R-Calf Fact-finding in Costa Rica

[Bro]

And now we are going to start paying US tax dollars to Central American farmers to subsidize them so they will not ship sugar to the US, so the farm state congresssmen will buy on and support this agreement.......STINKS to high heaven--


I agree with you there. The sugar industry has alot of pull.

 

[Murgen]

Damn, you mean trade is all interconnected and that the only industry that matters is not our own? :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

It's a damn big world, and here I was thinking that it only included me, and my wants and desires!

 

[Bro]

Cotton and Sugar, powerful lobby groups, big bucks involved. Cattlemen are way more independent.

 

[Murgen]

Cotton and Sugar, powerful lobby groups, big bucks involved. Cattlemen are way more independent.

yep, and here we had the chance to stand united and it was sabotaged by one group, and their animal activist friends!

 

[mrj]

So we're going to open up a back door for South America's largest herd on the planet so that we can provide beef to tourists? :shock: Come on, that is on the same level as the "sound science" arguement. :roll: Your best market in the whole area is tourism? Tourism? Geeeeeeze.

{Geeeeeeze, Sandhusker, our market already is open to those cattle, and at no tariff, while our cattle going there are highly taxed. CAFTA will change that scenario. This is truly a no-brainer! For those not afraid to trade, that is. MRJ}

This whole thing is simply supplying the multi-nationals with another source for cheap beef so they can bypass US markets. (and with no COOL and a USDA stamp, get away with it completely) Their producers are not a bunch of primitives living in mud huts - notice how they are AIing and already exporting half of their production? Their cattle is NOT what you see walking around the streets of Calcutta. They've got good grass and cheap labor, subsidized vaccines (some illegal here), but we need to open up to them completely so we can feed the tourists?

 

[Mike]

Cotton and Sugar, powerful lobby groups, big bucks involved. Cattlemen are way more independent.

yep, and here we had the chance to stand united and it was sabotaged by one group, and their animal activist friends!

Give it a rest Murg, we get your point. Enough! 8) :wink:

 

[Murgen]

Mike, tell this to the people that are posting releases every day and hurting both our industrys!

I'm venting, that's okay isn't it.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman: "Once again, if you actually knew anything on this deal, you wouldn't ask such silly questions. You sure are vocal on an issue you don't know much about."

Quit diverting AGAIN!

2nd time, what is to stop any country from funneling their beef thru the Central American countries and have it counted as allowable under CAFTA now?

Answer the question!




~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandman: "Once again, if you actually knew anything on this deal, you wouldn't ask such silly questions. You sure are vocal on an issue you don't know much about."

Quit diverting AGAIN!

2nd time, what is to stop any country from funneling their beef thru the Central American countries and have it counted as allowable under CAFTA now?

Answer the question!




~SH~

Didn't you mention something about a current QUOTA?

 

[Anonymous]

Here's a recap before you drift off into another diversion Sandman!


READ CAREFULLY........

Sandman (previous): "I guess the NCBA never mentioned that CAFTA will allow any country to funnel their beef thru the Central American countries and have it be counted as allowable under CAFTA?"

SH (in response): "What's to stop them from doing that now if that's what they wanted to do?"

Sandman (diverting to keep from heading up the tree again): "Didn't you mention something about a current QUOTA?"

The Tarriff Rate Quota for these countries has never been met which defeats your original argument!

Then you have the arrogance to say.......

"Once again, if you actually knew anything on this deal, you wouldn't ask such silly questions. You sure are vocal on an issue you don't know much about."

It's obvious who doesn't have a clue what they are talking about on the issue of CAFTA. You and your R-CULT buddies as always.

If the TRQ had been met, it would be a deterrant to countries funneling their beef thru Central American which would totally defeat your original argument.

TREED AGAIN!!!!!!!!!

In fact, you couldn't be more treed!


From NCBA's fact sheet on this issue and you are more than welcome to challenge the accuracy of any of it.

The CAFTA agreement includes an agricultural safeguard provision that should there be import surges form the CAFTA-DR nations, the U.S. cattle and beef industry is protected. The agreement outlines specific levels at which these provisions automatically kick in. We do not give up or loose any of these provisions in CAFTA-DR.

Current trade rules under the Caribbean Basin Initiative allow for live cattle to be shipped to a CAFTA-DR nation, processed, and then shipped to the U.S. as beef or beef products from that CAFTA-DR nation. CAFTA-DR does not change this provision, called rule of origin. It is the same rule or origin that exists in our other trade agreements such as ones with Chile, Singapore, Morocco, and Australia.

If Brazil and Argentina wanted to exploit these trade rules, they could be doing so today. In fact, we (NCBA) looked as far back as 1995 at the live cattle import data from Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic, and the CAFTA-DR countries did not even import one animal from South America - that means no "transshipment" from Brazil and Arentina as some fear.

Cattlemen in the CAFTA-DR countries do not want to put their own herds and livelihoods at risk by importing animals from countries known to have foot and mouth disease. It just doesn't make good animal health sense or business sense.


This issue illustrates so completely why I am an NCBA member and why I detest R-CULT and their relentless lies.

I don't care what issue it is, if I want the truth I'll get it from NCBA. If I won't fabricated bullsh*t lies, I'll get that from listening to R-CULT.

Keep following the R-CULT pied pipers Sandman!



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "The CAFTA agreement includes an agricultural safeguard provision that should there be import surges form the CAFTA-DR nations, the U.S. cattle and beef industry is protected. The agreement outlines specific levels at which these provisions automatically kick in. We do not give up or loose any of these provisions in CAFTA-DR."

WRONG! There are no protections from import surges for the US. In fact, there are protections for two of the countries, but NOT THE US. :roll:

SH, "Current trade rules under the Caribbean Basin Initiative allow for live cattle to be shipped to a CAFTA-DR nation, processed, and then shipped to the U.S. as beef or beef products from that CAFTA-DR nation. CAFTA-DR does not change this provision, called rule of origin. It is the same rule or origin that exists in our other trade agreements such as ones with Chile, Singapore, Morocco, and Australia."

THIS IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT NEED TO BE CHANGED!

SH, "If Brazil and Argentina wanted to exploit these trade rules, they could be doing so today. In fact, we (NCBA) looked as far back as 1995 at the live cattle import data from Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic, and the CAFTA-DR countries did not even import one animal from South America - that means no "transshipment" from Brazil and Arentina as some fear."

So if they haven't in the past, that guarantees they won't in the future? :wink:

SH, "Cattlemen in the CAFTA-DR countries do not want to put their own herds and livelihoods at risk by importing animals from countries known to have foot and mouth disease. It just doesn't make good animal health sense or business sense."

And I guess these countries are doing nothing to get rid of F&M? :roll:

You just keep listening to your leaders, SH. They are doing so many things that help the cow/calf man.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman: "WRONG! There are no protections from import surges for the US. In fact, there are protections for two of the countries, but NOT THE US."

Quit lying Sandman! You're making sh*t up again!

Quote: "Current trade rules under the Caribbean Basin Initiative allow for live cattle to be shipped to a CAFTA-DR nation, processed, and then shipped to the U.S. as beef or beef products from that CAFTA-DR nation. CAFTA-DR does not change this provision, called rule of origin. It is the same rule or origin that exists in our other trade agreements such as ones with Chile, Singapore, Morocco, and Australia."

Sandman (in response): "THIS IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT NEED TO BE CHANGED!"

Oh, so now you are going to tell Central America how they should conduct trade too huh?

Nothing surprises me from you R-CULTers anymore.

You said:

Sandman (previous): "I guess the NCBA never mentioned that CAFTA will allow any country to funnel their beef thru the Central American countries and have it be counted as allowable under CAFTA?"

That statement was flat wrong.

CAFTA would not allow any country to funnel their beef thru the Central American countries because they can do that now. CAFTA has nothing to do with that assertion.

You won't admit you are wrong because you are too damned arrogant. Instead you divert with an unrelated statement like the deceptive R-CULTer you are.


Perhaps you'd like to divert back to the Creekstone issue because you are in way over your head again.



~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman: "WRONG! There are no protections from import surges for the US. In fact, there are protections for two of the countries, but NOT THE US."

Quit lying Sandman! You're making sh*t up again!



~SH~

SH- Is that why the US Ag Dept. and the Administration has offered to pay government subsidies ( your and my taxpayer money) to the Central American farmers to keep them from selling sugar to the US-- in exchange for the sugar state legislators to vote in favor of CAFTA? :???: And only for the duration of the current farm bill.....Then after that its everyone on their own- even if we loose a sugar beet industry and the farmers that have invested heavily in it.......

That doesn't sound like protections- sounds like bribery....

Some of the big money corporates must stand to make a bundle off someones back.......

 

[Anonymous]

"The CAFTA agreement includes an agricultural safeguard provision that should there be import surges form the CAFTA-DR nations, the U.S. cattle and beef industry is protected. The agreement outlines specific levels at which these provisions automatically kick in. We do not give up or loose any of these provisions in CAFTA-DR."

Leave it to you decievers to divert to another commodity (sugar)!


~SH~

 

[Tommy]

SH...You were obviously unaware that these countries have unfettered access to U.S. markets now. In contrast, we have high tarriffs we are paying to export to them.

Why the heck would you object to reducing tarriffs to these export markets that currently have unfettered access to U.S. markets?

Question Scott. If these countries have unfettered access to the US market and we have to pay high tarriffs to have access to theirs, why are the governments of those countries willing to give up a substantial amount of money to let our products in?

 

[Anonymous]

T: "Question Scott. If these countries have unfettered access to the US market and we have to pay high tarriffs to have access to theirs, why are the governments of those countries willing to give up a substantial amount of money to let our products in?"

That's a good question Tommy!

I don't know what their position is.

I bet R-CULT is trying to talk them out of it though.


~SH~