Ted Turner/Stadium discussion

LongTimeCatFan · Post by **LongTimeCatFan** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 2:56 pm

Just to think outside of the box:

Sorry guys, I'm not sure I would be in favor of accepting a donation from Mr. Turner either. You may ridicule me until you are blue in the face, but I would have a serious problem with it. Having something that stands for "anti-american" sentiments represent MSU will only drive more students to the dark side. Oh yes, I'm sure you are rolling your eyes, but I'm sorry that's just the way it is. Turner also has little to contribute to Montana Agriculture, our number one industry for those of you that have forgotten, with his extremism for environmentalism and liberalism. Most of his claims/concerns with MT agriculture are unfounded. We have been great stewards of the land for the last century. Farming and ranching practices have improved both the environment and the quality and availability of food. We as Americans enjoy paying only 11% of our annual income on food which is the lowest in the world. By the way, if we were doing such a crappy job, you would most likely see another dust bowl in the west with the extensive drought conditions that we are all currently facing. Turner would rather impose more restrictions, cut cattle grazing on public lands (which actually helps the land become more productive -- I can explain that one if I need to), as well as many other "Big Govt." ideas.
If you can give me a decent argument for why free trade is good, you might get my attention. I'm sorry, but it has sent a lot of jobs overseas where child labor laws are not in affect and has drastically hurt our economy by decreasing our GNP. Also on my more passionate side, our boards of trade (MME, CBOT, KCBOT, etc.) are funded primarily by american agriculture producers and partially by american taxpayers. Please enlighten me on how NAFTA and the WTO has helped our nation if you can. Wow off on a tangent, but these are policies that Mr. Turner supports.

I love MSU and Montana and Ted Turner has no place in either. He has already tarnished MT, lets keep him out of MSU.

With that said, lets think outside the box a little. Turner is not the only wealthy individual in the greater Bozeman area. Dennis Quaid for one lives south of Emigrant. He is also fun to party with at Chico FYI. John Murdock, the owner of Murdock's Ranch and Home (formerly Big R ranch and home) has a few millions and has always supported the Bobcats.. in fact I know he is looking to sponsor some sort of arena as long as it has his name on it. What about Craig Kilborn... he is an alum and might have a few hundred G's to unload. Has anyone asked these people? There are many more wealthy individuals in the area that I'm sure Montanans would be happy to accept donations from, but not Terrible Ted.

Bleedinbluengold · Post by **Bleedinbluengold** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 3:24 pm

FYI, a recent report concluded that the current drought, spanning the last 10 years, is worse than the "dust bowl" years.

CARDIAC_CATS · Post by **CARDIAC_CATS** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 3:47 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:Can someone please explain to me why any affiliated with MSU WOULD complain if Turner generously donated a lot of cash to the school or to any particular project? That seems like the most silly thing imaginable. If there were string attached relating to the money, then I would understand that concerns could arise (and this would be the case regardless of who donated the cash).

The entire concept of public education is a "liberal" creation. Everybody pays taxes to support the betterment of the minority of the population who want a degree and who can't afford private schools in an idealistic pursuit to better society? That's hard-core liberalism right there. If a self-declared liberal wanted to donate money to MSU, I would be thrilled. You can't look a gift horse in the mouth, so they say. Exactly what things does Turner believe in that counter anything that MSU would fear being affiliated with?

I would be proud to sit in the Turner wing of Bobcat Stadium, if he were to kick in the cash... or any other named "wing" for anyone generous enough to give up the money.

Totally agree here. Love him or hate him it is tough to fund a stadium/improvements in this day and age with public type/state money. Any donation by Turner to MSU would be greatly appreciated by me and the University as a whole. He lives there, like it or not .. and he's not going away anytime soon I would think. I would love to see him donate some to the school.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 4:37 pm

LongTimeCatFan: How do you come to the conclusion that Ted Turner has "anti-American" sentiments? Has he been convicted of treason? I'm confused by that statement.

When one is opposed to free trade, what exactly are they in favor of? High tariffs on all imported products, or only those that benefit them directly? I am always confused by that one. For full disclosure, I work for a [insert the word "evil" here for those so inclined] multinational corporation that exports products via our subs around the world. Free trade seems like a pretty good idea to me -- I kinda like the idea of foreign governments holding off on their protectionist urges and allowing us to compete fairly with their local companies. Well, fair to the extent that they can control -- the U.S. tax code, contrary to the hysterical cries of politicians and journalists, isn't a big friend of U.S. companies selling into foreign markets.

HelenaCat95 · Post by **HelenaCat95** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 4:52 pm

One of my professors at MSU once told me that, "Free trade is like heaven - We all want to get there, just not too soon."

LongTimeCatFan · Post by **LongTimeCatFan** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 5:08 pm

Only in America FM 100.7 (A local radio station) was doing one of their "Is anyone listening" bits one morning. This first one was, "Ever have a celebrity pull the 'Do you know who I am' routine?" A woman called in and said that a few years back, while visiting her cattle rancher uncle in Billings, MT., they had occasion to go to dinner at a restaurant that does not take reservations. The wait was about 45 minutes. Lots of other rancher types and their spouses were already waiting. In comes Ted Turner and Jane Fonda. They want a table. The hostess says they'll have to wait about 45 minutes. Jane Fonda asks the hostess if she knows who she is. "Yes, but you'll still have to wait 45 minutes." Then Jane says, "Is the manager in?" The manager comes out, "May I help you?" Do you know who I am?" ask both Jane and Ted. "Yes, but these folks have all been waiting already and I can't put you in ahead of them." Then Ted asks to speak to the owner. The owner comes out. Jane again asks, "Do you know who I am?" The owner says, "Yes, I do. Do you know who I am? I am the owner of this restaurant and a Vietnam Veteran. Not only will you not get a table ahead of all of my friends and neighbors here, but you also will not be eating in my restaurant tonight or any other night. Good bye." Only in America, what a great country! This is a true story and the name of the steak house is Sir Scott's Oasis Steakhouse 204 W Main, MANHATTAN, MT 59741 (406) 284-6929

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 5:13 pm

I would certainly entertain the argument that Jane is/was "anti-American." That's probably why Ted got rid of her. Between her lack of restaurant modesty and his apparent strong Republican free trade ideals, she was just too much for the poor guy to take.

LongTimeCatFan · Post by **LongTimeCatFan** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 5:45 pm

The beauty of this nation is the Freedom of speech and I grant that anyone including Mr. Turner is afforded that right. No he has not been covicted of treason and won't unless he shares information with our enemies that could threaten our national security. However, associating himself with known enemies of our great nation like Castro in my opinion is anti-American. Granted, our legislators are working to improve relations with Cuba to expand trade. However, Cubans still suffer many humanitarian concerns and don't forget the Missile Crisis. I believe that in order for America and Cuba to "get along" Cuba needs to come a long way.
On the issue of Free Trade, it is an idealistic point of view. No offense BAC, and I'm sure you benefit directly, but that is my point. The only people that benefit are those involved with big corporations. It has done nothing to improve the agricultural situation or our current unemployment situation. My point with the commodity exchanges was that they are funded by Americans to expand trade opportunities for American Agriculture. NAFTA has allowed Canadians (not to beat a dead horse, but I am just using this as an example) to utilize our resources to market a Canadian product with a tool that was designed for the expansion of American commodities and did I mention that they are funded by American Producers through the Basis portion and American Taxpayers?! Again, I am not trying to offend you BAC, but you need to look at the big picture and not just the Corporate Haze. So in conclusion, WTO and NAFTA seem to primarily benefit other countries more than our own thus increasing trade deficits rather than decreasing them. I would like to note that I WOULD be in favor of free trade if both sides benefitted equally, which consequently is not the case. As far as foreign governments holding off their protectionist urges, tell me how the EU has done this in regards to American agricultural products. In fact, in recent years, the EU has banned more American Products from American Beef to genetically engineered products. GMO's are a whole different topic and I can enlighten you all on that one too if I need to. However, their fears stem from ignorance and if they were more educated they would realize that American Agricultural products ARE the safest in the world! Remember, education is the key to disproving myths.

LongTimeCatFan · Post by **LongTimeCatFan** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 5:56 pm

How is free trade a Republican concept when it was Clinton that got it done?

jagur1 · Post by **jagur1** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 6:03 pm

One slight correction : Jane left Ted or vise versus due to Jane finding god and becoming a born again christian. I find that very interesting.

a do you know who I am story: Before buying his island in Taheti (sp) south pacific . Marlan Brando wanted to buy a chunck of Montana, but found it annoying that the people in Montana didn't offer up enough respect for his status. I guess MB got a lot of worship on his own island. I love the do you know who I am stories. Bozo had a good one about Ryan Lief. I just wonder if the stories are true or urban myths?

fact 3: Ted Turner before the crash of AOL/Time warner was giving away 400M yearly to various charites (maybe 40M I can't remember the decimal) after the crash his giving dropped to 100M (10M) That group of charities are hurting for cash. I don't think TT has much time to find someone new to give money to. sorry guys. I don't think he likes FB either.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 6:35 pm

First, no worries about offending me. This is fun, and I appreciate you coming in here and stirring things up.

Now, I won't say "no offense" going forward, as I assume there will be none taken by either side.

Your last set of comments bring up an interesting point that I had been dancing around, but now I can focus in on a bit more. Growing up on a farm, I understand the Montana economy and the general outlook of people in the field of agriculture. With that said, I have now seen how the rest of the country looks at things (meaning, those who are among the 95% of the people who don't earn a living in agriculture).

When you say "only big corporations" profit from free trade, you're kind of falling into that populist mentality where corporate entities are the enemies of the noble small farmer just plugging away to feed his family. To shift things a bit differently, here is how the rest of the country views farmers -- as a very powerful special interest who get everything they want, including the most heavily subsidized government protections in the country. The rest of the country scratches their heads and says, "Yeah, the whole family farm thing is romantic and all, but why are all of my tax dollars going to subsidize them? Where's the subsidy for the dry cleaners or the carpenters who are having a bad year?"

In reality, when our big corporations do well, that in turn allows almost everyone to do better. Corporations are the mechanism that allows capital and labor to efficiently create wealth and advance technology. The corporation sells more product overseas, and then they can afford to expand. They hire more workers and give raises to the workers who deserve them. This allows the workers to afford more stuff, such as an extra couple servings of bread, which gets back to the farmer in the form of higher wheat prices. Or, perhaps, they take their bonus and run out and buy the Atkins book, are fooled into thinking that it's a great idea, and they live on exclusively on beef until their next check-up, thus pushing up beef prices.

So while I agree with you on certain aspects of free trade as they relate specifically to agriculture (I'm with you on GMO's and the EU's heavy-handedness on ag trade), it's important to remember that, even being in Montana, ag is not the only industry that's vital to our country. Fewer and fewer people are employed in the industry, and our competive advantage worldwide is eroding, thanks to advances in the technology that we developed (good for the people who are no longer starving overseas, bad for U.S. farmers who used to have less competition). This will clearly lead to some interesting changes over time, as well as debates about the national security factors in justifying future farm bills and whether people will buy into that idea.

Being on the other side of the fence, though, I've really seen a lot of different perspectives on this kind of thinking, and a lot of people really aren't all that concerned whether their wheat comes from Canada, Argentina, or Kansas. Were it not for me growing up in the ag lifestyle, I'm not sure I would care, either. You see a few interviews from farmers whining that the government isn't giving them enough money (granted, these aren't the best PR types that I have seen, and there was probably some selective reporting involved) to bail them out from another bad business year (especially when they happen to rip on "evil" corporations in the same breath, even though those corporations have to lay off people when they have a bad year rather than get subsidized), and I almost start to sympathize with the opposition view.

Maybe this is a red state/blue state thing, and maybe I have just been looking at numbers all day and can't think straight anymore, but I think it is a mistake to look at free trade from the perspective of only one industry. All of these things are interconnected, and it's not a zero sum game, so even losing a few jobs overseas here and there, we are likely coming out way ahead with improved efficiencies in our economy, more net jobs at home, and more wealth for everyone involved. Of course, it always sucks for the people in the industries in which the U.S. loses its competitive advantage and lose out to foreign competition. I don't think U.S. agriculture will ever be completely in that state, but it's certainly moving more towards that direction as compared to eras gone by. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I guess that's a matter of perspective.

The WTO is a pain in the butt for us as well -- they keep shooting down what little tax incentives the IRS does give companies to export. Keep in mind that we are the only (decent) country in the world that taxes our residents (including corporations) on income earned outside of the U.S., so when I am saying that we are getting a tax break, it means we are still paying more tax than the 0% that any other country would charge their own residents on overseas sales.

Cuba... I'm worn out... will worry about it later, if at all....

Gosh, I guess I better do some work now so I don't inefficientize my own behind enough to get my job outsourced.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 6:41 pm

LongTimeCatFan wrote:How is free trade a Republican concept when it was Clinton that got it done?

It is definitely a Republican concept, just like welfare reform, both of which were passed by Clinton. In fact, he's probably the only one who could have gotten it done as the Democrats would have fought it tooth and nail from a Republican president.

Expanding Medicare isn't exactly a Republican ideal, yet Bush passed it. It's that strange cross-over concept. You can only gain votes by doing things that people who wouldn't otherwise vote for you would like. What are the hardcore parstisans going to do, vote for the other guy? Nahh.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 6:45 pm

jagur1 wrote:One slight correction : Jane left Ted or vise versus due to Jane finding god and becoming a born again christian. I find that very interesting.

That is interesting. Wow, a jazzercisin', Charlie-abetting, sister of Easy Rider, fire and brimstone evangelical ex-wife?

I'd be scared, personally.

62GRIZ · Post by **62GRIZ** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 7:24 pm

Turner would rather impose more restrictions, cut cattle grazing on public lands (which actually helps the land become more productive -- I can explain that one if I need to), as well as many other "Big Govt." ideas.

You might 'explain' that, Long Time, but you'd still be wrong!

LongTimeCatFan · Post by **LongTimeCatFan** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 8:03 pm

This is fun. No offense taken and is taken in the highest esteem for the benefit of our readers. If nothing else this debate will educate many others.

With that said.... First and foremost, I was waiting for the classic

"Yeah, the whole family farm thing is romantic and all, but why are all of my tax dollars going to subsidize them? Where's the subsidy for the dry cleaners or the carpenters who are having a bad year?"

Ok with you growing up on a farm, I thought you might be a little more informed than that. Less than 10% of all farms in MT recieve subsidies and those that are will most likely have to sell out in the next 10 years. Most farmers are doing a great job marketing their product through the commodities exchange and have learned to take a more proactive approach to market prices rather than the typical reactive approach which would give you the classic "I'll hold it till wheat reaches 4 bucks and if it gets there it might reach 5 and if it gets there it might reach 6." Which usually ends up making the farmer to sell at 3 and a half and making up the difference in subsidies like the 80's. Most have reformed their marketing approach in order to survive because the truth of the matter is that most of the subsidies that you and I enjoyed are no longer there. Come on, I thought you knew that one. Again, do I have to mention the fact that those exchanges are funded by Americans for Americans.... Ok let's just expand this idea and give you an analogy. Let's just say you are Wal Mart and someone wants to bring in some woven rugs to sell in your store, but you don't profit from it and besides you already sell woven rugs. You can't tell me that you would let them sell their rugs in your store! I mean honestly, you pay all of the overhead costs! There is no way any business can operate that way.
By the way, I share the same view as you on big corporations in that they are great for our economy and they are not the enemy. Montana could improve its economy if its tax structure was more inviting to big corporations. You must have mis-understood my point. My point is that only big corporations, which does not make up 95% of the population, more like 10-15%, are the only benefactors of free trade under the current structure and quite honestly the benefit does not outweigh the cost. Yes, I do use agriculture in most of my examples, but that is because I am more educated in that area and feel most comfortable defending my points from that stance. See, this is why we need to educate our country so they can be more informed of the real issues rather than the smoke coming from Washington. I do disagree with your slippery slope theory though.

This allows the workers to afford more stuff, such as an extra couple servings of bread, which gets back to the farmer in the form of higher wheat prices

This is a common fallacy and you are not the first to make that mistake. American agriculture products have in fact remained at the same price over the last 50 years and if you include inflation it has actually declined. This is mostly due to our increased efficiencies and our effort to better market our products. Plus any profits realized by an increase in demand of bread are mostly eaten up by the bread distributers and/or grocers...... not farmers. Again, you should know that. Call your dad sometime and ask him what he thinks.

The WTO is a pain in the butt for us as well

and why am I even having to argue this? Bottom line: Free trade is an IDEALISTIC point of view that will only hurt Americans as long as other players do not "play fair" which won't happen in reality. Mostly I think you agree with me. Please do more research as this is something I have been studying for the past 5 years. I would welcome any more information that you have to offer based on your research or first hand experience. Well, let me qualify that, it must be based on fact and not opinion though your opinions are shared by many and these are some of the obstacles that we in agriculture face. So go ahead say whatever you want because it gives me an opportunity to educate our readers on a broader spectrum. lol Its my job you know. No really, it is my job. lol

LongTimeCatFan · Post by **LongTimeCatFan** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 8:28 pm

62Griz wrote:You might 'explain' that, Long Time, but you'd still be wrong!

Its one thing to make educated statements, but it's quite another to just make statements without anything to back them up. Back it up if you want to, but otherwise I will just have to assume that you are blowing smoke from behind you. Oh and I can "explain" grazing for there have been many studies done and Range Manangement as a consequence has become a science, but that isn't new. This science has been around for about 50 years. It is proven that controlled grazing conducted in a conservative approach encourages diversity in the plant community and also reduces run-off erosion by increasing plant verility which decreases the amount of bare ground. For you fishermen, run-off erosion is the stuff that causes sediment poisoning in fish. So why would we want to decrease grazing on public lands? It just doesn't make sense.

couloir41 · Post by **couloir41** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 9:13 pm

ltcf...i've been accused, on this board, of being a nit picker in the past...i'm not inclined to believe someone on their word particularly when they sound so omnicient...so let's have some references...footnotes...etc...for your numbers regarding subsidies to montana ag concerns...including indirect subsidies...

like allowing the ag industry in montana to be the states largest polluter of public water...disallowing the importation of canadian beef because of an overblown crisis...government programs that genetically engineer strains of grain to grow in a "desert"...subsidies...subsidies...subsidies

me thinks you suffer from selective argumentation....no offense intended...but i am serious about the sources of your info

i know my points sound sophomoric to someone of your learned status but please entertain my requests..

LongTimeCatFan · Post by **LongTimeCatFan** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 10:14 pm

so let's have some references...footnotes...etc...for your numbers regarding subsidies to montana ag concerns...

Great Falls Tribune, November 12, 2001. Listing Montana's Farm Subsidies

like allowing the ag industry in montana to be the states largest polluter of public water...disallowing the importation of canadian beef because of an overblown crisis...government programs that genetically engineer strains of grain to grow in a "desert"...subsidies...subsidies...subsidies

Concerning the first part, where did you find that garbage? I answered your challenge, now you answer mine.

As for the second, as I stated earlier, we as Americans enjoy the most inexpensive and safest food supply in the world. This was simply a reaction to both maintain safety of our beef as well as saving us billions of dollars lost due to losing the "BSE free" status. It is much like brucellosis. Losing the "brucellosis free" status would cost Montana millions of dollars. So I don't believe that it was "overblown," but that the appropriate precautionary actions were taken in order to maintain our lower food costs and safety. As for your third point, how can you argue that is something that should not occur? It is a requirement of a land grant university to provide three things: Higher Education, RESEARCH, and extension. I don't expect you to know that since UofM is not a land grant university, but now you know. In fact, agriculture is not the only sector that a land grant university provides research for. Where do you think most of the research on human health occurs? I know you see how that "directly" affects you. It's not going to be MSU because that is not a specialty of MSU. Truth is, that new strain of wheat is helping to overcome the current obstacle that faces agriculture.... drought. Without it, you would be paying those dirty farmers more of your hard earned money in.... huh more DIRECT subsidies. Hey since we're on the topic of pollution, Missoula and the surrounding area has done the least to control noxious weeds. Noxious weeds like the big one over there, Spotted Knapweed, are very good competitors. They choke out native plants and release a toxin in the soil to disallow other plants to grow there. It has been proven that this disruption in native ground cover causes more bare ground which in turn increases both wind and run-off erosion. Both causing air and water pollution. This would be the reason for which there is a state law which prohibits the propagation or allowance to propagate of noxious weeds on your property. Therefore you must have some form of control as required by law. How is it that Missoula and its surrounding areas are afforded the luxury of both breaking the law and allowing more pollution to occur. See, sometimes doing nothing has a greater negative impact than doing something. By the way, if you want to look up any of this information, most of it can be found in the form of "MONTGuides" under the extension portion of MSU's web site. www.montana.edu

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 10:50 am

LongTimeCatFan wrote:
With that said.... First and foremost, I was waiting for the classic
"Yeah, the whole family farm thing is romantic and all, but why are all of my tax dollars going to subsidize them? Where's the subsidy for the dry cleaners or the carpenters who are having a bad year?"
Ok with you growing up on a farm, I thought you might be a little more informed than that. Less than 10% of all farms in MT recieve subsidies and those that are will most likely have to sell out in the next 10 years.

I was playing devil's advocate and passing along the exact kinds of quotes that I hear quite a lot from people I know. Since most people I know realize that I grew up on a farm/ranch, I instantly become the resident expert on all things ag related, especially when the farm bill is being debated. Regardless of the realities of the numbers of being receiving direct federal assistance (your link didn't work, by the way, and does that include CRP?), the perception by the rest of America is the same. They are a little bitter as it is pretty well known that the rural states benefit greatly by the electoral college/equal representation in the Senate structure we have in place, and the farm program is seen by many as a huge give-away program that results from this unequal representation. The bigger states are net losers when it comes to taxes paid/benefits received and the smaller states come out way ahead on this same measure. The farm program is simply the highest profile of these programs.

I'm not speaking as me -- I have a vested interest in seeing cash flow into Montana. However, from a political point of view, how long will America continue to support the farm programs when no other industry receives the same treatment?

You also downplayed the frequency of people receiving payments and noted that many of those would go out of business. Does that then suggest that the programs aren't necessary? If they are going to go out of business anyway, is it the responsibility of the federal government to prop up relatively unsuccessful businesses? Shouldn't we let them go under and have somebody who is better at it take over? Again, these are theoretical questions, and questions that I have heard from others that can't be whisked away very easily.

You must have mis-understood my point. My point is that only big corporations, which does not make up 95% of the population, more like 10-15%, are the only benefactors of free trade under the current structure and quite honestly the benefit does not outweigh the cost.

My 95% of the population was not an estimation of the direct employees of big corporations, but rather the people who were NOT directly employed in agriculture, thus the percentage of the population for whom free trade doesn't hinge exclusively on agriculture.

This allows the workers to afford more stuff, such as an extra couple servings of bread, which gets back to the farmer in the form of higher wheat prices
This is a common fallacy and you are not the first to make that mistake. American agriculture products have in fact remained at the same price over the last 50 years and if you include inflation it has actually declined. This is mostly due to our increased efficiencies and our effort to better market our products. Plus any profits realized by an increase in demand of bread are mostly eaten up by the bread distributers and/or grocers...... not farmers. Again, you should know that. Call your dad sometime and ask him what he thinks.

So you are saying that supply and demand has absolutely no impact on wheat prices? I call BS on that one. When the price has ranged between $2 and $4 over the last couple of years, what caused that shift in prices? It was supply and demand, just like virtually everything else in a capitalist economy. I know it is true that prices haven't increased over time, but that's again due to supply and demand. As wheat becomes more efficiently grown, supply goes up worldwide. Regardless of that, a favorable shift of the demand curve (resulting from people having more money to buy more wheat products worldwide) will certainly favorably impact wheat prices. It might not be a huge impact, but there is certainly an impact.

The WTO is a pain in the butt for us as well
and why am I even having to argue this? Bottom line: Free trade is an IDEALISTIC point of view that will only hurt Americans as long as other players do not "play fair" which won't happen in reality. Mostly I think you agree with me. Please do more research as this is something I have been studying for the past 5 years. I would welcome any more information that you have to offer based on your research or first hand experience. Well, let me qualify that, it must be based on fact and not opinion though your opinions are shared by many and these are some of the obstacles that we in agriculture face. So go ahead say whatever you want because it gives me an opportunity to educate our readers on a broader spectrum. lol Its my job you know. No really, it is my job. lol

Even though the WTO has been a pain in the butt for us, that doesn't mean I think it should go away. I think the goal should be to move towards free trade and not run away from it only when it doesn't benefit us. The WTO shot down our ETI and FSC (and DISC before that) tax regimes because they ruled that they were veiled export subsidies (which are not allowed under WTO rules). Well, knowing quite a lot about those tax laws, I can say that they were right. As a result, Congress is enacting some tax legislation that doesn't favor exports, but allows companies to compete internationally and domestically. It's actually better policy.

I don't know all of the details of the WTO and agriculture, but I imagine that there has been some good things that have happened for the U.S. as a result and some new markets that have been opened. Rather than just scrap these trade organizations, why not push to improve them? Retrenching and throwing up new trade barriers seems like the worst idea to me. Of course, if you do want to do that, I fully expect that you will start voting Democrat exclusively.

Cat-theotherwhitemeat · Post by **Cat-theotherwhitemeat** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 11:45 am

BAC and LTCF........you're obviously not getting any work done.

You're Fired!