OT mis-information re. Beef Checkoff Refuted

[Anonymous]

Maxine--The meeting Stokes is listed as staff was June 8-9, 2005 in Kansas City- was he being paid by my checkoff dollars at that meeting?- was any of his expenses or salary being paid for by my checkoff dollars?

The reason I ask is because several years ago while travelling, my wife met an NCBA president which she has known for years, in the Denver Airport- he told her he was travelling to a Checkoff meeting and then on to a Washington D.C. meeting- during this time he commented about the need to stop the M-COOL movement...Was he being paid by the Federation or the Dues payers Division when he made these comments politicing against M-COOL? Was his expenses ( or a portion thereof) being paid for by the Federation and checkoff funds when he did this politicing? Did my checkoff dollars contribute to his being able to politic against something I strongly believe in?- that ranchers and cattlemen should be honest and open with consumers- that ranchers and cattlemen should not be involved in aiding a fraud being perpetrated by the packers and retailers by taking US beef and relabeling it with a USDA stamp and passing it off as a US product...

You tell me how we are suppose to know when the NCBA personnel are speaking for the Federation (checkoff) and when they are speaking for the dues payer division :???: ...When does the NCBA employee know they are commenting as Federation or Dues/Payer division?

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Maxine--The meeting Stokes is listed as staff was June 8-9, 2005 in Kansas City- was he being paid by my checkoff dollars at that meeting?- was any of his expenses or salary being paid for by my checkoff dollars?

The reason I ask is because several years ago while travelling, my wife met an NCBA president which she has known for years, in the Denver Airport- he told her he was travelling to a Checkoff meeting and then on to a Washington D.C. meeting- during this time he commented about the need to stop the M-COOL movement...Was he being paid by the Federation or the Dues payers Division when he made these comments politicing against M-COOL? Was his expenses ( or a portion thereof) being paid for by the Federation and checkoff funds when he did this politicing? Did my checkoff dollars contribute to his being able to politic against something I strongly believe in?- that ranchers and cattlemen should be honest and open with consumers- that ranchers and cattlemen should not be involved in aiding a fraud being perpetrated by the packers and retailers by taking US beef and relabeling it with a USDA stamp and passing it off as a US product...

You tell me how we are suppose to know when the NCBA personnel are speaking for the Federation (checkoff) and when they are speaking for the dues payer division :???: ...When does the NCBA employee know they are commenting as Federation or Dues/Payer division?

Oldtimer why don't you end the speculation and ask him yourself, He's your neighbour?

 

[agman]

MRJ, "You obviously are pushing the R-CALF agenda that packers are inherently evil and taking advantage of us poor, foolish ranchers. I disagree with that idea."

That statement actually makes me mad, MRJ. That is NOT R-CALF's position! I wish you and other R-CALF bashers would take the time to learn what R-CALF's position on packers really is. Maybe you would not be so negetive if you knew the facts.

For the record, R-CALF does NOT believe packers are inherently evil. We simply recognize that their agenda (long term profitability for them) does not necessarily benefit US producers and our agenda (long term profitabilty of the US producer). Like any other industry, they use whatever they can to promote their agenda, including bending the ears in Washington all they can. R-CALF seeks to balance their power and influence in Washington with the power and voice of US producers.

Sanhusker you just out did yourself by repeating R-Calf's claim of the packers agenda "(long term profitability for them)". Do you really think their agenda is or should be to lose money? How would that benefit producers?

Once again the ignorance of R-Calf and their misguided views is presented for all to see.

 

[mrj]

MRJ, "You obviously are pushing the R-CALF agenda that packers are inherently evil and taking advantage of us poor, foolish ranchers. I disagree with that idea."

That statement actually makes me mad, MRJ. That is NOT R-CALF's position! I wish you and other R-CALF bashers would take the time to learn what R-CALF's position on packers really is. Maybe you would not be so negetive if you knew the facts.

For the record, R-CALF does NOT believe packers are inherently evil. We simply recognize that their agenda (long term profitability for them) does not necessarily benefit US producers and our agenda (long term profitabilty of the US producer). Like any other industry, they use whatever they can to promote their agenda, including bending the ears in Washington all they can. R-CALF seeks to balance their power and influence in Washington with the power and voice of US producers.

It doesn't have to be the "official" opinion because they have support people out in the country, including, but not limited to, some auction market owners who gleefully use their customers advertising dollars to spew their packer hate and paint NCBA as evil and working against producers because our members choose working with packers to improve the business for ALL of us........as just one example. R-CALF just sits back and reaps the benefits, when they should be denouncing the mis-information rather than enjoying the benefits of it. And THAT is what makes me mad!

For the record, and contrary to what many R-CALF leaders and members and promoters claim, NCBA has long been working in Washington to support what is good for cattle producers, including when that goes against packers. Your leaders certainly know that (meaning Leo McDonnell and Pat Goggins, among others).

MRJ

 

[mrj]

MRJ, "You obviously are pushing the R-CALF agenda that packers are inherently evil and taking advantage of us poor, foolish ranchers. I disagree with that idea."

That statement actually makes me mad, MRJ. That is NOT R-CALF's position! I wish you and other R-CALF bashers would take the time to learn what R-CALF's position on packers really is. Maybe you would not be so negetive if you knew the facts.

For the record, R-CALF does NOT believe packers are inherently evil. We simply recognize that their agenda (long term profitability for them) does not necessarily benefit US producers and our agenda (long term profitabilty of the US producer). Like any other industry, they use whatever they can to promote their agenda, including bending the ears in Washington all they can. R-CALF seeks to balance their power and influence in Washington with the power and voice of US producers.

Everyone is "inherently evil". That is why we have to have a balance of powers no matter who it is and in what position they are in. A lesson one of the vice presidents of Standard Oil, taught me. He would know.

MRJ, I have been characterized as hating Tyson and the other packers. They are just a bunch of people and I don't hate any one of them individually. When they break the law and on top of that laws of fairness, I do have a problem with them. Their actions are "evil" and need to be checked. When they spin things the way they do, it makes me want to go after them more. Listen to the things I am saying, not the "big evil corporate conspiracy" SH has painted me as having. There are a lot of really good corporations out there. And then there are a lot that make wrong decisions occasionally, and then there are the ones that knowingly make selfish wrong decisions with malice and forethought with the people they are in business with. That, in my opinion, is the worst.

Econ, you have exposed yourself quite enough. It is your words expressing your thoughts, not anything SH has said, which convince me that you see "evil" where there is no proof. You assign guilt when the trial has not been held. You proclaim acceptance of token fines by corporations as admission of guilt, when we all have heard of instances where corporate leadership sees that as the least costly way to solve attacks upon them even when they know they are not guilty. It is far to easy these days, for activist attorneys to file lawsuits and hound whomever they choose to try to put out of business. I see that as a serious threat to many businesses, including ranchers/farmers in the near future. I realize there are some people in some corporations, and some people in some government agencies who may be mean spirited and less than honest......just as there are among the hallowed "family farmers" and other small operators! I do not believe all, or even anything near a majority are as bad as you paint them. I do not buy into the "punish success/reward failure turn of mind all too many people seem to enjoy, either.

MRJ

 

[Anonymous]

MRJ, "You obviously are pushing the R-CALF agenda that packers are inherently evil and taking advantage of us poor, foolish ranchers. I disagree with that idea."

That statement actually makes me mad, MRJ. That is NOT R-CALF's position! I wish you and other R-CALF bashers would take the time to learn what R-CALF's position on packers really is. Maybe you would not be so negetive if you knew the facts.

For the record, R-CALF does NOT believe packers are inherently evil. We simply recognize that their agenda (long term profitability for them) does not necessarily benefit US producers and our agenda (long term profitabilty of the US producer). Like any other industry, they use whatever they can to promote their agenda, including bending the ears in Washington all they can. R-CALF seeks to balance their power and influence in Washington with the power and voice of US producers.

It doesn't have to be the "official" opinion because they have support people out in the country, including, but not limited to, some auction market owners who gleefully use their customers advertising dollars to spew their packer hate and paint NCBA as evil and working against producers because our members choose working with packers to improve the business for ALL of us........as just one example. R-CALF just sits back and reaps the benefits, when they should be denouncing the mis-information rather than enjoying the benefits of it. And THAT is what makes me mad!



MRJ

But MRJ those are private dollars or donated dollars that your hated auction market owners and R-CALF use-- Not my government mandated checkoff (TAX) dollars........

There is a huge difference and if you can't see it :???: :???:

 

[mrj]

MRJ, "You obviously are pushing the R-CALF agenda that packers are inherently evil and taking advantage of us poor, foolish ranchers. I disagree with that idea."

That statement actually makes me mad, MRJ. That is NOT R-CALF's position! I wish you and other R-CALF bashers would take the time to learn what R-CALF's position on packers really is. Maybe you would not be so negetive if you knew the facts.

For the record, R-CALF does NOT believe packers are inherently evil. We simply recognize that their agenda (long term profitability for them) does not necessarily benefit US producers and our agenda (long term profitabilty of the US producer). Like any other industry, they use whatever they can to promote their agenda, including bending the ears in Washington all they can. R-CALF seeks to balance their power and influence in Washington with the power and voice of US producers.

It doesn't have to be the "official" opinion because they have support people out in the country, including, but not limited to, some auction market owners who gleefully use their customers advertising dollars to spew their packer hate and paint NCBA as evil and working against producers because our members choose working with packers to improve the business for ALL of us........as just one example. R-CALF just sits back and reaps the benefits, when they should be denouncing the mis-information rather than enjoying the benefits of it. And THAT is what makes me mad!



MRJ

But MRJ those are private dollars or donated dollars that your hated auction market owners and R-CALF use-- Not my government mandated checkoff (TAX) dollars........

There is a huge difference and if you can't see it :???: :???:

OT, your government mandated Beef Checkoff dollars are NOT being spent in the ways you claim! Sorry you won't admit it, but you would be hard put to find anything more scrutinized than the beef checkoff, and you insult the cattle producers from ALL organizations who are managing it when you call them a den of snakes and insinuate they are trying to use the money illegally, yet present NO proof of mis-handling of it.

BTW, I don't "hate" them, though they do preach "hatred" of NCBA. I do, however, find the actions they commit thoroughly disgusting, and I believe they are not trustworthy due to their actions in using lies and innuendo to turn ranchers against their own Beef checkoff.

MRJ

 

[Sandhusker]

MRJ, "You obviously are pushing the R-CALF agenda that packers are inherently evil and taking advantage of us poor, foolish ranchers. I disagree with that idea."

That statement actually makes me mad, MRJ. That is NOT R-CALF's position! I wish you and other R-CALF bashers would take the time to learn what R-CALF's position on packers really is. Maybe you would not be so negetive if you knew the facts.

For the record, R-CALF does NOT believe packers are inherently evil. We simply recognize that their agenda (long term profitability for them) does not necessarily benefit US producers and our agenda (long term profitabilty of the US producer). Like any other industry, they use whatever they can to promote their agenda, including bending the ears in Washington all they can. R-CALF seeks to balance their power and influence in Washington with the power and voice of US producers.

Sanhusker you just out did yourself by repeating R-Calf's claim of the packers agenda "(long term profitability for them)". Do you really think their agenda is or should be to lose money? How would that benefit producers?

Once again the ignorance of R-Calf and their misguided views is presented for all to see.

Now where in my statement did I allude that packers should try to lose money? My post was factual and unemotional. I challenge you to point out what I said that was incorrect. I didn't run them down or make accusations of any kind. If anything, I was understanding to them with the words, "Like any other industry".

Once again, the plight of the anti-R-CALF crew and their attempt to discredit R-CALF by twisting statements to reach rediculous "conclusions" is presented for all to see.

 

[Murgen]

and I believe they are not trustworthy due to their actions in using lies and innuendo to turn ranchers against their own Beef checkoff.

It is/was quite evident that after failure to use lies and innuendo to try to turn the consumer/rancher against a safe and quality Canadian product, that RCALF would turn their sites on their own fellow industry within the US.

 

[Sandhusker]

and I believe they are not trustworthy due to their actions in using lies and innuendo to turn ranchers against their own Beef checkoff.

It is/was quite evident that after failure to use lies and innuendo to try to turn the consumer/rancher against a safe and quality Canadian product, that RCALF would turn their sites on their own fellow industry within the US.

Dang it, MRJ, that is ANOTHER comment that mischaracterizes R-CALF's position! Where are you coming up with this nonsense?

Here is a direct quote from Leo on the checkoff, "You'll find me criticizing it. That doesn't mean I'm against it. It means I'm critical of certain aspects just like we criticize our own business. We criticize our own children, our families, our churches, our school system and we criticize them in a manner to make them better, don't we."

 

[Tommy]

mj...BTW, I don't "hate" them, though they do preach "hatred" of NCBA.

I assume you are talking about some of the sale barns there in South Dakota mj and not R-CALF. I have been to numerous R-CALF meetings and more than a few NCBA meetings and not once has anyone from R-CALF said anything derogitory of the NCBA. I cannot say that of the NCBA people talking about R-CALF. R-CALF was ll that Jay Truitt could talk about at the meeting in Joplin, Mo. last Feb. it was not all nice things he had to say either. At the meeting we had in Fort Scott Kansas earlier this year a man from the audience, who had been to KLA-NCBA meeting a week earlier, stood up and told Bill Bullard he was glad that there was no negative comments about the NCBA made like there was against R-CALF the week before made by the KLA-NCBA folks.

 

[nightcalver]

Just a couple of questions for those who are arguing the Checkoff....How many have read the act and order that formed the Checkoff and that the Beef Board must follow in implementing all its decisions? Are you basing your discussions on actual facts or talking from what someone else has written or said?

 

[Anonymous]

OCM,

You dodged the bullet again. Tell me exactly what you dislike about this "long range plan". SPECIFICS!

Sandbag: "Here is a direct quote from Leo on the checkoff, "You'll find me criticizing it. That doesn't mean I'm against it. It means I'm critical of certain aspects just like we criticize our own business. We criticize our own children, our families, our churches, our school system and we criticize them in a manner to make them better, don't we.""

Then in the next breath he'll say (paraphrasing), "the checkoff is funding anti cattle producer organizations".

You get to chose which position you want to use for which audience. WHAT A COUNTRY!

R-CULT is never held accountable for their continous political double talk.

Did Leo give specifics on what he didn't like about the beef checkoff??? Of course not, just like OT and OCM. All they can do is make generalizing statements WITH NOTHING TO BACK ANY OF IT. TYPICAL!

OT, "well a friend of mine said to my wife.....blah blah blah". All hearsay! How many arrests did you make in your career based on "hearsay" OT????

CREATE THE "ILLUSION"!


Tommy,

Anytime that R-CULT's lies are corrected, this will be viewed as negative by R-CULT supporters. Ironically, R-CULT's entire agenda is negative. "WHAT WE BELIEVE IS WRONG WITH THE INDUSTRY BY R-CULT & CO." "DON'T ASK US FOR SPECIFICS BECAUSE WE CAN'T PROVIDE ANY." "WE REPEAT WHAT WE HAVE BEEN TOLD, NOT WHAT THE FACTS WILL SUPPORT."

Sandbag: "Dang it, MRJ, that is ANOTHER comment that mischaracterizes R-CALF's position! Where are you coming up with this nonsense?"

Murgen wrote that not MRJ. You can't even get the simpleist of things correct can you?



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Have you seen the ad from Hardees with the pregnant lady who better eat all she can at Hardee's now because for the next 12 years she will be eating at McDonald's (with her kid)?

Why can't the checkoff program fund a similar add making beef more acceptable than chicken?

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "Why can't the checkoff program fund a similar add making beef more acceptable than chicken?"

Probably because the chicken industry could turn around and use R-CULT's statements about BSE against the beef industry.

Those in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks. Instead of talking about the negatives about chicken, it's better to talk about the positives of beef. Something you blamers can't relate to.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "Probably because the chicken industry could turn around and use R-CULT's statements about BSE against the beef industry."

But you said R-CALF had no credibility - you've said it many times. Why would the chicken industry use an outfit with no credibility? Sounds like the comment of a fool.

Econ knows that what is more likely is that the chicken industry is ran by the same folks who run the beef industry. Pitting one segment of their business against the other would be counterproductive to increasing their bottom line. Some folks just can't pick up when a question is actually not a question but a prod to your brain. Maybe a brain is needed.......... :wink:

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

SH, "Probably because the chicken industry could turn around and use R-CULT's statements about BSE against the beef industry."

But you said R-CALF had no credibility - you've said it many times. Why would the chicken industry use an outfit with no credibility? Sounds like the comment of a fool.

Econ knows that what is more likely is that the chicken industry is ran by the same folks who run the beef industry. Pitting one segment of their business against the other would be counterproductive to increasing their bottom line. Some folks just can't pick up when a question is actually not a question but a prod to your brain. Maybe a brain is needed.......... :wink:

So Sandhusker your saying they wouldn't want to lose money in their beef segment to profit in their chicken segment?

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "Probably because the chicken industry could turn around and use R-CULT's statements about BSE against the beef industry."

But you said R-CALF had no credibility - you've said it many times. Why would the chicken industry use an outfit with no credibility? Sounds like the comment of a fool.

Econ knows that what is more likely is that the chicken industry is ran by the same folks who run the beef industry. Pitting one segment of their business against the other would be counterproductive to increasing their bottom line. Some folks just can't pick up when a question is actually not a question but a prod to your brain. Maybe a brain is needed.......... :wink:

So Sandhusker your saying they wouldn't want to lose money in their beef segment to profit in their chicken segment?

No, I'm not saying that at all. I said they wouldn't pit one against the other. There's more than one way to skin a cat.

 

[ocm]

Just a couple of questions for those who are arguing the Checkoff....How many have read the act and order that formed the Checkoff and that the Beef Board must follow in implementing all its decisions? Are you basing your discussions on actual facts or talking from what someone else has written or said?

I have.

 

[ocm]

OCM,

You dodged the bullet again. Tell me exactly what you dislike about this "long range plan". SPECIFICS!

Sandbag: "Here is a direct quote from Leo on the checkoff, "You'll find me criticizing it. That doesn't mean I'm against it. It means I'm critical of certain aspects just like we criticize our own business. We criticize our own children, our families, our churches, our school system and we criticize them in a manner to make them better, don't we.""

Then in the next breath he'll say (paraphrasing), "the checkoff is funding anti cattle producer organizations".

You get to chose which position you want to use for which audience. WHAT A COUNTRY!



~SH~

I don't think I would agree 100% with Leo on the checkoff.

On the LRP. I hate to do the pre-digesting for you, but since you need it....
There are a number of items included in the LRP that are outside the parameters of spending for checkoff money....like lobbying. Like animal health issues. Like efforts at "unity" on issues. These are all out of bounds as far as checkoff spending is concerned.

You must read the original Beef Act to see what is allowed. It's not a matter of what is liked and disliked, it's a matter of what is legal and what is not.