TYSON Big CAFTA Backer

[Anonymous]

Surprise Surprise- I see in this except from an article where Tyson Foods is a big CAFTA push :wink: ...Since few in those Central American countries can afford steaks- I wonder where they think they'll gain- couldn't be importing into the US and Canada cheap unmarked South and Central American beef and passing it off as US product, could it??

Now I see why NCBA is so strongly backing CAFTA- If Tyson tells them to jump- they ask how high!!

Corporate money is flowing on The Hill like water.....
-------------------------------
Backing From Corporate One-worlders

The Bush White House and its pro-CAFTA contingent in Congress have received indispensable support in the push for CAFTA from the Business Roundtable, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and other industry groups dominated by corporate globalists associated with the Council on Foreign Relations. AT&T, the Bechtel Group, Coca-Cola, Ford Motor, Hewlett-Packard, Home Depot, IBM, Tyson Foods, and Xerox are but a few of the corporate heavyweights propelling the CAFTA bandwagon. Employing deceptive rhetoric laced with false appeals to "free market" and "free trade" principles, they have lured many Republicans and conservatives into supporting trade pacts that amount to major subsidies by U.S. taxpayers and consumers for the participating corporations and foreign governments.

 

[Brad S]

I guess I'm a corporate schill also. CAFTA can be a win win situation, and isolationism/protectionism is an absolute losing situation. No matter what, we can't go back to the 50s economy, but if you really think about it, that's what protectionism is looking for. Adapt and survive, don't and become France.

 

[CattleCo]

Now I see why NCBA is so strongly backing CAFTA- If Tyson tells them to jump- they ask how high!!
Oldtimer I am agreeing with you on this one......POOR PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE MONEY TO BUY OUR STUFF!!! Brazil and most of South America is going to use it to "laundry" ethanol and what ever into the US.....guess GW wants to have cheap Corn. I see nothing to gain froma CAFTA as it is written! I was born and raised a Republican, but the Bush guy is putting a heck of a strain on the rope!!!! :???: :shock: :shock:

 

[Anonymous]

What bothers me about the corporates and the corporate backers is their hypocrisy at times...We constantly hear about allowing trade to operate without government intervention- and free and open trade- but the corporations are the first to jump in and get a law passed to protect their own turf......And they are getting to the point where they control DC with the big bucks....

US citizens found they could buy prescription drugs cheaper in Canada and immediatley the pharmaceutical giants were clammoring for the government to outlaw it and shut it down- then US farmers found they could buy chemicals (spray) in Canada cheaper- again it was outlawed and some farmers were made into criminals....Now you can buy certain chemicals (Ivermectin) in the US for 1/5 what they pay in Canada- Canadians have been coming down in droves to buy what costs them $500 for $90 down here- but now the chemical companies are asking the governments to outlaw that....

Sounds more like government of the corporation, by the corporation, and for the corporation...

We definitely do have the best government(s) money can buy......

 

[Anonymous]

OT: "Since few in those Central American countries can afford steaks- I wonder where they think they'll gain- couldn't be importing into the US and Canada cheap unmarked South and Central American beef and passing it off as US product, could it??"

Typical R-CULT cloned rhetoric!

If cheap umarked South American beef were being imported through Central America, THEY COULD DO IT RIGHT NOW WITHOUT CAFTA!!!!

CAFTA does not change that!

As far as the concern about Central American imports, these countries don't meet their TRQ's now OT. SO WHERE'S THE PROBLEM?????

ONCE AGAIN, OT IS JUST REPEATING WHAT HE HEARD AND DOESN'T HAVE A CLUE WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT!

Central America DOES NOT MEET THEIR EXPORT QUOTAS NOW.

We pay high tarriffs to Central America and they export here basically duty free. WHAT DO WE HAVE TO LOSE BY REDUCING OUR TARRIFFS WITH A FREE TRADE AGREEMENT????

Not a thing!


Cattle Co.,

U.S. Beef trade with Central America is not restricted to Central American residents, beef trade with these countries is driven by the tourism industries. Don't believe this R-CULT "sky is falling" fear mongering trade crap.



~SH~

 

[CattleCo]

SH,
We will have South American countries sliding products through Central American countries. Are you familiar with the Caribean Agreements??Maybe Beef is a no issue on the get go, but ethanol, textiles etc. CAFTA is not 100% the rosy deal it appears on the git go. Fair Trade and Free Trade for some reason end up as two different things?? Anyway, CAFTA will pass and we can all wait for the outcome. I am sure NCBA will save us all! :roll:

 

[Brad S]

OT raises the issue of undue representation due to lobbying, and we can all agree with his premis. But I don't see where this fits this trade deal.

SH is right about this streamlining what already is, and we need to get ready to compete with SA. With the exception of Venezula and Cuba, the Americas are more or less a free people. In the short run, the free trade may (ok will) help the poor countries more than the US, but over say 15 years, trade will lift all our boats. If the year 2020 brings a democratic North and South America, and most people live with human necessities, the US's own selfish interests will be advanced, to say nothing of humanity.

The best long term way to curb illegal immigration is to help those countries develope, and trade will accomplish this end.

The EU has unkind trade intentions toward the US. They're quite envious of our standard of living, and intend to consolidate much more than old Europe and creat a trade behemouth that can enforce their trade demands. The US needs to expand our trade free area to combat this.

 

[Anonymous]

Cattle Co: "We will have South American countries sliding products through Central American countries."

1. There is nothing to stop South American countries from channeling their beef through Central American now, EXCEPT CENTRAL AMERICA.

CAFTA doesn't change anything regarding South American countries shipping cattle through Central America.

That dog won't hunt!


2. We have TRQs in place and these Central American countries are not meeting that quota now.


The only thing CAFTA does is eliminate the tarriffs we are paying to export to these countries while they enjoy duty free access to our markets.

How can anyone not support CAFTA, unless they have been lied to by R-CULT, is hard to believe.



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, ". There is nothing to stop South American countries from channeling their beef through Central American now, EXCEPT CENTRAL AMERICA. CAFTA doesn't change anything regarding South American countries shipping cattle through Central America. "

WRONG. Central American countries have quotas now - they won't after CAFTA. Did you convieniently forget that? :wink:

 

[cedardell]

When looking at CAFTA you have to look at the whole trade picture and how it will change after CAFTA. Beef may be a none issue, but ethanol, and grain are not. Cargill is heavily invested in South American Agriculture and ethanol. I went to a meeting for investers in an ethanol plant at Rochelle Illinois. I gave up on the idea when I found Cargill controled the grain going in and the product coming out. Maybe it's to the advantage of cattlemen to have cheap feed and fuel. Can't argue that. But we have to pay for it. Look at the huge trade deficit. How can we continue to buy from foreign countries when we are totally devaluing the dollar? I went to buy some Tequilla last week and a bottle from Mexico cost $35 dollars. Our govt. is hoplessly broke. Head of GAO says we can't support any of our social programs and dept is skyrocketing. Our national dept is so bad we could eliminate social programs and double taxes and it still wouldn't solve the problems. This is because computers have cost us so many jobs. We don't even need accountants any more to figure our taxes. Even IRS outsources all of it's accounting. We have so much of a problem that CAFTA doesn't even rate discussion. Unless we can balance our books and trade the US is dead in the water!!!!! What all the free trade (the big sucking sound) has done is make that imposible. Our deficit is like a dam that has burst and we can do nothing to stop it. I don't give a damn about what about what some "head up their ass" economists say the US is dead in the water. If any of you "head in your ass" economists don't believe me then tell me how are you going to solve the mushrooming twin deficits? Then tell me what it will cost us all. Are all us cattle producers supposed to pay off all of Uncle Sam's credit card depts even if his spending is mushrooming? We're even importing more people to build more dept cause it makes economy look good. What a farce. We house them in high density housing clustered on the best farmland on the world and then expect farmers to pay for all this. What a farce. The only thing I can think of that may help is to go to Willie Nelson's concert next week and raise hell. He know's more about economics that all the "head up your ass economists" in the whole country. That includes Bush's advisors.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman: "WRONG. Central American countries have quotas now - they won't after CAFTA. Did you convieniently forget that?"

NO SANDMAN, YOU ARE WRONG, AS USUAL!!!!!!!!!

First, these countries aren't meeting their quotas now.

Second, If the quota is ever filled, the CAFTA-DR agreement would allow for limited country specific access for Costa Rica 10,340 mt; El Salvador 100 mt; Honduras 500 mt; Nicaragua 10,000 mt; Dominican Republic 1,320 mt.

CAFTA-DR does contain an agricultural safegaurd mechanism which would protect the U.S. industry against excessive surges in imports if necessary.

Like always, you have no clue what you are talking about.



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "CAFTA-DR does contain an agricultural safegaurd mechanism which would protect the U.S. industry against excessive surges in imports if necessary."

WRONG. There is an existing safeguard that CAFTA will do away with.

SH, just what do cattlemen have to gain from this? Don't tell me the restaurant business - we both know that in the scheme of things, that is but a pittance. All we are doing is buying competiton. The US soybean industry did that with Brazil. Look how that "investment" is working. NAFTA showed us that we wont' be h elping them. This won't help the regular folks down there, it won't help US cattlemen, why do you think you're in favor of it?

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman: "WRONG. There is an existing safeguard that CAFTA will do away with."

SANDMAN YOU ARE FLAT WRONG ABOUT THIS!

CAFTA does not do away with the import safegaurds.

Sandman: "SH, just what do cattlemen have to gain from this?"

These countries have free access to our markets yet we pay a 40% export tarriff to them. CAFTA-DR would eliminate the heavy tarriffs we pay. We have nothing to lose.

Every argument you "isolationists" throw out against CAFTA has proven to be false. Big surprise there!



~SH~

 

[Mike]

Sandman: "WRONG. There is an existing safeguard that CAFTA will do away with."

SANDMAN YOU ARE FLAT WRONG ABOUT THIS!

CAFTA does not do away with the import safegaurds.

Sandman: "SH, just what do cattlemen have to gain from this?"

These countries have free access to our markets yet we pay a 40% export tarriff to them. CAFTA-DR would eliminate the heavy tarriffs we pay. We have nothing to lose.

Every argument you "isolationists" throw out against CAFTA has proven to be false. Big surprise there!
~SH~

First of all, if what you state is true, then why all the controversy over Cafta. If that were all there is to it, it's a no brainer.
I have not studied Cafta, nor read anything concerning the issue. Just what I hear on the news and it is probably distorted.
I am not familiar with "export tarriffs". When you say "we" pay a 40% export tarriff to them, who is the "we"? And do "we" pay it to the goverment of, say, Timbuktu?

All I know is "import tarriffs" are charged to me personally when I order some products from overseas. When they hit the dock my broker pays for the goods and tarriffs, and drafts my bank account for it.

 

[Anonymous]

Mike: "First of all, if what you state is true, then why all the controversy over Cafta."

Because the R-CALF isolationists are afraid to trade. They don't understand trade so they are against it. That's why Bullard said "we'd be in a very favorable position without an export market because we don't produce enough beef to satisfy our own domestic market now" and that's why he told Texas producers "they didn't need an export market to distribute their production".

They don't want trade so they do whatever they can to sabotage any trade effort. They apparently believe we are better off taking $40 less per head for our cattle. I'm still waiting for their whiz bang plan to market livers, tongues, oxtails, etc. domestically.

Mike: "If that were all there is to it, it's a no brainer."

It is a "no brainer" and it takes "no brains" R-CALF to oppose it.

Mike: "I have not studied Cafta, nor read anything concerning the issue. Just what I hear on the news and it is probably distorted."

If your only source of news comes from R-CULT, there is no question it's distorted.

Do some research on the issue.

Mike: "I am not familiar with "export tarriffs". When you say "we" pay a 40% export tarriff to them, who is the "we"? And do "we" pay it to the goverment of, say, Timbuktu?"

We pay tarriffs AS HIGH AS 40%. That's not to say every tarriff to every CAFTA country receives 40%. It's basically a tax charged by these countries to export to them.


~SH~

 

[Mike]

Mike: "First of all, if what you state is true, then why all the controversy over Cafta."

Because the R-CALF isolationists are afraid to trade. They don't understand trade so they are against it. That's why Bullard said "we'd be in a very favorable position without an export market because we don't produce enough beef to satisfy our own domestic market now" and that's why he told Texas producers "they didn't need an export market to distribute their production".

They don't want trade so they do whatever they can to sabotage any trade effort. They apparently believe we are better off taking $40 less per head for our cattle. I'm still waiting for their whiz bang plan to market livers, tongues, oxtails, etc. domestically.

Mike: "If that were all there is to it, it's a no brainer."

It is a "no brainer" and it takes "no brains" R-CALF to oppose it.

Mike: "I have not studied Cafta, nor read anything concerning the issue. Just what I hear on the news and it is probably distorted."

If your only source of news comes from R-CULT, there is no question it's distorted.

Do some research on the issue.

Mike: "I am not familiar with "export tarriffs". When you say "we" pay a 40% export tarriff to them, who is the "we"? And do "we" pay it to the goverment of, say, Timbuktu?"

We pay tarriffs AS HIGH AS 40%. That's not to say every tarriff to every CAFTA country receives 40%. It's basically a tax charged by these countries to export to them.


~SH~

Back off your R-Calf thing for one moment. Please. Who is the "WE"? Is it the packer, distributor, the government?

On an import tarriff......."I" (the distributor) pay the tarriff to the exporter (manufacturer usually) and he in turn pays his government the money I paid him towards the tarriff. It's like a sales tax.

If the "export tarriff" you are speaking of is lifted, then the governments involved in CAFTA (and also receiving export tarriffs) will receive less money, period.

Question:
How will the recipient goverments charging these "export tarriffs", replace the funds they are receiving? These are not necessarily wealthy countries, you know.

You don't just give up something for "nothing"!

 

[Anonymous]

Mike: "Who is the "WE"? Is it the packer, distributor, the government?"

The "WE" is whoever is exporting the product. It really doesn't matter who pays the tarriff, the buck invariably stops at the producer level.

Mike: "Question:
How will the recipient goverments charging these "export tarriffs", replace the funds they are receiving? These are not necessarily wealthy countries, you know."

I don't know and really don't care. Not my concern!


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "They don't want trade so they do whatever they can to sabotage any trade effort. They apparently believe we are better off taking $40 less per head for our cattle."

NCBA apparently believes we are better off taking $175 less per head for our cattle. :roll: Why don't they want to trade with Japan?

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman: "NCBA apparently believes we are better off taking $175 less per head for our cattle. Why don't they want to trade with Japan?"

You have offered no proof that Japan would take our beef if it was tested.

You got nothing more than the last time you threw this same old shoe out the door.

FYI, nobody supports the efforts to resume trade with Japan more than NCBA. R-CULT's lies about the safety of Canadian beef and their demands for a 7 year ban only muddies the waters with Japan.


~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

What's your point Reader?

I guess we should be thankful that Mexicans are willing to do this hard meat processing work for the wages they receive or your food prices might be higher than they are and/or our cattle prices lower than they are.


~SH~