are taking checkoff money to do it, not to hide the molestation that is going on towards family farmers in the meats industry by meat packers.



Let us face it, mrj, you and the leaders of the NCBA have failed to look into the allegations of molestation and instead have msicharacterized the actual facts in support of meat packers molesting family farmers. For this you deserve the same accountability of the priests who were hiding the molestation of the little boys. You must be competent enough to see these issues instead of being a blind support of the NCBA or the Catholic Church. Put principles ahead of principals.

Tex

Posts like this are very problematic for you. It confirms with your critics that you have no desire for debate, are desperate for followers, and will use any means possible to get your point across. Posts like this also cause lots of hand wringing with your allies at Rcalf, etc, as 1), they realize it's difficult to be taken seriously when their allies post such lame brain nonsense as this, and 2), had I posted something this inappropriate, I'd expect to be taken out behind the woodshed for a well deserved a$$ whoppin.

This is likely a waste of time, but here goes. You are correct in stating the proposed rule does not outlaw value based marketing. What concerns NCBA and others, is how the proposed rule, if implemented as currently written, will the return the industry to commodity, one-price-fits-all, pricing at all levels. As has been proven with MCOOL, we will not regulate ourselves into prosperity with the proposed rule. Commodity pricing will result for finished cattle, and trickle down to the likes of MRJ, who will also receive commodity prices for her above average calves.

 

[Tex]

Poor Tex, I'm sorry that you do not understand that I, along with NCBA cattle producer members, all have a mind of our own. We are not followers.

Because you disagree with policies MEMBERS of NCBA support, in fact originate, you refuse to believe we are not led by packers.

That says something about where you get YOUR direction!

I DO understand that improving our cattle and getting the benefit of doing that via either our own, or others selling on grid, in 'branded' systems, or other similar marketing plans is in great danger if the proposed rules are implemented.

Those rules are supported by people who want the higher prices without the work others have done.

Not that I do not understand the processes, but I do not play your games.

I'm not one who has to have someone to blame for my family's management or marketing decisions if things don't go as we intend.

mrj

It is obvious to me, mrj, that you do not understand the issues in depth and continue to misrepresent them.

I have given you the tools and the direction to get to the real issues and you have proven that you can not or will not.

This isn't about some stupid fight between rcalf, CBB, NCBA or other groups. It is about the actual facts that they are talking about. You have shown the competency of NCBA leadership when it comes to the facts which I alleged was low to nonexistent.

They and yourself are either incompetent on the actual issues or you are competent and you are really helping meat packers consolidate the industry.

I put you in the former by your own actions.

I will give you an analogy here. I have a lot of respect for many, many people who are in the Catholic Church. I believe they are upstanding Christians and follow the main and most important constructs of Christianity. Many have dedicated their lives to being a Christ follower.

I am not Catholic however, because I believe that Christ is the intercessor for mankind, not the Pope, however good he may be. If the Catholic Church structure, in its human failings, allows priests to molest boys, I think that is a failing of the Catholic Church and it shows the fallacy of following humans over Christ.

The first main schism over the church was over idols which illustrated the same point. Mankind has a tendency to believe in something that they can comprehend with their senses, including an image of God. This tendency was dealt with in one of the ten commandments.

I believe your unfailing support of NCBA regardless of the actual issues (similar to the molestation of boys here by the priests) means that are incompetent on this issue and will go with the image or the substitute for the real thing.

I am all too willing for you and the leaders of the NCBA to open their eyes to the molestation taking place in the industry in the cases cited, but I do hold them and you accountable for protecting that molestation until you do.

It is up to the members of the NCBA to actually represent the interests of producers, especially if they are taking checkoff money to do it, not to hide the molestation that is going on towards family farmers in the meats industry by meat packers.



Let us face it, mrj, you and the leaders of the NCBA have failed to look into the allegations of molestation and instead have msicharacterized the actual facts in support of meat packers molesting family farmers. For this you deserve the same accountability of the priests who were hiding the molestation of the little boys. You must be competent enough to see these issues instead of being a blind support of the NCBA or the Catholic Church. Put principles ahead of principals.

Tex

Posts like this are very problematic for you. It confirms with your critics that you have no desire for debate, are desperate for followers, and will use any means possible to get your point across. Posts like this also cause lots of hand wringing with your allies at Rcalf, etc, as 1), they realize it's difficult to be taken seriously when their allies post such lame brain nonsense as this, and 2), had I posted something this inappropriate, I'd expect to be taken out behind the woodshed for a well deserved a$$ whoppin.

This is likely a waste of time, but here goes. You are correct in stating the proposed rule does not outlaw value based marketing. What concerns NCBA and others, is how the proposed rule, if implemented as currently written, will the return the industry to commodity, one-price-fits-all, pricing at all levels. As has been proven with MCOOL, we will not regulate ourselves into prosperity with the proposed rule. Commodity pricing will result for finished cattle, and trickle down to the likes of MRJ, who will also receive commodity prices for her above average calves.

Beefman, these rules are not just out of the blue nor are they rules that don't have real reasons behind them, and it isn't just that some people don't want value based marketing.

I have yet to see either you or mrj go into the reasons in any depth that shows any understanding of why these rules were promolgated---and they were not to prevent value based marketing. They were there to prevent market manipulation masquerading as value based marketing because they do require the meat packers to come up with reasons at the time they are buying, not some lawyer contrived and convoluted reason they can fool a few judges with or get them to agree in breaking any reasonable interpretation of the rules for some less than ethical reason.

You and mrj don't just don't like straight talk nor will you go into the actual reasons these rules were promulgated.

I don't see that the any of the Pickett case evidence was unquashed by judges who are afraid of the truth and maybe getting caught at a little judicial corruption.

If you are hiding something, there must be something there.

It is the same thing a lot of choir boys said for a long time while no one would listen to them. If you want to not have any guilt, go see what is and has been happening. If you don't want to sully your already questioned reputation and not look into it, you are as guilty as anyone who hides the truth for their own ends.

Believe me, Beefman, there are a lot of people just waiting for real justice instead of excuses. That is what we are supposed to have instead of being taken behind a woodshed time and time again by meat packers who flagrantly violate the law and are not held accountable while they fill the coffers of PR firms, well connected law firms, and politicians.

I will be waiting to see whether you or mrj will actually look into what has been happening and still support it. So far all you have done is cry that nothing is wrong in the industry while getting everyone to sing KoomBaYa. What irresponsibility. I can hear the choir singing it now.


Tex

 

[Anonymous]

Tex to SH: "Let me ask you, do you think packers should be able to discriminate in price for the same quality of animal?"

This question is so typical of your deceptive antics. I asked you numerous times how packers can know that one fat animal is of the same quality as another before both animals are slaughtered. You diverted the question repeatedly because you know that value cannot be determined until the hide comes off and a particular carcass is graded by a USDA grader. Yet you continue to throw out this same empty question like an old shoe.

The fact is that packers cannot know the quality of a carcass until that animal has been slaughtered and graded by a USDA grader to determine it's value, PERIOD.

Do you want to argue that? If not, then how can you compare cattle sold through grid pricing to cattle sold in the cash market and claim discrimination for any difference in price? Your argument won't hold water.

If I was a packer, ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, I would price cash cattle lower than grid cattle because there is no way to determine the value of the cash cattle before they are slaughtered. The packer has less price risk with grid pricing justifying a difference in price between the two. Do you think a packer should pay choice prices for a pen of cattle that could end up being mostly selects? If not, then how can you objectively compare grid prices to cash cattle prices?

Another fact that you continually fail to acknowledge is that no feeder is tied to a particular packer. Every feeder has numerous pricing options with numerous packers if they don't like a particular market.

Another fact you fail to acknowledge is why these GIPSA rules are being promoted by mostly cow/calf men who sell their calves mostly as feeders rather than the feeders who actually sell them as finished cattle to the packers. Most of the R-CALFers don't even sell fat cattle yet they think they know more about the needs of the fat cattle market than the feeders who actually sell fat cattle. The epitomy of arrogance.

How do you explain that?

You obviously believe the blaming segment of the cow/calf side of our industry (R-CALFers) needs to save the feeding industry from themselves.

Another fact you continually fail to acknowledge is that the cow/calf, backgrounder, and feeding segments of our industry would never stand for the government cattle pricing mechanisms you advocate for the packer segment of the industry? Why shouldn't all segments of the industry be held to the same government run pricing mechanisms and assurances against alleged price discrimination? If I pay more money for one man's bull than another, why shouldn't they be able to claim price discrimination and be subject to the same socialized cattle pricing structure?

God help this industry if you socialists ever get your way.

Even if you had previous carcass information on a pen of fat cattle you still have to feed those cattle exactly the same, for the same amount of time, and have the same type of weather to have any chance of getting the same results on carcass quality. You also have to assume nothing has changed genetically or from a health standpoint. That's a pile of assumptions but you'd have to know something about fat cattle marketing to understand this which you obviously don't.

Do you realize that there might only be one fleck of marbling difference between a choice and select carcass? You accuse me of drinking the packer Kool Aid when you are the one who repeats what you hear without even thinking about it.

The carcass premiums or discounts for any cattle sold on a particular grid on the same day are going to be the same and they will be based on the USDA grade stamp that a carcass receives from a USDA grader. Packers are not grading those carcasses, USDA graders are.

Here, let me try this one last time.

NOBODY KNOWS THE TRUE VALUE OF FAT CATTLE UNTIL AFTER THEY ARE SLAUGHTERED SO THERE CAN BE NO FAIR COMPARISON OR ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN FAT CATTLE SOLD ON THE HOOF VS. FAT CATTLE SOLD THROUGH VALUE BASED MARKETING.

Why can't you understand this???


~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

Tex,

Let's see if you can pass the lemming test.

Here goes....


Mike posts the following:

GIPSA has made it clear that its rules are not intended to "limit or eliminate the ability of companies to provide premiums to reward producers for providing certain quantity or quality of livestock," McDonnell said. "We will continue to stay engaged to ensure GIPSA stays true to these proposed intentions and to be clear that nothing in these rules will jeopardize a premium-based market."

To which you responded with....

Tex in response: "McDonnell is an idiot. He doesn't know what he is talking about. One in his position should know.

You didn't read past the name did you? McDonnell said the same thing you have been saying and you discredit him. Hahaha!

WHO IS THE IDIOT HERE ???

Sorry, you failed the lemming test. You are now swimming out to sea with the rest of the lemmings that jumped the cliff.


~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

Tex: "No one wants to remove incentives for higher quality cattle and in fact, the GIPSA rules do the exact opposite (despite what meat packers say)."

McDonnell said the same thing and you called him an idiot and said he didn't know what he was talking about.

Who is the fool now?


~SH~

 

[Tex]

Tex: "No one wants to remove incentives for higher quality cattle and in fact, the GIPSA rules do the exact opposite (despite what meat packers say)."

McDonnell said the same thing and you called him an idiot and said he didn't know what he was talking about.

Who is the fool now?


~SH~

I was referring to a specific statement in an article he was quoted in. I will always leave the possibility that someone was quoted incorrectly, the whole story not told, or mischaracterized.





Would you like to bring the specific example?



Tex

 

[Anonymous]

Tex: "Would you like to bring the specific example?"

I just did. McDonnell said the exact same thing that you said in the quote above and you called him an idiot. I doubt you read past his name or you can't comprehend what he wrote. Either way, you stepped in your own pile.


~SH~

 

[Tex]

Tex: "Would you like to bring the specific example?"

I just did. McDonnell said the exact same thing that you said in the quote above and you called him an idiot. I doubt you read past his name or you can't comprehend what he wrote. Either way, you stepped in your own pile.


~SH~

sh, if you have the article I commented on, bring it with your example. I have posted articles with McDonnell being quoted and referred to the specific thing he was quoted on, not something else.

If McDonnell said the exact thing I said then of course he would be right.

I believe you are the one who has brought in the meat packer talking points over and over again. When you do, you are as wrong as they are or you are just repeating their threats.

Tex

 

[Anonymous]

Tex: "sh, if you have the article I commented on, bring it with your example."

Are you dense or what?

I JUST POSTED IT!!!

Mike posted McDonnell's comment. That is all Mike posted. I posted the same comment in my post above and your response. You responded to that comment with "McDonnell is an idiot and doesn't know what he's talking about" when McDonnell said the same thing you have been saying. If McDonnell is an idiot for what Mike posted, then you must be an idiot because you said the same thing. I would bet on that.

Keep spinning it but McDonnell's quote, your response, and your quote saying the same thing are posted above. Yet you show your true deceptive nature and try to spin and divert your way out of it.

Tex: "I have posted articles with McDonnell being quoted and referred to the specific thing he was quoted on, not something else."

Anyone can read what you wrote.

Tex: "If McDonnell said the exact thing I said then of course he would be right".

I'll take that as an admission that you commented on McDonnell's quote without reading it first? Hahaha! Why is that not surprising?

Tex: "I believe you are the one who has brought in the meat packer talking points over and over again. When you do, you are as wrong as they are or you are just repeating their threats."

No, I have brought facts to the table regarding cattle marketing issues and you can't refute a single one of them because you just repeat what you hear like the follower you are.

If I am wrong, prove it Tex. Talk is cheap! I won't hold my breath.


~SH~

 

[Tex]

Tex: "sh, if you have the article I commented on, bring it with your example."

Are you dense or what?

I JUST POSTED IT!!!

Mike posted McDonnell's comment. That is all Mike posted. I posted the same comment in my post above and your response. You responded to that comment with "McDonnell is an idiot and doesn't know what he's talking about" when McDonnell said the same thing you have been saying. If McDonnell is an idiot for what Mike posted, then you must be an idiot because you said the same thing. I would bet on that.

Keep spinning it but McDonnell's quote, your response, and your quote saying the same thing are posted above. Yet you show your true deceptive nature and try to spin and divert your way out of it.

Tex: "I have posted articles with McDonnell being quoted and referred to the specific thing he was quoted on, not something else."

Anyone can read what you wrote.

Tex: "If McDonnell said the exact thing I said then of course he would be right".

I'll take that as an admission that you commented on McDonnell's quote without reading it first? Hahaha! Why is that not surprising?

Tex: "I believe you are the one who has brought in the meat packer talking points over and over again. When you do, you are as wrong as they are or you are just repeating their threats."

No, I have brought facts to the table regarding cattle marketing issues and you can't refute a single one of them because you just repeat what you hear like the follower you are.

If I am wrong, prove it Tex. Talk is cheap! I won't hold my breath.


~SH~

SH, the comment I made about McDonnell, was that he was actually spending his time talking about meat packer's talking points. Now this may be necessary, but at some point people have to stop answering people like you and ignore them.

The meat packers totally made up the argument that the new GIPSA rules would impinge on premiums for premium products. It was a total lie put out by meat packers to scare producers into thinking that is what the rules said. I don't think McDonnell or others need to tiptoe around the fact that this is a response to meat packer's strategy of controlling the argument.

I think instead, we need to ask, what kind of premiums have meat packers been giving and have they met the test of being real or are they used to unfairly manipulate pay for supplies and hence their suppliers? I think what is actually sold in the store can determine that--- for example, Certified Angus Meat on a store label means that there can be a premium paid (for anyone who fits in the Angus Meat category).

Next time, please read the post in its entirety, and maybe you would understand what I was saying about McDonnell and his quote. Even taking on the meat packer's claim they threatened is part of the problem. Meat packers don't need to write the rules they have to follow and they don't need to go around spreading lies that try to get people like mrj scared into supporting them on a made up threat or lie.

Of course I know you are just going to cut and paste again and again as you usually do because you want to continually distract.

I thank you once again for allowing me to clarify my point, which you would have understood if you read and contextualized my comment.

I agreed with McDonnell on how he interpreted the GIPSA rules but resent the fact that he had to even go there because of meat packer pushed propaganda. I think we should all recognize this.

Tex

 

[Tex]

Tex: "sh, if you have the article I commented on, bring it with your example."

Are you dense or what?

I JUST POSTED IT!!!

Mike posted McDonnell's comment. That is all Mike posted. I posted the same comment in my post above and your response. You responded to that comment with "McDonnell is an idiot and doesn't know what he's talking about" when McDonnell said the same thing you have been saying. If McDonnell is an idiot for what Mike posted, then you must be an idiot because you said the same thing. I would bet on that.

Keep spinning it but McDonnell's quote, your response, and your quote saying the same thing are posted above. Yet you show your true deceptive nature and try to spin and divert your way out of it.

Tex: "I have posted articles with McDonnell being quoted and referred to the specific thing he was quoted on, not something else."

Anyone can read what you wrote.

Tex: "If McDonnell said the exact thing I said then of course he would be right".

I'll take that as an admission that you commented on McDonnell's quote without reading it first? Hahaha! Why is that not surprising?

Tex: "I believe you are the one who has brought in the meat packer talking points over and over again. When you do, you are as wrong as they are or you are just repeating their threats."

No, I have brought facts to the table regarding cattle marketing issues and you can't refute a single one of them because you just repeat what you hear like the follower you are.

If I am wrong, prove it Tex. Talk is cheap! I won't hold my breath.


~SH~

SH, the comment I made about McDonnell, was that he was actually spending his time talking about meat packer's talking points. Now this may be necessary, but at some point people have to stop answering people like you and ignore them.

The meat packers totally made up the argument that the new GIPSA rules would impinge on premiums for premium products. It was a total lie put out by meat packers to scare producers into thinking that is what the rules said. I don't think McDonnell or others need to tiptoe around the fact that this is a response to meat packer's strategy of controlling the argument.

I think instead, we need to ask, what kind of premiums have meat packers been giving and have they met the test of being real or are they used to unfairly manipulate pay for supplies and hence their suppliers? I think what is actually sold in the store can determine that--- for example, Certified Angus Meat on a store label means that there can be a premium paid (for anyone who fits in the Angus Meat category).

Next time, please read the post in its entirety, and maybe you would understand what I was saying about McDonnell and his quote. Even taking on the meat packer's claim they threatened is part of the problem. Meat packers don't need to write the rules they have to follow and they don't need to go around spreading lies that try to get people like mrj scared into supporting them on a made up threat or lie.

Of course I know you are just going to cut and paste again and again as you usually do because you want to continually distract.

I thank you once again for allowing me to clarify my point, which you would have understood if you read and contextualized my comment.

I agreed with McDonnell on how he interpreted the GIPSA rules but resent the fact that he had to even go there because of meat packer pushed propaganda. I think we should all recognize this.

Tex

To illustrate how CAB fell for the meat packer spread misinformation, one needs to only look at the following article and in particular the last paragraph in bold:

Certified Angus Beef Champions Their Stand Against GIPSA Rule
Fri, 15 Apr 2011 10:46:00 CDT

Certified Angus Beef Champions Their Stand Against GIPSA Rule Certified Angus Beef LLC (CAB) President John Stika sent a letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack to explain the branded beef company's stand against current wording in rule changes proposed by the Grain Inspection Packers & Stockyards Administration (GIPSA)

The USDA agency last summer unveiled its proposed rule changes that govern livestock marketing. A divide soon appeared within the beef industry over lengthening the comment period, and whether the proposed changes themselves needed changes. "Fairness" debates began from coffee shops to editorials and letters to USDA expressing either support or concern over vague language.

At a USDA/Justice Dept. workshop on competition in Fort Collins, Colo., last August 27, in an open letter to Angus producers and in subsequent comments to GIPSA, Stika expressed concern over unintended consequences and called for further study because there had been very little. By the end of the extended November deadline and after two private economic analyses quantifying costs and concerns, more than 60,000 comments had come in to GIPSA. Vilsack then announced USDA would conduct its own economic impact study.

"The issue seemed to fade a little, but in fact it has not gone away," Stika said. "We owe it to Angus producers and all of our licensed partners across the beef industry to maintain an active role in helping USDA craft the best possible clarifications to the proposed GIPSA rules."

The letter stated, "Pleasing the consumer is the single most effective and sustainable solution to maintaining an economically viable beef industry… Unless heavily edited, we believe the proposed rule will cause cattlemen and brand partners great economic hardships as their investment in premium genetics meet a constricted market." While not opposing the effort to better define terms, the letter noted, "it appears the kind of clarity being proposed negates the intent and opens the doors to a long series of lawsuits … litigation will lead to a reduction in the availability of value-based marketing arrangements."

Value separation would be minimized but "easier to defend," the letter said. Certified Angus Beef Board Chairman Steve Olson said, "This brand has worked for years to get ranchers premiums on their high-quality cattle through value-based marketing. Because the proposed rules may threaten these premiums, we must voice our opinion."

The American Angus Association supports these efforts, noted Association Board Chairman Joe Hampton. "By working with Secretary Vilsak, we hope Certified Angus Beef can help insure that any changes to the existing GIPSA regulations allow for the continued expansion of quality-focused, value-based marketing options," he said. That's what allows financial rewards for those who meet the growing consumer demand for products such as those bearing the Certified Angus Beef brand, said Association board member Leo McDonnell.

GIPSA has made it clear that its rules are not intended to "limit or eliminate the ability of companies to provide premiums to reward producers for providing certain quantity or quality of livestock," McDonnell said "We will continue to stay engaged to ensure GIPSA stays true to these proposed intentions and to be clear that nothing in these rules will jeopardize a premium-based market." "Angus producers have much at stake because we have worked hard to add value to our cattle," Hampton said. "We're happy to provide input to help ensure the GIPSA rules will result in a vibrant, healthy market that rewards quality and enhances opportunity and choices." Stika concluded, "We have a long history with USDA and much common ground in seeking a better future for producers who aim to satisfy consumer demand. We look forward to reviewing the pending USDA economic impact study, and every opportunity to discuss solutions to our concerns."

You will note that Stika called for reviewing a pending USDA economics study. This is a "study" called for by meat packers after they called for more time in the comment period and in the meantime put out another bogus "economic study" made by the same people who said MCOOL would be too expensive and would cost the industry X dollars.

Of course that was all a lie and a delaying tactic by the meat packers also. The whole argument is trying to be shifted by meat packers from the actual cases in court where they use their contacts in the U.S. Judiciary to throw cases and make get federal judges to make new excuses for them while demanding that the actual evidence from the trial be hidden from review.

I am ashamed that the leading cattle organizations fall for these deceitful tactics and especially the NCBA in testimony before Congress.

Meat packers couldn't orchestrate things better for themselves than to make rules they don't want to follow and cases they lose in front of juries go away with a new excuse slipped in to save them from the market crimes they are committing.

It is a total shame that so many in leadership in the industry just use the talking points handed to them that originate from meat packer strategists, PR firms, and the next guy they bought off in office or from these regulatory agencies.

It is part of what is wrong with the country. We get so far away from the real issues because that is what money can buy.

Tex

 

[nenmrancher]

Tex what you keep dodging is the fact that everyone realizes that what the intention of the rule is one thing and what has folks worried is not the intention of the rule its how it will be enforced and if the goverment employees that you seem to think are so great will follow the intention of the rule or if they will go off the deep end and make the rule do what you and Rcalf are wanting to have happen. Good intentions offten pave the road to H*LL. If the rules were not supposed to end premiums for better quality meat the rules would have been written to protect the practice not end them.

 

[Tex]

Tex what you keep dodging is the fact that everyone realizes that what the intention of the rule is one thing and what has folks worried is not the intention of the rule its how it will be enforced and if the goverment employees that you seem to think are so great will follow the intention of the rule or if they will go off the deep end and make the rule do what you and Rcalf are wanting to have happen. Good intentions offten pave the road to H*LL. If the rules were not supposed to end premiums for better quality meat the rules would have been written to protect the practice not end them.

I agree that most are reacting to the meat packer spread rumors. The meat packers are calling the shots.

None of the rules restrict family farmers or CAB people, or anyone other than meat packers and their agents yet everyone is acting as if they are going to be affected because meat packers made those assertions.

I am with you on this point, nemrancher--- the top people who were carrying out the Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration were not doing their jobs (as the JoAnn Waterfield investigation revealed---and they were lying to Congress0, and it takes competence to interpret ANY rule, law, or communication.

The problem has been that money has been buying these calls, not principles. The federal judges have been falling all over themselves to come to such unreasonable decisions in these cases that they are the ones that need to be talked about, not whether family farmers will or will not get premiums under the new rules.

We have a string of corruption that can be traced pretty high. The DOJ needs to stop limping around and make some real cases on the corruption, not continuing the little games that the meat packers are calling.

I do understand your hesitance on interpretation by incompetent or lower level empowered bureaucrats. Believe me, I have dealt with them. They have been empowered in the past to run interference for complaints about meat packers and as the OIG investigation into GIPSA showed, were found guilty, so I do understand your concern.

It seems on one hand we have agents working for the interests of these meat packers to allow them to get away with or ignore existing rules and regulations and laws and no matter what GIPSA does, this will be trumped by federal judges who will make up another excuse to pander to the big meat packers.

Do we want no government because we don't have competence, or can we make some people pay for their incompetence when it costs others their assets? Do we succumb to meat packers who say "forget about the laws and rules, we need freer markets and more freedom to do what we want" or do we close the loopholes and processes that allowed the meat packers to harm their suppliers?

I don't think we should be talking about premiums which is what meat packers want us to talk about, but on how we hold accountable the people who should have done something and did not.

We have had to ask the Catholic Church the same thing.

Tex

 

[Tommy]

mj...The most obvious is that they create more bookwork, probably even attorney fees, to justify every sale, or class of cattle.

Those rules were created with some intent, according to J. Dudley Butlers' coments indicating they would be a litigation attorneys dream.

MJ, J. Dudley Butler's 2009 speech refers to the Stockyards and Packers act currently in effect, not the GIPSA ruling.


"Looking at it from the standpoint of sections 202 A and B, when you have terms like unfair, unreasonable, or undue prejudice, that's a lawyer's dream, a plaintiff lawyer's dream. We can get in front of a jury on that without getting thrown out on what we call summary judgment, because that's a jury question." Mr. Butlers 2009 speech

Section 202. Unlawful practices enumerated.3
It shall be unlawful for any packer or swine contractor with respect to livestock, meats,
meat food products, or livestock products in unmanufactured form, or for any live poultry
dealer with respect to live poultry, to:
(a) Engage in or use any unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practice or
device; or
(b) Make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any
particular person or locality in any respect, or subject any particular person or
locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect;

MJ, this is the part of the current PSA that J. Dudley Butler was referring to. You and your counterparts at the NCBA are villifying this man, like Senator Pat Roberts did in the hearing on the GIPSA rule.

Maybe you should read the entire statement Butler made before you comment again.
If you need help locating it I can be of assistance.

 

[Anonymous]

Tex: "SH, the comment I made about McDonnell, was that he was actually spending his time talking about meat packer's talking points."

No, what Mike posted was a comment by McDonnell which was a packer blamer talking point and you called him an idiot for saying the same thing you have been saying.

You commented before you read it making you the idiot, not McDonnell.

You just keep dancing and diverting like the deceptive individual you are.

Tex: "Now this may be necessary, but at some point people have to stop answering people like you and ignore them."

I'm sure you'd find it a lot more comfortable to ignore someone that points out the gaping holes in your arguments. It's no mystery why those who believe as you do can't win a court case.

Tex: "The meat packers totally made up the argument that the new GIPSA rules would impinge on premiums for premium products."

One only has to read the GIPSA rules to know that lawyers will have a heyday defining "unfair" and "discrimatory" for any differences in price paid to fat cattle when those markets can fluctuate on a moments notice. The solution to those who have concerns with the prices a packer is willing to pay, sell to another packer or open your own packing company and make those "HUGE PROFITS" that are supposedly there for yourselves.

But not you Tex, for you the solution is "PLEASE GOVERNMENT, SAVE THE FEEDING INDUSTRY FROM ITSELF WITH GOVERNMENT BASED FAT CATTLE PRICING"

Tex: "It was a total lie put out by meat packers to scare producers into thinking that is what the rules said."

It wasn't a lie. Anyone can read the rules and know that it will be subject to intent and interpretation as any law is.

Tex: "I don't think McDonnell or others need to tiptoe around the fact that this is a response to meat packer's strategy of controlling the argument".

You still don't get it do you?

Then you must be tiptoeing around the fact that this is a response to meat packer's strategy of controlling the market because you said the same thing.

Tex: "I think instead, we need to ask, what kind of premiums have meat packers been giving and have they met the test of being real or are they used to unfairly manipulate pay for supplies and hence their suppliers?"

No, I think instead of saving the feeding industry from itself you need to let the feeders sell fat cattle in the manner in which they choose without government intervention.

What we need to ask ourselves is this, who can do a better job of creating a fair market, the government or the free enterprise system? The answer is obviously not government.

Tex: "I think what is actually sold in the store can determine that--- for example, Certified Angus Meat on a store label means that there can be a premium paid (for anyone who fits in the Angus Meat category)."

You don't even know the specs for CAB do you? You're just talking to impress yourself.

Tex: "Next time, please read the post in its entirety, and maybe you would understand what I was saying about McDonnell and his quote."

Anyone can see what Mike posted and your response. Your REINTERPRETATION won't hold water.

Tex: "Meat packers don't need to write the rules they have to follow and they don't need to go around spreading lies that try to get people like mrj scared into supporting them on a made up threat or lie."

The meat packing industry doesn't need packer blamers like you who don't even sell fat cattle dictating to the feeding industry how they can and can't sell fat cattle. Nobody is scared into anything. Anyone can read the rules and know that this will be as big a waste as "M"COOL was.

Tex (AT THE END OF THE POST): "I agreed with McDonnell on how he interpreted the GIPSA rules but resent the fact that he had to even go there because of meat packer pushed propaganda."

Tex (AT THE BEGINNING OF THE POST): "SH, the comment I made about McDonnell, was that he was actually spending his time talking about meat packer's talking points."

Are you done chasing your tail?


~SH~

 

[Tex]

Tex: "SH, the comment I made about McDonnell, was that he was actually spending his time talking about meat packer's talking points."

No, what Mike posted was a comment by McDonnell which was a packer blamer talking point and you called him an idiot for saying the same thing you have been saying.

You commented before you read it making you the idiot, not McDonnell.

You just keep dancing and diverting like the deceptive individual you are.

Tex: "Now this may be necessary, but at some point people have to stop answering people like you and ignore them."

I'm sure you'd find it a lot more comfortable to ignore someone that points out the gaping holes in your arguments. It's no mystery why those who believe as you do can't win a court case.

Tex: "The meat packers totally made up the argument that the new GIPSA rules would impinge on premiums for premium products."

One only has to read the GIPSA rules to know that lawyers will have a heyday defining "unfair" and "discrimatory" for any differences in price paid to fat cattle when those markets can fluctuate on a moments notice. The solution to those who have concerns with the prices a packer is willing to pay, sell to another packer or open your own packing company and make those "HUGE PROFITS" that are supposedly there for yourselves.

But not you Tex, for you the solution is "PLEASE GOVERNMENT, SAVE THE FEEDING INDUSTRY FROM ITSELF WITH GOVERNMENT BASED FAT CATTLE PRICING"

Tex: "It was a total lie put out by meat packers to scare producers into thinking that is what the rules said."

It wasn't a lie. Anyone can read the rules and know that it will be subject to intent and interpretation as any law is.

Tex: "I don't think McDonnell or others need to tiptoe around the fact that this is a response to meat packer's strategy of controlling the argument".

You still don't get it do you?

Then you must be tiptoeing around the fact that this is a response to meat packer's strategy of controlling the market because you said the same thing.

Tex: "I think instead, we need to ask, what kind of premiums have meat packers been giving and have they met the test of being real or are they used to unfairly manipulate pay for supplies and hence their suppliers?"

No, I think instead of saving the feeding industry from itself you need to let the feeders sell fat cattle in the manner in which they choose without government intervention.

What we need to ask ourselves is this, who can do a better job of creating a fair market, the government or the free enterprise system? The answer is obviously not government.

Tex: "I think what is actually sold in the store can determine that--- for example, Certified Angus Meat on a store label means that there can be a premium paid (for anyone who fits in the Angus Meat category)."

You don't even know the specs for CAB do you? You're just talking to impress yourself.

Tex: "Next time, please read the post in its entirety, and maybe you would understand what I was saying about McDonnell and his quote."

Anyone can see what Mike posted and your response. Your REINTERPRETATION won't hold water.

Tex: "Meat packers don't need to write the rules they have to follow and they don't need to go around spreading lies that try to get people like mrj scared into supporting them on a made up threat or lie."

The meat packing industry doesn't need packer blamers like you who don't even sell fat cattle dictating to the feeding industry how they can and can't sell fat cattle. Nobody is scared into anything. Anyone can read the rules and know that this will be as big a waste as "M"COOL was.

Tex (AT THE END OF THE POST): "I agreed with McDonnell on how he interpreted the GIPSA rules but resent the fact that he had to even go there because of meat packer pushed propaganda."

Tex (AT THE BEGINNING OF THE POST): "SH, the comment I made about McDonnell, was that he was actually spending his time talking about meat packer's talking points."

Are you done chasing your tail?


~SH~

blah, blah, blah, sh.

If you don't get it when it is explained to you, you never will.

The meat packers are running the argument and have shifted it off of their frauds where they got caught red handed and into the other mess of not paying premiums for premium products.

I think we are all idiots for allowing them to control the argument but I guess that is what PR firms and big money can buy you. Maybe this was part of the bought off media only printing selected quotes from McDonnell they wanted to print but the discussion has been controlled by meat packers and their PR firms and hire whores in D.C.

Mike was bringing up a point about quantity discounts when he quoted McDonnell and I would like to hear a little more about his concern there.

Tex