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

Too bad we don't listen to our intelligent predecessors

Help Support Ranchers.net:

the chief

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 17, 2005
Messages
385
Reaction score
0
Location
midwest
Thomas Jefferson, who said in 1779, "to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical."
 

Jinglebob

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
5,962
Reaction score
0
Location
Western South Dakota
That is a great quote!

Unfortunatly, if you can get the other guy down and make him help pay your costs, at his detriment, then most will do so.

The checkoff, to me, is a form of taxation without representation. Didn't we have a war over something like that, some years back? :mad:
 

alabama

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
1,743
Reaction score
0
Location
Alabama
Jinglebob :”The check-off, to me, is a form of taxation without representation. Didn't we have a war over something like that, some years back?”

I feel the same that it is taxation without representation. However, the Supreme Court of the United States saw it different. The Check-off has been one of the best things for the beef business in a long time. I have always supported it.
My worries or more to the root of constantly increasing power of the federal government. Do we truly live in a government “By the people and for the people?” Or has it become a government by business and for big business?
 

CattleCo

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
543
Reaction score
0
A dollar a head is nothing compared to what we get for that buck! Yes they need to make more prudent decisions, but the CHECK OFF has done a lot of GOOD! I assume you can apply to gfet your money back if you do not want to support the deal.......
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,609
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
JB, the vote of cattle producers that created the Beef Checkoff was a 79.?%, which made it virtually an 80% approval rate. Call it a tax if you like, but what other tax can you name which passed at such a rate and after many years STILL has the approval of 70% of those who pay into it? So, how can you say anyone is "getting the other guy down and making him help pay your costs"?

Why not learn more about the checkoff, and give some of your time to working with it if you have ideas you would like to see achieved? At the least, you could take a little time and email the SD Beef Council, or the CBB at beefboard.org to find out more about it, tell them what you don't like, or tell them what you would like to see done with the money.

I'm sorry if you are one who cannot see that there is benefit to the cow/calf producer, or even the land-owner who leases his pastures out from the beef checkoff. I'm even sorrier that those who are against the checkoff have to benefit from it against their will!

MRJ
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
JB: "The checkoff, to me, is a form of taxation without representation."

I suppose to someone who didn't know anything about checkoff accountability it would be.

For those who are more than sideline critics and actually shape the process, nothing could be further from the truth.

This checkoff decision is one more defeat for the blamers!


Strike One - Dumping case against Canada
Strike Two - Pickett vs. IBP
Strike Three - Checkoff decision at supreme court level.


I've said it before and I'll say it again. I do have to give some merit to the blamer's argument of being forced to benefit from the beef checkoff against their will. I wish we could allow them to wither on the vine without the benfits of beef promotion, education, and research.

For some to suggest the beef checkoff allows foreign beef a "free ride" shows just how ignorant some producers really are.


~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The vote now on Ag-Talk for if you agree with the Supreme Court Decision is NO-99 (61%) YES- 60 (37%) NOT SURE-3 (2%)......
 

Jinglebob

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
5,962
Reaction score
0
Location
Western South Dakota
MRJ said:
JB, the vote of cattle producers that created the Beef Checkoff was a 79.?%, which made it virtually an 80% approval rate. Call it a tax if you like, but what other tax can you name which passed at such a rate and after many years STILL has the approval of 70% of those who pay into it? So, how can you say anyone is "getting the other guy down and making him help pay your costs"?

Why not learn more about the checkoff, and give some of your time to working with it if you have ideas you would like to see achieved? At the least, you could take a little time and email the SD Beef Council, or the CBB at beefboard.org to find out more about it, tell them what you don't like, or tell them what you would like to see done with the money.

I'm sorry if you are one who cannot see that there is benefit to the cow/calf producer, or even the land-owner who leases his pastures out from the beef checkoff. I'm even sorrier that those who are against the checkoff have to benefit from it against their will!

MRJ


Again you take my words out of context or meaning. I never said that I don't want the check off. I just don't like the way it is set up. Please refer to my other post on the other thread where I answered your question as to what I would change about the checkoff.

Any self help is a good thing if it is going in the right direction. What if people who have a branded product could get their money back to promote the product they raise? What if we could use the monies raised to buy stock in a packing plant? We tied our own hands when we set it up through our shortsightedness. I would prefer to have more options with the money. How do we change that?

So many people get angry by any dissenting vioce. We don't have to "throw the baby out with the bath water" but perhaps some improvements could be made. Would you object if it was turned over to R-Calf or some other producer oginization?
 

Jinglebob

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
5,962
Reaction score
0
Location
Western South Dakota
~SH~ said:
JB: "The checkoff, to me, is a form of taxation without representation."

I suppose to someone who didn't know anything about checkoff accountability it would be.

For those who are more than sideline critics and actually shape the process, nothing could be further from the truth.

This checkoff decision is one more defeat for the blamers!


Strike One - Dumping case against Canada
Strike Two - Pickett vs. IBP
Strike Three - Checkoff decision at supreme court level.


I've said it before and I'll say it again. I do have to give some merit to the blamer's argument of being forced to benefit from the beef checkoff against their will. I wish we could allow them to wither on the vine without the benfits of beef promotion, education, and research.

For some to suggest the beef checkoff allows foreign beef a "free ride" shows just how ignorant some producers really are.


~SH~

SH;
In the future, I would appreciate that you not answer any of my postings unless I personally address you. I don't like the way that you make innuendo from my words and try and twist their meaning and take them out of context, to suit your own private agenda.

I and probably many other understand that you don't like R-Calf and that is your priveledge. But don't try and use my postings to further your agenda and thoughts.

As you have so eloquently stated here on this site many many times. If you don't like what I write, then don't read them. It's as simple as that.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Jinglebob- Don't be too harsh on ol ~SH~...Between him and MRJ and some of ~SH~'s old alias's on the Old ranchers net they have recruited more R-CALF members than anyone else alone....

I know I was a fencerider that was disillusioned by NCBA until I got to the see their postings--Sent my dues into R-CALf and have paid them since......

I nominated ~SH~ for the R-CALF recruitment award one year, but the membership wouldn't award it to him....
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,609
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Jinglebob said:
MRJ said:
JB, the vote of cattle producers that created the Beef Checkoff was a 79.?%, which made it virtually an 80% approval rate. Call it a tax if you like, but what other tax can you name which passed at such a rate and after many years STILL has the approval of 70% of those who pay into it? So, how can you say anyone is "getting the other guy down and making him help pay your costs"?

Why not learn more about the checkoff, and give some of your time to working with it if you have ideas you would like to see achieved? At the least, you could take a little time and email the SD Beef Council, or the CBB at beefboard.org to find out more about it, tell them what you don't like, or tell them what you would like to see done with the money.

I'm sorry if you are one who cannot see that there is benefit to the cow/calf producer, or even the land-owner who leases his pastures out from the beef checkoff. I'm even sorrier that those who are against the checkoff have to benefit from it against their will!

MRJ


Again you take my words out of context or meaning. I never said that I don't want the check off. I just don't like the way it is set up. Please refer to my other post on the other thread where I answered your question as to what I would change about the checkoff.

[It was only quite lately in your posts that you said you liked some things about the checkoff, wasn't it? I wish you would tell us WHAT it is that you do not like about it. I haven't read the other post yet, so won't complain much. MRJ]

Any self help is a good thing if it is going in the right direction. What if people who have a branded product could get their money back to promote the product they raise? What if we could use the monies raised to buy stock in a packing plant?

[How would we prevent unfair competition between different groups with their own branded products, especially where one had lots of cattle and qualified for more checkoff money, and one had few cattle and only qualified to get a pittance? It is interesting, but I can see the expansion of the "ranch size" envy we deal with now rearing it's ugly head. That would have to be dealt with somehow. MRJ]

We tied our own hands when we set it up through our shortsightedness. I would prefer to have more options with the money. How do we change that?

[Isn't hindsight wonderful? The ranchers setting up the program obvioulsy did the best they could for conditions of the time, and projecting into the future. There may be more options than you think. Have you checked with the CBB or the SDBIC? CBB leaders said in news releases since the court decision, that there will be changes. I don't know anything about them. May be a good time for you to let them know your ideas. I am dead serious about that. Get to them on the internet or phone, and keep trying if you don't get hold of someone who can help you on the first try. MRJ]

So many people get angry by any dissenting vioce. We don't have to "throw the baby out with the bath water" but perhaps some improvements could be made. Would you object if it was turned over to R-Calf or some other producer oginization?

[Dissenting voices is one thing.....attempting to take over the Beef Checkoff is another. Doing some sorting a few hours ago, I found an old editorial by Steve Cornett from about a year ago. He related how LMA has been positioning itself and aggressively seeking seats on state beef boards and that they intend to control the checkoff of the future. I very strongly belive the LMA, being only the professional organization of businesses providing a service to the cattle industry, has NO place on our beef checkoff boards. The claim is they should be there because they collect the checkoff for us. Do they believe we are so gullible as to believe they do not charge us enough to completely cover the cost of handling our money for us?

As for turning the checkoff over to R-CALF or some other producer organization, NCBA does not control the checkoff. There is no requirement for NCBA membership to serve on any checkoff boards of control. The question isn't even asked. I know that there are many non-NCBA members and that there are LMA and even R-CALF members on those boards, both state and national. Hopefully all checkoff contracts are awarded on the basis of who can do the best job at the most reasonable price. Did you know that there are several other contractors besides NCBA? There is no requirement that contracts go to NCBA.

MRJ
 

Soapweed

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
16,245
Reaction score
18
Location
northern Nebraska Sandhills
Well, fellers, I guess it's time for me to wade into the fray. I am not going to completely stick up for ol' SH, because his "Chinese water torture" method of arguing grows wearisome, no doubt. But I have to give him credit, he brings up enough points to really cause a person to think. I have turned my thinking around a great deal because of what he has had to say.

On the Beef Check-off, how can any rancher be against it? It is not a tax. It is a mere pittance of a contribution. If it did absolutely no good, it wouldn't matter, because such a slight bit of money from the value of a bovine actually goes into it. However, it happens to do a great deal of good. Funds from the Check-off go into advertising, education, development of products, and just plain good public relations. On the value of a $500 calf, the one dollar is just two tenths of one percent of what the calf is worth. This is a pretty miniscule amount of money and it darned sure goes to a good cause.

For those that say we shouldn't advertise generic beef, my comment is that when beef is compared to pork, poultry, mutton, and fish, it is no longer "generic". We, as cattle producers, want to catch the eye of the hungry protein shopper. BEEF, it's what's for dinner. Not that other stuff.
 

Jinglebob

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
5,962
Reaction score
0
Location
Western South Dakota
MRJ
Who do I get ahold of and thanks for the comments.

Soapweed
Good post. I just get wearisome from SH and he tells me not to read his posts if I don't like them. How am I going to tell if I don't like them untill I read them? Granted, he's made some good points, but his rabid hatred of r-calf and his beating a dead horse gets old. It's his way or the hiway. Absolutely no give and take. I don't believe anyone is so smart as to have all of the answers!
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Soapweed, good buddy, I agree we're competing with those other protein sources (you can even add soy), but how much do you figure you make on every Canadian steak sold in this country? :wink: Agman wouldn't answer me, but I know you to be genuine.
 

Silver

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
5,149
Reaction score
24
Location
BC
Seems to me that a good beef eating experience for the consumer is the best way to get a good return customer. If that piece of beef came from north or south of the border likely matters very little, as that customer will be likely to buy beef again. And that is good for all beef producers in all countries.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
21,978
Reaction score
76
Location
Big Muddy valley
Sandhusker said:
Soapweed, good buddy, I agree we're competing with those other protein sources (you can even add soy), but how much do you figure you make on every Canadian steak sold in this country? :wink: Agman wouldn't answer me, but I know you to be genuine.



Sandhusker how much less will a northwest producer make because he has to ship cattle to nebraska to be killed because his plant that used Canadian cattle to keep operating closed?

See it's not all Black and white. The US adds value to Canadian beef and uses Canadian cattle to remain efficent.
 

Tommy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
755
Reaction score
0
Location
South East Kansas
BMR...Sandhusker how much less will a northwest producer make because he has to ship cattle to nebraska to be killed because his plant that used Canadian cattle to keep operating closed?


Why would he have to ship them all the way to Nebraska when he could ship them north of the border to one of the plants you Canadians are building?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
JB: "In the future, I would appreciate that you not answer any of my postings unless I personally address you."

If you parrot an LMA phrase like, "to me, the checkoff is a form of taxation without representation", I will respond. Count on it.

You parrot a common phrase of the checkoff critics but offer absolutely nothing to back it making the phrase as hollow as an old abandoned well.

Talk about a "follower"!

Show some originality by actually backing that statement with something of substance.

Prove that producers have no representation on the beef checkoff!

You can't and you won't!

My guess is that you are just like a dozen other checkoff critics I have quizzed who couldn't offer any examples of checkoff abuses. When asked to back their statements they just get mad.


JB: "I don't like the way that you make innuendo from my words and try and twist their meaning and take them out of context, to suit your own private agenda."

How do you "twist", "make innuendo" and "take out of context" your words regarding the checkoff being "a form of taxation without representation"????

How about backing that accusation???

Another example of just how cheap talk is!

Sounds like someone who parroted a phrase, has no intention of backing that phrase with substance, and is trying to slither around it to me!

WHAT DOES "TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION" mean if it doesn't mean that you feel you are not represented by the beef checkoff????

Provide examples to back it proving that your talk is not cheap!

My guess is that you won't back it up.

EMPTY WORDS??????

That's the problem with you JB, you want to parrot the common checkoff critic phrases without having to back it up with substance.


JB: "But don't try and use my postings to further your agenda and thoughts."

My agenda?

My agenda is truth and factual information to offset the lies and misleading information presented by R-CALF/LMA/OCM (blamers organizations).


OT: "The vote now on Ag-Talk for if you agree with the Supreme Court Decision is NO-99 (61%) YES- 60 (37%) NOT SURE-3 (2%)......"

Says absolutely nothing about the support for the beef checkoff!

The LMA couldn't even get the measely 10% producer signatures REQUIRED BY LAW to bring the checkoff to a vote despite the 33% fraudulent signatures and special petition signing events.


OT: " Jinglebob- Don't be too harsh on ol ~SH~...Between him and MRJ and some of ~SH~'s old alias's on the Old ranchers net they have recruited more R-CALF members than anyone else alone.... "

OT: "I nominated ~SH~ for the R-CALF recruitment award one year, but the membership wouldn't award it to him...."

More empty words!

You OT are nothing but a blind follower of the gospel according to R-CULT! You couldn't back your positions in a civil debate if your life depended on it.

You think a "recruiter of the year" award is going to keep me from presenting the truth to offset the lies of R-CULT? LOL!

Doesn't matter whether the issue is packer concentration, captive supplies, checkoff, country of origin labeling or any other blamer's issues. You are a follower that cannot back your position. All you can do is parrot the phrases you have heard. Some law man when you can't even think for yourself to back your position.


Soapweed: " I am not going to completely stick up for ol' SH, because his "Chinese water torture" method of arguing grows wearisome, no doubt."

Hahaha!

Amazing how some producers will accept the "chinese water torture" of Johnny Smith, Derry Browfield, Herman Schumacher, Mike Callicrate, and Bill Bullard BASED ON LIES AND MISINFORMATION repeating the same ol catch phrases day after day after day and that's not a form of "chinese water torture" but the repeated factually based responses to those empty phrases are? LOL!

Sounds like someone who struggles with defending the truth against the R-CALF boys so you have to add the "chinese water torture" disclaimer to play both sides. Take a position Soapweed! Riding the fence will only tear the crotch out of your jeans.


JB: "How am I going to tell if I don't like them untill I read them?"

Such a struggle!


JB: "Granted, he's made some good points, but his rabid hatred of r-calf and his beating a dead horse gets old. It's his way or the hiway. Absolutely no give and take. I don't believe anyone is so smart as to have all of the answers!"

When you give me a reason to compromise my position, it will be based on factual information to back your claims ("checkoff is taxation without representation") not some empty parroted phrase of the checkoff critics.


The thorns and barbs in my posts are represtentative of my intolerance for those who parrot phrases without having anything to back them.

My resentment towards R-CALF is my resentment towards their lies about the safety of Canadian beef, my resentment towards their lies about the value of trade, and my resentment towards their lies about the affects of packer concentration and captive supplies.

Day after day after day producers who want to hear market reports are subjected to unchallenged lies about NCBA, lies about the beef checkoff, and lies about the safety of Canadian beef. These lies go unchallenged everywhere but here.

If you don't like my posts, don't parrot phrases you are not prepared to back.

Does anyone notice how those who bring nothing to the table will always resort to talking about the shape of the table? They can't contradict what is stated so they talk about the manner in which it's stated. Typical!

Anyone of you has the opportunity to correct me with opposing facts at any given time or you can "safety up" and talk about the shape of the table like the rest of the "empty handed" do.


To summarize my position on the beef checkoff, if you want to get to the bottom of the issue, just ask a checkoff critic to provide an example of misuse of checkoff funds and watch the reaction!


~SH~
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Tommy said:
BMR...Sandhusker how much less will a northwest producer make because he has to ship cattle to nebraska to be killed because his plant that used Canadian cattle to keep operating closed?


Why would he have to ship them all the way to Nebraska when he could ship them north of the border to one of the plants you Canadians are building?

You are assuming that live cattle will be allowed into Canada from the U.S.
 

Latest posts

Top