• 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 Organization for Competitive Markets

Help Support Ranchers.net:

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
OCM: 2007 Farm Bill Must Address
Competition and Concentration



Lincoln, NE ~ The Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM) is launching the effort to include pro-competition provisions in the next U.S. Farm Bill. OCM joined, in a letter to Congress, more than 200 other organizations representing farmers, ranchers, consumers, labor and faith-based groups to launch this effort.
“The federal government needs to establish and enforce the rules of the marketplace,” said OCM President Keith Mudd. “Congress should focus upon increasing choice, price and entrepreneurship for America’s independent farmers.”

The USDA is now holding hearings around the country seeking comments about the next Farm Bill. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns has not included competition and market fairness among the topics of USDA concern.

“Today, a small handful of corporations dominate the nation’s food supply, and the concentration continues to accelerate. Price manipulation risks increase accordingly,” continued Mudd. “Livestock producers in some areas have only one packer available, and no competition. Poultry growers are forced into deceptive, changing contracts which take away their Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in a dispute.”

OCM is urging Congress to enact the following legislation in the 2007 Farm Bill:

Prohibition on Packer-Owned Livestock: Packer owned livestock is a major market tool for large meat packers. This practice fosters industrial livestock production and freezes independent farmers out of markets. Prohibiting packer-owned livestock addresses the problem of captive supplies, which packers use to manipulate markets.

Producer Protection Act: This legislation would set minimum standards for contract equality in agriculture by addressing the worst abuses of production contracts. The legislation would include 1) clear disclosures of producer risks; 2) prohibit confidentiality clauses; 3) prohibit binding arbitration in contracts of adjesion; 4) recapture of capital investment so that contracts that require a significant capital investment by the producer cannot be capriciously canceled without compensation; and 5) a ban on unfair trade practices including “tournament” or “ranking system” payments.

Captive Supply Reform Act: This legislation would bring secret, long-term contacts between packers and producers into the open and create a market for these contracts. The Captive Supply Reform Act would restore competition by making packers and livestock producers bid against each other to win contracts. Currently, forward contracts and marketing agreements are negotiated in secret, in a transaction where packers have all the information and power, with the end result that these contracts and agreements depress prices and shut small and independent producers out of markets.

Closing Poultry Loopholes in the Packers & Stockyards Act: USDA does not have the authority to bring enforcement actions against poultry dealers. The P & S Act omits this authority. This legislation would clarify that USDA’s authority over poultry applies not only to broiler operations, but also to growers raising pullets or breeder hens.

Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (COOL): COOL was passed as a provision of the 2002 Farm Bill. This measure allows consumers to make informed food purchases as to where the products were grown and processed. It also showcases U.S. grown and processed food products. This legislation would limit the ability of global food companies to source farm products from any country while passing them off as U.S. in origin. Meat packers and retailers have, thus far, successfully stymied efforts to implement the law. Congress should immediately implement COOL to benefit both domestic producers and consumers as intended in the current law.

“The upcoming Farm Bill represents a new chapter for America’s agricultural producers,” noted Mudd. “This is an opportunity to correct the imbalance of market power and influence. We ask Congress for nothing more than fair, competitive markets, which can be easily achieved by incorporating certain mechanisms into farm bill legislation. OCM will lead this effort in the upcoming farm bill debates.”

The Organization for Competitive Markets is an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit public policy institute working for American food producers, consumers and rural communities.



The Cattlemen’s Competitive Market Project (CCMP) is a self-help program for U.S. cattlemen, funded through voluntary contributions collected on cattle at the point of sale. Because the program is voluntary, funds may be used to promote USA RAISED (domestically produced) beef where other federally mandated programs cannot.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
"PLEASE GOVERNMENT, SAVE US FROM OURSELVES"

"PUNISH ACHIEVEMENT"

"REGULATE PROSPERITY"

"HOW DARE ANYONE BE SUCCESSFUL IF I'M NOT"


Not one piece of their agenda is justified by facts. It's all based on conspiracy theories and opinions.

What a government mandate dependant joke.



~SH~
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
The only government mandates you support are the ones that benefit packers sh** why dont you just admitt you are anti producer and pro packer.................good luck
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hayseed: "The only government mandates you support are the ones that benefit packers...."

What government mandates would that be Hayseed?

Watch this...........



~SH~
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
Watch this??????????????

Is'nt that what Superman says when he has a bad guy cornered. Only Superman knows he has an audience of millions of good guy fans watching him on the big screen, ready to jump up and cheer when he labels the bad guy with his BANG - POW - WHOOPPPEE.

Our superhero (SH) only has a few dozen fans, and a whole bunch of us bad guys sneeking around in cyberspace, afraid to challenge him with facts. Afwaayd of his name calling taktics, his fact based arguements, and his downright putdowns.

Don't say a word badguys. Democracy is all about being "With us or against us" after all.

Or is it really about powerful lobby and money. About manipulating democracy with that power and money. And labeling anyone who says that kind of crap a conspiracy theorist, a socialist, or just simply a bad guy to be rooted out by superhero's like SH.

Watch this - all right.
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
~SH~ said:
Hayseed: "The only government mandates you support are the ones that benefit packers...."

What government mandates would that be Hayseed?

Watch this...........



~SH~

The "Beef check off"
Watch this!!............................good luck
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The checkoff is a producer initiated, producer driven self help program with federal oversight. Not even close to comparable to being comparable with the communist packer ban, flawed COOL, the I need to know what price you got for your fat cattle and how you marketed them law (MPR), and all the other socialist government mandates you packer blamers support.

If there was a way to further seperate progressive from regressive without the regressives getting a free ride off the backs of the progressive producers who paid the checkoff, I would be against the mandatory beef checkoff. I hate the idea of shoring up regressives.

Since you mentioned it, how does the checkoff benefit the packers Hayseed?



~SH~
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
"PLEASE GOVERNMENT, SAVE US FROM OURSELVES"

"PUNISH ACHIEVEMENT"

"REGULATE PROSPERITY"

"HOW DARE ANYONE BE SUCCESSFUL IF I'M NOT"

There you go spouting off things you don't know anything about again. I just returned from the OCM's annual meeting in Omaha. That attitude that you describe was absent. So I guess I'll just ask you to "show us the proof" that that is what the organization is about.

Please note that Helen Chenoweth-Hage was a guest speaker and stayed through the entire meeting. She said "this is an excellent organization" (private conversation after seeing the entire meeting). She is listed in a book entitled "Great American Conservative Women" along with Ann Coulter, Phyllis Schlafly, Linda Chavez, and others. When she was in Congress she supported Randy Weaver (Ruby Ridge) and his exoneration before Congress. An avid supporter of smaller government and 2nd amendment rights.

Also speaking was Steve Farrell of NewsMax.com, a conservative limited government kind of guy. There was a lot more too.

In private conversation with many of those present I encountered far more people who had voted for George Bush than not. They appreciated many of his policies except when it came to trade and anti-trust issues. I would say that most in attendance were from the center to right side of the political spectrum. There were a few lefties there too. OCM is non-partisan.

I submit that you know very little about this organization.

So, you made a statement about OCM...........back it up! Where's the evidence?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Look no further than the legislation that they support ocm!

Actions speak louder than words.

A flawed, unenforceable country of origin labeling law when source verified branded beef prorgams in the free enterprise are light years ahead of flawed COOL in providing what consumers want. In contrast, unenforceable "M"COOL is driven by some brainless conspiracy on LARGE EVIL CORPORATE PACKERS hiding foreign beef behind a USDA grade stamp.

Left wing all the way.

The communist packer ban which would allow the government to dictate who can and who cannot own cattle and who can and who cannot bid on my feeder calves. PUNISH ACHIEVEMENT - REGULATE PROSPERITY

How could anything be more left wing than to allow the goverment to pick and chose who can and who cannot own cattle?

Mandatory Price Reporting - The government publicly discloses private information on cattle sales which is nobody's damn business but those who made the transaction.

Another left wing mandate for MORE GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION.

CAFTA which would reduce tarriffs we currently pay to Central American countries while they export to the U.S. virtually duty free WHILE NOT MEETING THEIR QUOTAS. Meanwhile OCM is rattling on about how we will give up our "sovereignty" when reduction of tarriffs as high as 40% should be their focus.

Who carried CAFTA? REPUBLICANS! Who was against CAFTA? DEMOCRATS!

A tiger can't change his stripes.

R-CALF/OCM/CCMP/LMA/FARMERS UNION all LEAN TO THE LEFT wanting more government intervention into our lives.

NCBA and FARM BUREAU lean to the right wanting less government intervention.

"PLEASE GOVERNMENT, SAVE US FROM OURSELVES", that's ocm's battle cry.

When it comes to ocm claiming "bipartisan", actions speak louder than words. TALK IS CHEAP!

Your proof is in the legislation ocm supports, ocm.




~SH~
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
R-CALF/OCM/CCMP/LMA/FARMERS UNION all LEAN TO THE LEFT wanting more government intervention into our lives.


You're on a streak with your inaccurate statements. Keep it up. People like you are our best recruiters.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ocm: "You're on a streak with your inaccurate statements. Keep it up. People like you are our best recruiters."

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz!

No, ocm your LMA manure spreaders are your best recruiters in this area.

I have recruited many away from your government mandate line of thinking and will continue to do so. Unfortunately the manure is spreading much faster than the truth at this time but the court decisions are quite revealing.

Keep making statements ocm while I provided the actual legislation that ocm supports.

Stay in your comfort zone.

It's sure a lot easier to talk about "bipartisan" than back that position with actual legislation isn't it?


~SH~
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
~SH~ said:
The checkoff is a producer initiated, producer driven self help program with federal oversight. Not even close to comparable to being comparable with the communist packer ban, flawed COOL, the I need to know what price you got for your fat cattle and how you marketed them law (MPR), and all the other socialist government mandates you packer blamers support.

If there was a way to further seperate progressive from regressive without the regressives getting a free ride off the backs of the progressive producers who paid the checkoff, I would be against the mandatory beef checkoff. I hate the idea of shoring up regressives.

Since you mentioned it, how does the checkoff benefit the packers
Hayseed?



~SH~

They benefit by having cattle men pay for their advertising their imports,
also it is unfair that producers are taxed to support the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, an organization that consistently opposes their interests, most recently on mandatory country of origin labeling, banning packer ownership of livestock, and fast track trade legislation," according to the Western Organization of Resource Councils and the Livestock Marketing Association, both of which brought the lawsuit on behalf of independent cattle producers................good luck
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hayseed: "They benefit by having cattle men pay for their advertising their imports,"

Show me a checkoff funded advertisement that advertises imported beef Hayseed.

NCBA policy division has nothing to do with the beef checkoff.


You got nothing!


~SH~
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
No, ocm your LMA manure spreaders are your best recruiters in this area.

You're on a roll.

1. I'm not associated with LMA in any way whatsoever.

2. If the LMA is such a good recruiter for you why does South Dakota have only 124 NCBA members as compared with thousands of R-CALF members?
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
HAY MAKER said:
~SH~ said:
The checkoff is a producer initiated, producer driven self help program with federal oversight. Not even close to comparable to being comparable with the communist packer ban, flawed COOL, the I need to know what price you got for your fat cattle and how you marketed them law (MPR), and all the other socialist government mandates you packer blamers support.

If there was a way to further seperate progressive from regressive without the regressives getting a free ride off the backs of the progressive producers who paid the checkoff, I would be against the mandatory beef checkoff. I hate the idea of shoring up regressives.

Since you mentioned it, how does the checkoff benefit the packers
Hayseed?



~SH~

They benefit by having cattle men pay for advertising their imports,
also it is unfair that producers are taxed to support the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, an organization that consistently opposes their interests, most recently on mandatory country of origin labeling, banning packer ownership of livestock, and fast track trade legislation," according to the Western Organization of Resource Councils and the Livestock Marketing Association, both of which brought the lawsuit on behalf of independent cattle producers................good luck
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ocm: "You're on a roll.

1. I'm not associated with LMA in any way whatsoever.

2. If the LMA is such a good recruiter for you why does South Dakota have only 124 NCBA members as compared with thousands of R-CALF members?"

I never said you were associated with the LMA in any way whatsoever.

Is having a reading comprehension problem a prerequisite to ocm membership?

I simply stated that the LMA manure spreaders in this area are your (ocm's) best recruiters because they believe the same baseless conspiracy driven allegations that you do on all the same issues.

They can't back their position any better than you can.

The reason R-CALF is so popular in this state is because the LMA manure spreaders in this state are their best recruiters. Every day they spread their lies while giving market reports which reaches far more people than the truth. Most producers are never even subjected to another side of these issues. When it comes to a open debate or in a court of law where both sides are presented and truth prevails, the blamers get their heads handed to them every time.

If more producers were exposed to the truth to offset the lies that these LMA representatives spread about packer profits, "M"COOL, captive supplies, the impact of Canadian imports, the safety of Canadian beef, etc. etc., R-CALF would not have so many members.

Their leadership is government mandate loving Democrats. Most ranchers are conservative unfortunately they don't hear the other side of these issues.

The lies and deception has simply reached more people than the truth.

Just look at R-CALF's track record.....

Dumping case against Canada - LOST
Pickett vs. IBP - LOST
Pickett vs IBP appeal - LOST
9th circuit court decision on Canadian border - LOST
CAFTA - LOST

R-CALF members that supported checkoff constitutionality challenge - LOST

R-CALF/OCM/LMA/WORC lies won't stand up in an environment where truth prevails.



~SH~
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,609
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
ocm said:
No, ocm your LMA manure spreaders are your best recruiters in this area.

You're on a roll.

1. I'm not associated with LMA in any way whatsoever.

2. If the LMA is such a good recruiter for you why does South Dakota have only 124 NCBA members as compared with thousands of R-CALF members?

Didn't you get this reversed? Some SDLMA people recruit actively for R-CALF, mostly by fabricating lies about NCBA.... frequently claiming that NCBA gets checkoff dollars "to work against you to open the Canadian border". FACT: NCBA Policy/Dues payer division gets NO checkoff dollars.
NCBA Federation of State Beef Councils division does contract work for the Cattlemens Beef Board on a cost recovery only basis....which means that any money from the beef checkoff goes directly for the work of specific projects and if the work can be achieved under budget, the money saved does not go to NCBA, but back into the CBB for other projects....absolutely NO profit goes into NCBA from the Beef checkoff.

It is admittedly difficult to recruit NCBA members among SD ranchers when "leaders" in their trusted organizations offer only mis-information and outright lies about NCBA. Another frequent one being that NCBA represents the interests of packers and others. The facts being that NCBA members want to better understand all segments and facets of the beef industry. Having packers and others as extremely minority members offers us that opportunity without giving them even a hint of control of our organization. We are able within NCBA to disagree without being disagreeable. There isn't enough of that in agriculture today!

SD farmers/ranchers have a very strong history of Farmers Union membership and the philosophy of needing someone else to take care of the "hard problems" such as government programs, regulation, etc. is a factor. The difference in philosophy of independence versus government control and assistance via the farm programs, makes it more difficult to sell memberships in an organization like NCBA. However, ranchers who see potential for success rather than seeking to blame some one for possible failure will see the value of membership in NCBA. That said, those who are producers of various crops, not just cattle, may well put their dues and effort into multi-commodity organizations like Farm Bureau. Some of us are members of both NCBA and AFBF.

MRJ
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
It looks reversed now. I think ~SH~ edited his comment.

LMA members are free to do as they wish -- even recruit for R-CALF. NCBA members could recruit for AFBF if they wished, too. Doesn't make them all ONE.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
MRJ, "It is admittedly difficult to recruit NCBA members among SD ranchers when "leaders" in their trusted organizations offer only mis-information and outright lies about NCBA. Another frequent one being that NCBA represents the interests of packers and others"

Remember the 11 point directive passed by membership and then reversed by leadership (as they sided with the big packers)? The Independent Cattlemen of Texas do. Nobody has to spread misinformation and lies about them representing the packers, it's all fresh and in the open.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandman: "The Independent Cattlemen of Texas do. Nobody has to spread misinformation and lies about them representing the packers, it's all fresh and in the open."

NCBA represents facts and truth.

I realize that doesn't jive with the packer blaming lies that you want to believe or the lies about Canadian beef being contaminated or the lies about CAFTA leading to "giving up our sovereignty to foreign rule" or all the other bullsh*t you believe and cannot support.



~SH~
 

Latest posts

Top