• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

The Hell with Nafta,aint worth the paper its wrote on.

Help Support Ranchers.net:

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Why should the U.S. open its border to OTM Canadian cattle? -- when other countries will not accept beef from Canada -- and this new rule will keep the export markets of the U.S. closed to our biggest importers, Japan and South Korea?

Why allow a country to ship 70% of its production to the United States just to lower the prices that processors pay? Canadian cattle are used as captive supply by the processors.

Why ignore the *OIE* guidelines to make Canada a minimal risk area, and why claim to follow the OIE guidelines if they are to be ignored to accommodate one country?

Why does the USDA ignore all input from producers in this country?

The big problems are the overproduction in Canada and the captive supply tactics of the big packers.

I do everything possible to produce quality feeder cattle,only to see my price driven down by canadian cattle & cheap imports.

This border reopening has caused divisiveness among beef producers in this country. These cattle should all meet the requirements for the animal identification program being worked on by the USDA, and the meat product should be labeled as to country of origin (COOL) as will be required by law.
I believe it is the crime of the century that our foods aren't labeled as to country of origin at the retail level, and that so many well-funded lobbyists work expressly to prevent consumers from having that knowledge.

Canada has never been a good trading partner ... look at their tactics to keep U.S. feeder cattle from going north. .........................good luck

PS added to subtracted from by yours truly,Hay Maker :wink:
get involved folks you can make a differnce,support the folks that support you. R CALF "The Cattle Man's choice"
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Pssst......news for you Haymaker. Tell your source that arguement is old and outdated. Japan opened to US and Canadian beef simultaneously, just as predicted by everyone except your Gods at R-Calf.
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Bill said:
Pssst......news for you Haymaker. Tell your source that arguement is old and outdated. Japan opened to US and Canadian beef simultaneously, just as predicted by everyone except your Gods at R-Calf.



Pssst......I dont think so,aint there a lil thang called "OTM"............good luck
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
The big problems are the overproduction in Canada and the captive supply tactics of the big packers.

Would it make you happy if we went to a supply managed system, or are you against that too? You probably wouldn't go to the WTO over that would you?
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
HAY MAKER said:
Bill said:
Pssst......news for you Haymaker. Tell your source that arguement is old and outdated. Japan opened to US and Canadian beef simultaneously, just as predicted by everyone except your Gods at R-Calf.



Pssst......I dont think so,aint there a lil thang called "OTM"............good luck
As long as there is a single Canadian product kept out of the US market you want to claim victory don't you. Better check the date on you clip and past next time. :roll:
 

Kathy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
837
Reaction score
0
Location
Home on the Range, Alberta
A friend sent me this article a few days ago. It is about another piece of paper.

After Capital Hill Blue released the story about Bush's outburst referring to the U.S. Constiturion as a "G-dd-amned piece of paper," there has been an outpouring of demands for the journal to reveal its sources so that they can ostensibly be grilled by the neo-con worshippers for letting slip how much Bush is losing it.

The truth is though that this demand for sources is complete smokescreen and spin to try to discredit an alternative news site which on every occaision is proven right about its initial reports. Each story CHB has published about Bush's cursing, tantrums and violent outburts which came from annonymouse sources have been later cooberated by mainstream news outlets such as the New York Daily News.

The suplimental spin on the story is to redirect the outrage away from the context of Bush's statement to the President's language itself. The controversy becomes his use of an expletive rather than the fact that he is stomping on the greatest symbol of our republic. Everyone is clining to the curse words but the really damaging element of Bush's tantrum is that it reveals that he is aware that he is destroying everything printed on that "piece of paper."

The neo-cons must not have their way and spin this seven ways to Sunday. We must remind people that whats at stake here is not the president's use of profanity but that we have an immature manchild at the figurative helm of the nation who is knowingly crushing our God-given rights to enhance his power (and the power of his masters).

Every time we publish a major story that puts some elected official in a bad light we get a chorus of boos from detractors who claim everything we publish is garbage and/or just a figment of an overactive imagination.

From 1994 until 2001, when Bill Clinton led the follies at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the cackle of disapproval came from hardcore Democrats who couldn’t believe we would dare question the actions of their beloved President.

Since 2001, the rabid right-wing packed the cheap seats and showered us with catcalls because we uncovered the many misdeeds of George W. Bush and the questionable Republican leadership of Congress.

Oh, we still get raspberries from the lefties. They remember what we wrote about Clinton and we still go after Democrats who screw up. To partisans, anyone who doesn’t write from a politically-biased point of view is automatically suspect.

Our latest story on President Bush’s disrespectful comments on the Constitution (“it’s just a goddamned piece of paper”) brought the usual flurry of emails from readers who wanted to let us know that (insert name of web site here) is (pick one) “questioning your integrity/calling you a clown/saying your web site is a joke/etc.”

Often, when we check into who’s calling us what we find the questions come from an anonymous poster on a bulletin board or a partisan blogger who publishes under a nom de plume. They question both our use of anonymous sources and the credibility of those sources.

There is a laughable irony that comes from some keyboard commando who hides behind an anonymous “handle” criticizing us for publishing a story that uses anonymous sources.

The first journalism award I won, a Feature Writing First Place from The Virginia Press Association in 1967, came from a story about an anonymous teenager in Roanoke who obtained an abortion that was illegal at the time. I’ve won more than 30 journalism awards over the last 38 years and about half of them for stories that depended heavily on anonymous sources.

In a political system where retaliation rules, you can’t expose corruption or misdeeds by depending entirely on those willing to allow use of their names. Without anonymous sources, the truth about Watergate would never have emerged. The Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting most often goes to a newspaper story or series of stories that depends heavily on use of anonymous sources.

We put our reputation on the line every time we publish a story that depends on information from anonymous sources. Sometimes we get burned and when we do we admit it publicly, take our well-deserved lumps, and move on.

In 2003, we published reports that intelligence professionals had raised doubts about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and questioned claims of a link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Our detractors claimed we made the whole thing up. Two years later, we were proven right.

Last year, when we published reports on the President’s increasing temper tantrums, the doubters again claimed the reports were fantasy. Yet mainstream media outlets reported the same thing this year. We were right…and we got it first.

We were the first news outlet to identify the names of women who claimed sexual abuse by Bill Clinton when he was attorney general and later governor of Arkansas. We were the first news outlet to report on the ethical problems of many members of Congress in our series: America’s Criminal Class: The Congress of the United States. And we were the first to report on the abuse of underage girls on teen model web sites. Links to all of these award-winning stories can be found on our home page.

That doesn’t mean you should take everything we print as gospel. Never do that with us or any other news source. Do your own research and reach your own conclusions. And consider the record of the sources you use for news and information. We’ve published more than 25,000 stories since going online on October 1, 1994, and we’ve had to retract two of them. That’s a record I’m willing to stand on.

So the next time somebody calls Capitol Hill Blue a “garbage site” or claims I’m a clown, ask them for their qualifications and background. Did they get their information from credible sources or some anonymous poster on a partisan bulletin board or a blogger with a political ax to grind?

My bio can be found on this link. I put my name on everything I write. And I stand behind what I write. I’m an arrogant, stubborn, driven bastard who takes no prisoners and backs down from no one.

When I’m wrong, I admit it. Thankfully, I haven’t had to do that very often.

When I’m right I don’t give a damn who doesn’t like it or what they say about it.

An editor who taught me a lot once said: “If you piss off both sides you’re doing your job.”

That’s good enough for me.
 

cowzilla

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
363
Reaction score
0
Location
east of kato
Haymaker is right we ,re producing way to much gas and oil and thats depressing the american markets :!: We should just turn off those taps :D :D Oh Ya another thing thanks to your overproduction of corn and flooding the markets I can,t get more than $2.00 for my barley.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
GOOD OLD NAFTA-

-----------------------------------------------
Canada Ratchets Up Trade Issues
By Marlys Miller (Wednesday, December 21, 2005)


Feedgrain just got more expensive in Canada. Last week, the Canadian Border Services Agency has elected to enact a preliminary duty on unprocessed U.S. corn imports from the United States. Effective immediately, $1.65 (U.S.) per bushel will be added to those imports.

This action is in response to a complaint that corn producers in Ontario, Manitoba and Quebec filed, citing that U.S. corn producers receive subsidizes and export corn at prices below production cost. Two duties are actually imposed-- 58 cents per bushel for dumping (selling below costs) and a $1.07 countervailing duty (to address governmental subsidies).

Final hearings are scheduled for March and April.

These new duties aren't likely to impact U.S. corn prices, but will have a major impact on Canadian corn prices, as well as spillover cost effects on other feedgrains such as wheat and barley. As Ron Plain, University of Missouri ag economist points out, Canada imported 93 million bushels of corn in 2004-- most of which came from the United States. That's actually less than 1 percent of that year's corn crop, but 26 percent of Canada's corn production.

"At $1.65 per bushel, this new duty is likely to stop the movement of unprocessed corn from the United States to Canada," notes Plain. A shortage of 90 million to 100 million bushels of corn in Canada could raise Canadian corn prices by more than $1 per bushel, he adds.

According to the Canadian Pork Council, the new duties could add $20 or more to their producers' cost of producing a slaughter hog.

The catch is that the corn duties will push Canadian producers' breakeven higher, which could put them at risk of U.S. trade action on hogs that they send south.

“This hits Manitoba hog farmers just like a lump of coal in their Christmas stocking," notes a Manitoba Pork Council representative. “When you increase our production cost, you also increase our dumping margin," They could end up paying more for corn, then face a trade challenge on live hogs that they export.

As Plain points out, if the duties remain in place for an extended period or if other imports-- corn from China, sorghum, DDGS or complete feed imports-- don't fill the need, then the United States could see feeder pigs and other livestock shipments increase from Canada.

"The Canadian hog industry nearly doubled in size during the past decade," notes Plain. "This new Canadian duty has the potential to make it shrink as fast as it grew."



 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
cowzilla said:
Haymaker is right we ,re producing way to much gas and oil and thats depressing the american markets :!: We should just turn off those taps :D :D Oh Ya another thing thanks to your overproduction of corn and flooding the markets I can,t get more than $2.00 for my barley.


As you have seen before, oil and energy is inelastic. You can get away with it when there are "tight" supplies.

Free trade deals go both ways. When they don't, trade wars develop. Same thing with honesty. Both can blow up in your face when you are not fair and credible.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hayseed,

Who did you quote this time?

Those aren't your words. Didn't you learn your lesson about claiming other's quotes as your own.

I'll bet you're also the one who voted multiple times on Sandbag's stupid polls too aren't you?


~SH~
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
~SH~ said:
Hayseed,

Who did you quote this time?

Those aren't your words. Didn't you learn your lesson about claiming other's quotes as your own.

I'll bet you're also the one who voted multiple times on Sandbag's stupid polls too aren't you?


~SH~

Did'nt you learn your lesson about lieing yet?have you forgotten already that your big mouthed lies cost you $100,prove that I claimed somebody else's post or admitt you are lieing.
And while I know you would like every body to believe you can vote multiple times in a poll,you know it can not be done,because you have tried it more than once havent you prarie dawg,nope the fact of the matter is folks see you for what you are a packer parrot..........good luck & Merry Christmas boy :D
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Why should the U.S. open its border to OTM Canadian cattle? -- when other countries will not accept beef from Canada -- and this new rule will keep the export markets of the U.S. closed to our biggest importers, Japan and South Korea?

Why allow a country to ship 70% of its production to the United States just to lower the prices that processors pay? Canadian cattle are used as captive supply by the processors.

Why ignore the *OIE* guidelines to make Canada a minimal risk area, and why claim to follow the OIE guidelines if they are to be ignored to accommodate one country?

Why does the USDA ignore all input from producers in this country?

The big problems are the overproduction in Canada and the captive supply tactics of the big packers.

I do everything possible to produce quality feeder cattle,only to see my price driven down by canadian cattle & cheap imports.

This border reopening has caused divisiveness among beef producers in this country. These cattle should all meet the requirements for the animal identification program being worked on by the USDA, and the meat product should be labeled as to country of origin (COOL) as will be required by law.
I believe it is the crime of the century that our foods aren't labeled as to country of origin at the retail level, and that so many well-funded lobbyists work expressly to prevent consumers from having that knowledge.

Hayboy,

Did you write this?

Yes or No?



~SH~
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
~SH~ said:
Why should the U.S. open its border to OTM Canadian cattle? -- when other countries will not accept beef from Canada -- and this new rule will keep the export markets of the U.S. closed to our biggest importers, Japan and South Korea?

Why allow a country to ship 70% of its production to the United States just to lower the prices that processors pay? Canadian cattle are used as captive supply by the processors.

Why ignore the *OIE* guidelines to make Canada a minimal risk area, and why claim to follow the OIE guidelines if they are to be ignored to accommodate one country?

Why does the USDA ignore all input from producers in this country?

The big problems are the overproduction in Canada and the captive supply tactics of the big packers.

I do everything possible to produce quality feeder cattle,only to see my price driven down by canadian cattle & cheap imports.

This border reopening has caused divisiveness among beef producers in this country. These cattle should all meet the requirements for the animal identification program being worked on by the USDA, and the meat product should be labeled as to country of origin (COOL) as will be required by law.
I believe it is the crime of the century that our foods aren't labeled as to country of origin at the retail level, and that so many well-funded lobbyists work expressly to prevent consumers from having that knowledge.

Hayboy,

Did you write this?

Yes or No?



~SH~


Whoa back pedalling so soon sh? I was sure you were gonna prove to everyone I claimed this as my own,that is what you said?...........good luck
 

Latest posts

Top