Worth while reading

[Anonymous]

Look at this readers, this is what a phony looks like (Conman)................

BMR: "When a company makes primal or sub primal cuts they aren't doing the final processing on those carcasses. They are fitting them to a box to be shipped for additional processing. At times when there is a excess of frontal meats chucks do get ground as that is the best use."

Conman (in response): "BMR, I already know that. I like to buy some of those boxed beef boxes and cut them up myself."

If you already knew that, why did you say:

Conman (previous): "Is Tyson so incompetent on cutting a carcass that they have to have a cattleman's funded checkoff to research and tell them how to do it?"

Which way is it? Should Tyson have been making these cuts or you already knew that they didn't?

Hahaha!

You are such a complete phony!

What's your name?


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Look at this readers, this is what a phony looks like (Conman)................

BMR: "When a company makes primal or sub primal cuts they aren't doing the final processing on those carcasses. They are fitting them to a box to be shipped for additional processing. At times when there is a excess of frontal meats chucks do get ground as that is the best use."

Conman (in response): "BMR, I already know that. I like to buy some of those boxed beef boxes and cut them up myself."

If you already knew that, why did you say:

Conman (previous): "Is Tyson so incompetent on cutting a carcass that they have to have a cattleman's funded checkoff to research and tell them how to do it?"

Which way is it? Should Tyson have been making these cuts or you already knew that they didn't?

Hahaha!

You are such a complete phony!

What's your name?


~SH~

Its either or.

 

[mrj]

Look at this readers, this is what a phony looks like (Conman)................

BMR: "When a company makes primal or sub primal cuts they aren't doing the final processing on those carcasses. They are fitting them to a box to be shipped for additional processing. At times when there is a excess of frontal meats chucks do get ground as that is the best use."

Conman (in response): "BMR, I already know that. I like to buy some of those boxed beef boxes and cut them up myself."

If you already knew that, why did you say:

Conman (previous): "Is Tyson so incompetent on cutting a carcass that they have to have a cattleman's funded checkoff to research and tell them how to do it?"

Which way is it? Should Tyson have been making these cuts or you already knew that they didn't?

Hahaha!

You are such a complete phony!

What's your name?


~SH~

Its either or.

OK, guys, lets clear this up for all of us.

Does Tyson or other packers cut up ANY meat other than simply making them into Primals, and Sub Primals to put into boxes? Do they ever sell whole carcasses to the next processor? Do they grind any meat? What are the other processors called, and how many other businesses after the 'Tysons' of this business do our cattle/beef carcasses and primal and sub primal cuts pass through?

I've been told there are about 13 different owners between the ranch and the consumers plate. Does that sound accurate?

Econ, you really need to go to the Beef Checkoff websites and study up a little. You don't understand the law well at all. You stated that:

"Soon Tyson will be claiming that they can cut out the tenderloin and claim, based on checkoff funds, that they are increasing the value of the carcass with 'further processing'. The advertising aspects of this program (which is what the checkoff is really meant to do) does help beef consumption, but it has to go through two layers before it helps out the cattleman? Do you have any real numbers (real studies, not just some reporter ) so we can look at this?"

First, the Beef Checkoff is only PART of what the checkoff is really meant to do.

Since Tyson doesn't cut beef into individual cuts, they are not among the butchers and meat cutters who may attend classes on cutting the new beef cuts.

Checkoff money has been used to do the research on how and most economically to get those tender muscles separated from the various difficult 'wrappings' it is contained within, and to conduct classes to show meat cutters how to do that. There would be no ads to do what you claim Tyson could do and take the credit for.

Yes, there are "real numbers" from "real studies" (independent, highly credible people who are expert in their field, btw).

One would think anyone as knowledgeable as you would understand that those "reporters" who do the news releases and stories for and about Beef Checkoff activities would understand that such stories are solidly based upon the reports from experts, not just something dreamed up to sound good.

You could only improve your credibility if you would check for accurate information at www.cbb.org or www.beef.org and asking questions of the people named at those sites.

MRJ

 

[Mike]

Since Tyson doesn't cut beef into individual cuts, they are not among the butchers and meat cutters who may attend classes on cutting the new beef cuts.

Tyson is probably the world's largest case ready beef processing company. Pre-cut, pre-packaged and ready for the case.

And you're saying they don't cut beef into individual cuts?

Wonder who needs to attend classes? :roll: :roll:

 

[Econ101]

Since Tyson doesn't cut beef into individual cuts, they are not among the butchers and meat cutters who may attend classes on cutting the new beef cuts.

Tyson is probably the world's largest case ready beef processing company. Pre-cut, pre-packaged and ready for the case.

And you're saying they don't cut beef into individual cuts?

Wonder who needs to attend classes? :roll: :roll:

Mike, you are not one of the packer backer "approved" experts. What you say doesn't mean anything. :roll: :roll: :roll:

The case ready pkg of beef I bought from Walmart was from Tyson. It was in a container (it was one of the CO2 packages) that I wanted to use so I bought the meat. These guys are just jokers and have no sense of reality except the one they make up.

I soaked my foot in the container. To be fair, I did get a refund from Tyson on that package of bad meat. They also claimed it was choice although the USDA grade was nowhere to be found on the package.

 

[Econ101]

MRJ: "

OK, guys, lets clear this up for all of us.

Does Tyson or other packers cut up ANY meat other than simply making them into Primals, and Sub Primals to put into boxes? Do they ever sell whole carcasses to the next processor? Do they grind any meat? What are the other processors called, and how many other businesses after the 'Tysons' of this business do our cattle/beef carcasses and primal and sub primal cuts pass through?

I've been told there are about 13 different owners between the ranch and the consumers plate. Does that sound accurate?

Econ, you really need to go to the Beef Checkoff websites and study up a little. You don't understand the law well at all. You stated that:

"Soon Tyson will be claiming that they can cut out the tenderloin and claim, based on checkoff funds, that they are increasing the value of the carcass with 'further processing'. The advertising aspects of this program (which is what the checkoff is really meant to do) does help beef consumption, but it has to go through two layers before it helps out the cattleman? Do you have any real numbers (real studies, not just some reporter ) so we can look at this?"

First, the Beef Checkoff is only PART of what the checkoff is really meant to do.

Since Tyson doesn't cut beef into individual cuts, they are not among the butchers and meat cutters who may attend classes on cutting the new beef cuts.

Checkoff money has been used to do the research on how and most economically to get those tender muscles separated from the various difficult 'wrappings' it is contained within, and to conduct classes to show meat cutters how to do that. There would be no ads to do what you claim Tyson could do and take the credit for.

Yes, there are "real numbers" from "real studies" (independent, highly credible people who are expert in their field, btw).

One would think anyone as knowledgeable as you would understand that those "reporters" who do the news releases and stories for and about Beef Checkoff activities would understand that such stories are solidly based upon the reports from experts, not just something dreamed up to sound good.

You could only improve your credibility if you would check for accurate information at www.cbb.org or www.beef.org and asking questions of the people named at those sites.

MRJ

MRJ, You need to follow your own advice.

 

[mrj]

MRJ: "

OK, guys, lets clear this up for all of us.

Does Tyson or other packers cut up ANY meat other than simply making them into Primals, and Sub Primals to put into boxes? Do they ever sell whole carcasses to the next processor? Do they grind any meat? What are the other processors called, and how many other businesses after the 'Tysons' of this business do our cattle/beef carcasses and primal and sub primal cuts pass through?

I've been told there are about 13 different owners between the ranch and the consumers plate. Does that sound accurate?

Econ, you really need to go to the Beef Checkoff websites and study up a little. You don't understand the law well at all. You stated that:

"Soon Tyson will be claiming that they can cut out the tenderloin and claim, based on checkoff funds, that they are increasing the value of the carcass with 'further processing'. The advertising aspects of this program (which is what the checkoff is really meant to do) does help beef consumption, but it has to go through two layers before it helps out the cattleman? Do you have any real numbers (real studies, not just some reporter ) so we can look at this?"

First, the Beef Checkoff is only PART of what the checkoff is really meant to do.

Since Tyson doesn't cut beef into individual cuts, they are not among the butchers and meat cutters who may attend classes on cutting the new beef cuts.

Checkoff money has been used to do the research on how and most economically to get those tender muscles separated from the various difficult 'wrappings' it is contained within, and to conduct classes to show meat cutters how to do that. There would be no ads to do what you claim Tyson could do and take the credit for.

Yes, there are "real numbers" from "real studies" (independent, highly credible people who are expert in their field, btw).

One would think anyone as knowledgeable as you would understand that those "reporters" who do the news releases and stories for and about Beef Checkoff activities would understand that such stories are solidly based upon the reports from experts, not just something dreamed up to sound good.

You could only improve your credibility if you would check for accurate information at www.cbb.org or www.beef.org and asking questions of the people named at those sites.

MRJ

MRJ, You need to follow your own advice.

The fact is that I do check with the CBB office to be sure the things I say about the Beef Checkoff are accurate.

It would serve people better if you did the same.

You rarely, if ever, post corroboration of statements you make. Telling us you will reveal things in "due time" just doesn't cut it for factuallity!

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

MRJ: "

OK, guys, lets clear this up for all of us.

Does Tyson or other packers cut up ANY meat other than simply making them into Primals, and Sub Primals to put into boxes? Do they ever sell whole carcasses to the next processor? Do they grind any meat? What are the other processors called, and how many other businesses after the 'Tysons' of this business do our cattle/beef carcasses and primal and sub primal cuts pass through?

I've been told there are about 13 different owners between the ranch and the consumers plate. Does that sound accurate?

Econ, you really need to go to the Beef Checkoff websites and study up a little. You don't understand the law well at all. You stated that:

"Soon Tyson will be claiming that they can cut out the tenderloin and claim, based on checkoff funds, that they are increasing the value of the carcass with 'further processing'. The advertising aspects of this program (which is what the checkoff is really meant to do) does help beef consumption, but it has to go through two layers before it helps out the cattleman? Do you have any real numbers (real studies, not just some reporter ) so we can look at this?"

First, the Beef Checkoff is only PART of what the checkoff is really meant to do.

Since Tyson doesn't cut beef into individual cuts, they are not among the butchers and meat cutters who may attend classes on cutting the new beef cuts.

Checkoff money has been used to do the research on how and most economically to get those tender muscles separated from the various difficult 'wrappings' it is contained within, and to conduct classes to show meat cutters how to do that. There would be no ads to do what you claim Tyson could do and take the credit for.

Yes, there are "real numbers" from "real studies" (independent, highly credible people who are expert in their field, btw).

One would think anyone as knowledgeable as you would understand that those "reporters" who do the news releases and stories for and about Beef Checkoff activities would understand that such stories are solidly based upon the reports from experts, not just something dreamed up to sound good.

You could only improve your credibility if you would check for accurate information at www.cbb.org or www.beef.org and asking questions of the people named at those sites.

MRJ

MRJ, You need to follow your own advice.

The fact is that I do check with the CBB office to be sure the things I say about the Beef Checkoff are accurate.

It would serve people better if you did the same.

You rarely, if ever, post corroboration of statements you make. Telling us you will reveal things in "due time" just doesn't cut it for factuallity!

MRJ

MRJ, It was you who did not know that Tyson was cutting their own primals for case ready beef, not me. If I consulted the sources you suggest for my only source of information, I might be as misinformed as you.

No thanks.

What you don't understand is I don't feel ANY need to convince you of ANYTHING. What is between your ears is your business.

 

[Anonymous]

Mike,

Does Tyson send uncut meat in boxes to various suppliers that further break those products down, trim them, then repackage for sale.

Yes or no?


Does Tyson seperate the flat iron steak before they send it out pre cut, pre packaged, and ready for the case?

Yes or no?


No need to respond Conman, I know you don't know the answer.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Mike,

Does Tyson send uncut meat in boxes to various suppliers that further break those products down, trim them, then repackage for sale.

Yes or no?


Does Tyson seperate the flat iron steak before they send it out pre cut, pre packaged, and ready for the case?

Yes or no?


No need to respond Conman, I know you don't know the answer.


~SH~

There is no need to respond because the questions do not have anything to do with the arguments I made. I will say it again for you, SH:

If Tyson (or other people cutting up a carcass, primals, or subprimals) need cattleman's money to tell them how to do their job, why don't the cattlemen get a cut of their profits? Do cattlemen have to fund all of the advances with checkoff funds? Why don't we put that tax on Tyson since they are closer to the ones receiving the benefits? Next thing you know Cattlemen's checkoff funds will be paying for upgrading Tyson's equipment to get more "value added" out of cattle.

No matter that Tyson's earnings are helping pay off politicians on the Congressional Committees that oversee them so they will not hold hearings on frauds against producers in the government regulatory agencies overseeing the packers.

 

[Mike]

Mike,

Does Tyson send uncut meat in boxes to various suppliers that further break those products down, trim them, then repackage for sale.
Yes or no?
Does Tyson seperate the flat iron steak before they send it out pre cut, pre packaged, and ready for the case?
Yes or no?
No need to respond Conman, I know you don't know the answer.
~SH~

Why are you asking me? Is it because you don't know?

 

[Beefman]

Mike,

Does Tyson send uncut meat in boxes to various suppliers that further break those products down, trim them, then repackage for sale.

Yes or no?


Does Tyson seperate the flat iron steak before they send it out pre cut, pre packaged, and ready for the case?

Yes or no?


No need to respond Conman, I know you don't know the answer.


~SH~

There is no need to respond because the questions do not have anything to do with the arguments I made. I will say it again for you, SH:

If Tyson (or other people cutting up a carcass, primals, or subprimals) need cattleman's money to tell them how to do their job, why don't the cattlemen get a cut of their profits? Do cattlemen have to fund all of the advances with checkoff funds? Why don't we put that tax on Tyson since they are closer to the ones receiving the benefits? Next thing you know Cattlemen's checkoff funds will be paying for upgrading Tyson's equipment to get more "value added" out of cattle.

No matter that Tyson's earnings are helping pay off politicians on the Congressional Committees that oversee them so they will not hold hearings on frauds against producers in the government regulatory agencies overseeing the packers.

You're awfully edgy today. Did you dig a little to deep in the kids Valentines Day candy last night?

To subscribe to any of your theories on this, one would have to assume:

1. Tyson (and others) are not paying any R&D funds to value add.
2. Cattlemen are paying the entire bill to value add (via checkoff).
3. Adding value at the retail cut level is of no benefit to producers.

Sorry, I ain't buying any of this.

Tyson using checkoff funds to upgrade their equipment?...........paying off politicians to keep items out of committee?.........care to figure the odds on any of this?

 

[Econ101]

Mike,

Does Tyson send uncut meat in boxes to various suppliers that further break those products down, trim them, then repackage for sale.

Yes or no?


Does Tyson seperate the flat iron steak before they send it out pre cut, pre packaged, and ready for the case?

Yes or no?


No need to respond Conman, I know you don't know the answer.


~SH~

There is no need to respond because the questions do not have anything to do with the arguments I made. I will say it again for you, SH:

If Tyson (or other people cutting up a carcass, primals, or subprimals) need cattleman's money to tell them how to do their job, why don't the cattlemen get a cut of their profits? Do cattlemen have to fund all of the advances with checkoff funds? Why don't we put that tax on Tyson since they are closer to the ones receiving the benefits? Next thing you know Cattlemen's checkoff funds will be paying for upgrading Tyson's equipment to get more "value added" out of cattle.

No matter that Tyson's earnings are helping pay off politicians on the Congressional Committees that oversee them so they will not hold hearings on frauds against producers in the government regulatory agencies overseeing the packers.

You're awfully edgy today. Did you dig a little to deep in the kids Valentines Day candy last night?

To subscribe to any of your theories on this, one would have to assume:

1. Tyson (and others) are not paying any R&D funds to value add.
2. Cattlemen are paying the entire bill to value add (via checkoff).
3. Adding value at the retail cut level is of no benefit to producers.

Sorry, I ain't buying any of this.

Tyson using checkoff funds to upgrade their equipment?...........paying off politicians to keep items out of committee?.........care to figure the odds on any of this?

99.8%.

You do not have to assume any of the things you have assumed to make the logical changes to the way beef is promoted and how that promotion is paid for that I have called for.

1. They should, they are not selling cattle, they are selling beef. Why shouldn't they pay for R&D to get value added. My point is that they are the ones who should be paying for it. Tax them and make them pay for it, not cattlemen. There is NO guarantee that they will pass the profits from the value added to the producers. The same companies in Canada did not pass through the extra money in the BSE fiasco to anyone but themselves.
2. No, I never said they were. It is just getting mixed up with your assumption #1 so no one will ever be able to break it out and count the money.
3. When it has to go through the hands of packers to get to producers, the unchecked control is in the hands of the packers, not the producers. Do you always give your money to someone else to hold for you without any checks and balances to making sure they don't pocket some of it? Even banks give out statements.

Beefman, you can keep dreaming up the stuff you do, but until the packers are forced to do what is right with checks and balances that work they will always take advantage of their position and enrich themselves first. Recent history (as well as P&S history) proves that to be so. It is the economics of fraud. When a system is set up where it is economical to commit fraud, it will happen. Same thing with politicians.

 

[mrj]

MRJ: "

MRJ, You need to follow your own advice.

The fact is that I do check with the CBB office to be sure the things I say about the Beef Checkoff are accurate.

It would serve people better if you did the same.

You rarely, if ever, post corroboration of statements you make. Telling us you will reveal things in "due time" just doesn't cut it for factuallity!

MRJ

MRJ, It was you who did not know that Tyson was cutting their own primals for case ready beef, not me. If I consulted the sources you suggest for my only source of information, I might be as misinformed as you.

No thanks.

What you don't understand is I don't feel ANY need to convince you of ANYTHING. What is between your ears is your business.

Econ, I did not say that I did not know what Tyson was or was not doing. I asked for, hopefully, the final word from someone who has the FACTS as to what, specifically, Tyson does do. Recognizing that they may well do more than one thing. In the same plant? Or on different premises? And would that be different businesses or different 'profit centers' under the same business?

I never suggested anyone use only one source of information. You have presented as fact claims about the Beef Checkoff program that are FAR from factual. If you have any interest in honesty and accuracy when writing about the Beef Checkoff, the logical place to go to check your information is the CBB.

Nor am I trying to convince you of anything......except that you have been either innacurate or dishonest when posting as fact some of the things you have about the Beef Checkoff and/or NCBA.

In so far as what is or is not between YOUR ears, that is your problem and there obviously are more productive ways to spend time than attempting to change it.

MRJ

 

[Tommy]

mj...I did not say that I did not know what Tyson was or was not doing.

Then how did you come up with this statement?


mj...Since Tyson doesn't cut beef into individual cuts, they are not among the butchers and meat cutters who may attend classes on cutting the new beef cuts.

Sure sounds to me like you said you knew what Tyson was doing.

 

[mrj]

mj...I did not say that I did not know what Tyson was or was not doing.

Then how did you come up with this statement?


mj...Since Tyson doesn't cut beef into individual cuts, they are not among the butchers and meat cutters who may attend classes on cutting the new beef cuts.

Sure sounds to me like you said you knew what Tyson was doing.

Bad choice of ONE word! I should have said "If Tyson doesn't cut individual cuts. I believe (and did not check it out) that the classes mentioned are for fabricators rather than those in the slaughter plants.

I also did not say that I DO know how Tyson cuts beef.

What I am saying, and it should have been quite obvious, is that there are different people saying different things about what Tyson does with the beef they slaughter.

I asked for clarification. I suppose it is likely that they have different plants that do different things, possibly as different businesses, but maybe not.

I've never claimed to know everything there is to know about how a steer gets turned into a steak, but I do know that there are many cattle producers who know considerably less than I do about the process, and some who believe as fact things that are not true at all.........but who would NEVER admit to that!

MRJ

 

[Anonymous]

mj...I did not say that I did not know what Tyson was or was not doing.

Then how did you come up with this statement?


mj...Since Tyson doesn't cut beef into individual cuts, they are not among the butchers and meat cutters who may attend classes on cutting the new beef cuts.

Sure sounds to me like you said you knew what Tyson was doing.

Bad choice of ONE word! I should have said "If Tyson doesn't cut individual cuts. I believe (and did not check it out) that the classes mentioned are for fabricators rather than those in the slaughter plants.

I also did not say that I DO know how Tyson cuts beef.

What I am saying, and it should have been quite obvious, is that there are different people saying different things about what Tyson does with the beef they slaughter.

I asked for clarification. I suppose it is likely that they have different plants that do different things, possibly as different businesses, but maybe not.

I've never claimed to know everything there is to know about how a steer gets turned into a steak, but I do know that there are many cattle producers who know considerably less than I do about the process, and some who believe as fact things that are not true at all.........but who would NEVER admit to that!

MRJ

Interpretation: MRJ has no idea what she's talking about :roll: :roll: I already had that figured out long ago :lol: :lol:

 

[agman]

There is no need to respond because the questions do not have anything to do with the arguments I made. I will say it again for you, SH:

If Tyson (or other people cutting up a carcass, primals, or subprimals) need cattleman's money to tell them how to do their job, why don't the cattlemen get a cut of their profits? Do cattlemen have to fund all of the advances with checkoff funds? Why don't we put that tax on Tyson since they are closer to the ones receiving the benefits? Next thing you know Cattlemen's checkoff funds will be paying for upgrading Tyson's equipment to get more "value added" out of cattle.

No matter that Tyson's earnings are helping pay off politicians on the Congressional Committees that oversee them so they will not hold hearings on frauds against producers in the government regulatory agencies overseeing the packers.

You're awfully edgy today. Did you dig a little to deep in the kids Valentines Day candy last night?

To subscribe to any of your theories on this, one would have to assume:

1. Tyson (and others) are not paying any R&D funds to value add.
2. Cattlemen are paying the entire bill to value add (via checkoff).
3. Adding value at the retail cut level is of no benefit to producers.

Sorry, I ain't buying any of this.

Tyson using checkoff funds to upgrade their equipment?...........paying off politicians to keep items out of committee?.........care to figure the odds on any of this?

99.8%.

You do not have to assume any of the things you have assumed to make the logical changes to the way beef is promoted and how that promotion is paid for that I have called for.

1. They should, they are not selling cattle, they are selling beef. Why shouldn't they pay for R&D to get value added. My point is that they are the ones who should be paying for it. Tax them and make them pay for it, not cattlemen. There is NO guarantee that they will pass the profits from the value added to the producers. The same companies in Canada did not pass through the extra money in the BSE fiasco to anyone but themselves.
2. No, I never said they were. It is just getting mixed up with your assumption #1 so no one will ever be able to break it out and count the money.
3. When it has to go through the hands of packers to get to producers, the unchecked control is in the hands of the packers, not the producers. Do you always give your money to someone else to hold for you without any checks and balances to making sure they don't pocket some of it? Even banks give out statements.

Beefman, you can keep dreaming up the stuff you do, but until the packers are forced to do what is right with checks and balances that work they will always take advantage of their position and enrich themselves first. Recent history (as well as P&S history) proves that to be so. It is the economics of fraud. When a system is set up where it is economical to commit fraud, it will happen. Same thing with politicians.

You never seem to run out of phony accusations with your twisted view of events. Any money that any packer MAY have received from the checkoff for product development is minuscule compared to their own R&D. For you to think or suggest otherwise shows your continuing illiteracy concerning the packing industry and checkoff allocations. But that is par for you-all foam and no beer. A wannabe intellectual who has likely failed at every turn.

 

[Econ101]

You're awfully edgy today. Did you dig a little to deep in the kids Valentines Day candy last night?

To subscribe to any of your theories on this, one would have to assume:

1. Tyson (and others) are not paying any R&D funds to value add.
2. Cattlemen are paying the entire bill to value add (via checkoff).
3. Adding value at the retail cut level is of no benefit to producers.

Sorry, I ain't buying any of this.

Tyson using checkoff funds to upgrade their equipment?...........paying off politicians to keep items out of committee?.........care to figure the odds on any of this?

99.8%.

You do not have to assume any of the things you have assumed to make the logical changes to the way beef is promoted and how that promotion is paid for that I have called for.

1. They should, they are not selling cattle, they are selling beef. Why shouldn't they pay for R&D to get value added. My point is that they are the ones who should be paying for it. Tax them and make them pay for it, not cattlemen. There is NO guarantee that they will pass the profits from the value added to the producers. The same companies in Canada did not pass through the extra money in the BSE fiasco to anyone but themselves.
2. No, I never said they were. It is just getting mixed up with your assumption #1 so no one will ever be able to break it out and count the money.
3. When it has to go through the hands of packers to get to producers, the unchecked control is in the hands of the packers, not the producers. Do you always give your money to someone else to hold for you without any checks and balances to making sure they don't pocket some of it? Even banks give out statements.

Beefman, you can keep dreaming up the stuff you do, but until the packers are forced to do what is right with checks and balances that work they will always take advantage of their position and enrich themselves first. Recent history (as well as P&S history) proves that to be so. It is the economics of fraud. When a system is set up where it is economical to commit fraud, it will happen. Same thing with politicians.

You never seem to run out of phony accusations with your twisted view of events. Any money that any packer MAY have received from the checkoff for product development is minuscule compared to their own R&D. For you to think or suggest otherwise shows your continuing illiteracy concerning the packing industry and checkoff allocations. But that is par for you-all foam and no beer. A wannabe intellectual who has likely failed at every turn.

What point did you want to make, agman? It seems you just wanted to call names here.

When I want to suggest something I will. When I want to just come out and say it, I have no problem with that either. I come out and say enough stuff without you having to attribute suggestions to me. Do you want to answer my points in my post instead of making up suggestions and attributing them to me?

 

[agman]

99.8%.

You do not have to assume any of the things you have assumed to make the logical changes to the way beef is promoted and how that promotion is paid for that I have called for.

1. They should, they are not selling cattle, they are selling beef. Why shouldn't they pay for R&D to get value added. My point is that they are the ones who should be paying for it. Tax them and make them pay for it, not cattlemen. There is NO guarantee that they will pass the profits from the value added to the producers. The same companies in Canada did not pass through the extra money in the BSE fiasco to anyone but themselves.
2. No, I never said they were. It is just getting mixed up with your assumption #1 so no one will ever be able to break it out and count the money.
3. When it has to go through the hands of packers to get to producers, the unchecked control is in the hands of the packers, not the producers. Do you always give your money to someone else to hold for you without any checks and balances to making sure they don't pocket some of it? Even banks give out statements.

Beefman, you can keep dreaming up the stuff you do, but until the packers are forced to do what is right with checks and balances that work they will always take advantage of their position and enrich themselves first. Recent history (as well as P&S history) proves that to be so. It is the economics of fraud. When a system is set up where it is economical to commit fraud, it will happen. Same thing with politicians.

You never seem to run out of phony accusations with your twisted view of events. Any money that any packer MAY have received from the checkoff for product development is minuscule compared to their own R&D. For you to think or suggest otherwise shows your continuing illiteracy concerning the packing industry and checkoff allocations. But that is par for you-all foam and no beer. A wannabe intellectual who has likely failed at every turn.

What point did you want to make, agman? It seems you just wanted to call names here.

When I want to suggest something I will. When I want to just come out and say it, I have no problem with that either. I come out and say enough stuff without you having to attribute suggestions to me. Do you want to answer my points in my post instead of making up suggestions and attributing them to me?

My reference is to your 99.8%. Where did the other 0.2% go to. Either you are certain of your claim or you are not. Close does not count.