Who was "upset"?It just seems really odd that someone who isn’t upset at all about that would be upset that we’re going to buy $240,000 worth of ham from that same company.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Who was "upset"?It just seems really odd that someone who isn’t upset at all about that would be upset that we’re going to buy $240,000 worth of ham from that same company.
The purchase of Smithfield was part of a Chinese government initiative to expand and diversify their food sources. Did you even watch the video I linked?Ummm...no? Are the hog farms, processing plants, and workers going somewhere? What - exactly - can the Chinese do?
LOL...you - again - have me confused with someone else. And if swine flu "devastates China's domestic supply" how would that impact our supply in ways it wouldn't have before the purchase?The purchase of Smithfield was part of a Chinese government initiative to expand and diversify their food sources. Did you even watch the video I linked?
As an example, if swine flu devastates China’s domestic supply they can simply import more pork from Smithfield’s farms, which impacts our own supply.
And, again, I’m not saying you should be outraged that China owns 25% of our pork industry. I’m asking how/why you can be okay with China owning 25% of our pork industry but livid about our government buying $240,000 worth of ham from them.
As of right now about 7% of Smithfield's pork products go to China. If China's domestic supply was severely impacted by disease or other factors, where do you suppose they could get more now that they own 500 American hog farms?LOL...you - again - have me confused with someone else. And if swine flu "devastates China's domestic supply" how would that impact our supply in ways it wouldn't have before the purchase?
@CarolinaHawkeyeWho was "upset"?
As of right now about 7% of Smithfield's pork products go to China. If China's domestic supply was severely impacted by disease or other factors, where do you suppose they could get more now that they own 500 American hog farms?
Yep, we should use reciprocation of their rules, no more than 49% ownership, and you have to have a US partner, share all technology for product sold into the country with that partner.Aaaannnd...crickets.
Apparently the government buying a bunch of surplus ham at $1.67/lb from a Chinese-owned pork producer in Virginia is worse than letting the Chinese buy the whole damn company in the first place.
So why don't you walk us through what would have happened if they didn't own 500 American hog farms. Before you start, I feel compelled to remind you that pork is a world commodity. Ok...go!As of right now about 7% of Smithfield's pork products go to China. If China's domestic supply was severely impacted by disease or other factors, where do you suppose they could get more now that they own 500 American hog farms?
Thanks ObamaYou sure about that?
Your article:
A Chinese-owned pork producer is eligible for federal payments under President Donald Trump's $12 billion farm bailout, a program that was established to help U.S. farmers hurt by Trump's trade war with China.
Smithfield Foods, a Virginia-based pork producer acquired in 2013 by a Chinese conglomerate now named WH Group, can apply for federal money under the bailout program created this summer, said Agriculture Department spokesman Carl E. Purvis.
The OP's article:
A Chinese-owned pork producer will sell at least $240,000 worth of ham products to the federal government as part of the Trump administration's farm bailout program, the administration said Wednesday.
U.S. pork producer Smithfield, which is owned by the Chinese conglomerate WH Group, will sell 144,000 pounds of ham products to the federal government under the contract.
One of these things is not like the other. See if you can figure it out. Then start trying to make the case that they really are the same and let's see if we can squeeze half a dozen pages out of it of you being wrong.
Soooo...not me. I didn't think so.@CarolinaHawkeye
@dekhawk
@cigaretteman
@BioHawk
@joelbc1
Senator Chuck Grassley
Tony Corbo, senior lobbyist at Food and Water Watch, who accused Republicans of delaying the announcement until after the elections for polticial purposes
The Washington Post
The Los Angeles Times
The entire left-wing blogosphere
Thousands of Twitter users
It's worth noting that the government canceled Smithfield's bailout funding over the weekend, at Smithfield's request. I guess they decided that a transaction that represents about 0.016% of their annual revenue wasn't worth all the negative publicity.
I made it clear that my point was directly at people who are upset about the Trump administration giving bailout funds to a Chinese-owned company but weren’t upset when the Obama administration allowed China to buy the company in the first place.Soooo...not me. I didn't think so.
As of right now about 7% of Smithfield's pork products go to China. If China's domestic supply was severely impacted by disease or other factors, where do you suppose they could get more now that they own 500 American hog farms?
Yep, we should use reciprocation of their rules, no more than 49% ownership, and you have to have a US partner, share all technology for product sold into the country with that partner.
Ain't it amazing that the Party of Less Government and allowing the Hand of the Free Market to do its magic now advocates for tariffs, subsidies, and preventing legal sale of private companies?
What exactly DO Republicans stand for, anymore?
These seem like pretty different things to me. The sale of the company seems to be right in the wheelhouse of capitalism and the government staying out of private business matters. The pork buying subsidy program is in the government can use its power to pick winners and losers and interferes with the free market. It seems to me that people who are pleased about one about one probably should be at odds with the other.
I don't happen to think either is really a big deal.
One private domestic company buying another private domestic company? Usually not a problem unless there are anti-trust or monopoly concerns.Ain't it amazing that the Party of Less Government and allowing the Hand of the Free Market to do its magic now advocates for tariffs, subsidies, and preventing legal sale of private companies?
What exactly DO Republicans stand for, anymore?
Are you upset about the buyout but not the bailout? You certainly can be. They're not remotely the same thing. You're arguing that they are.I made it clear that my point was directly at people who are upset about the Trump administration giving bailout funds to a Chinese-owned company but weren’t upset when the Obama administration allowed China to buy the company in the first place.
If you’re not one of those people then why are you arguing with me? Do you feel like it makes sense for others to be upset about the bailout but not the takeover? Or do you just enjoy arguing with me
for no real reason?
I'm still trying to figure out how this will impact the "pork market" differently.The free market?
One private domestic company buying another private domestic company? Usually not a problem unless there are anti-trust or monopoly concerns.
TJ....I was never "upset with" Trump over the tariffs.....My point is to point out the hypocrisy of you and your ilk in backing this asshole in instituting tariffs....a definite "no-no" for asll you free traders out there. At least you purport to be "free traders".... but I doubt you are, as you have no principles in life. If Obama would have done this, TJ you would have lead to charge to have him removed from office....but since your asshole did it, nothing but crickets from you and yours.....which, honestly speaks volumes about you.....and yours.@CarolinaHawkeye
@dekhawk
@cigaretteman
@BioHawk
@joelbc1
Senator Chuck Grassley
Tony Corbo, senior lobbyist at Food and Water Watch, who accused Republicans of delaying the announcement until after the elections for polticial purposes
The Washington Post
The Los Angeles Times
The entire left-wing blogosphere
Thousands of Twitter users
It's worth noting that the government canceled Smithfield's bailout funding over the weekend, at Smithfield's request. I guess they decided that a transaction that represents about 0.016% of their annual revenue wasn't worth all the negative publicity.
Ain't it amazing that the Party of Less Government and allowing the Hand of the Free Market to do its magic now advocates for tariffs, subsidies, and preventing legal sale of private companies?
What exactly DO Republicans stand for, anymore?
LOL...and here we go. You do understand the difference between being eligible for something and actually getting it...right?
Holy shit, you’re a mess.TJ....I was never "upset with" Trump over the tariffs.....My point is to point out the hypocrisy of you and your ilk in backing this asshole in instituting tariffs....a definite "no-no" for asll you free traders out there. At least you purport to be "free traders".... but I doubt you are, as you have no principles in life. If Obama would have done this, TJ you would have lead to charge to have him removed from office....but since your asshole did it, nothing but crickets from you and yours.....which, honestly speaks volumes about you.....and yours.
I think it is absolute BULLSHIT any business gets a "bail-out" at any time. And I am a friggin' liberal! Especially a GD Chinese company. But..."bail-outs" are the American way....and BOTH Party's have embraced the idea. Again...IF you are indeed a conservative Republican the idea of bailing out a business should turn your stomach...especially a company like this that can be replaced in a heartbeat and never missed. But...you donr seem to be upset.....so why not? Becauise it wasnt done by a Democrat?Holy shit, you’re a mess.
I didn’t say you were upset with Trump over the tariffs. I listed you among the posters in this thread who were upset that Smithfield was going to get bailout funds. And you clearly were upset, as evidenced by post #3 in this thread.
Nothing that “my ilk” or I have posted in this thread is hypocritical. Trump is not “my asshole” and I have never supported his tariffs. In fact, I have stated several times over the past year that these tariffs, like most tariffs, are a bad idea and come with unintended consequences.
I criticized Obama for his tire tariffs that led to China retaliating with tariffs on chicken feet, which cost U.S poultry farmers billions of dollars. But I certainly didn’t call for him to be “removed from office”.
Since just about everything you wrote about me in that post is demonstrably false, none of it “speaks volumes” about me. About the only thing it says is that once again you have your head firmly lodged up your own ass.
Cool. Neither of those "examples" has anything to do with me but...cool.Yup. Like the difference between "purging the voter roles" and "taking away 50,000 people's rights to vote". Or, the difference between "not getting abortion pills for free" and "taking away access to birth control". Words are neat!.
I’m not happy that Smithfield was going to get money but when you keep it in perspective it wasn’t as big a deal as some people were trying to make it seem. The government was basically buying 72 tons of pork at $1.67 for the purpose of reselling it. It’s not like the government was just going to give them free money. And $240,000 represents about 0.016% of Smithfield’s annual revenue.I think it is absolute BULLSHIT any business gets a "bail-out" at any time. And I am a friggin' liberal! Especially a GD Chinese company. But..."bail-outs" are the American way....and BOTH Party's have embraced the idea. Again...IF you are indeed a conservative Republican the idea of bailing out a business should turn your stomach...especially a company like this that can be replaced in a heartbeat and never missed. But...you donr seem to be upset.....so why not? Becauise it wasnt done by a Democrat?
They aren't the same thing. At all. Apples. Hammers. smh2) It’s hypocritical to be angry about Smithfield getting bailout funds while not being angry that the Obama administration signed off on China buying Smithfield in the first place.
I never said they’re the same thing. Why do you keep trying to insist that I did?They aren't the same thing. At all. Apples. Hammers. smh
JFC, if they’re not the same, it is perfectly within reason to be upset by one and not the other. No hypocrisy evident. You can be upset by both...or neither...or either but not the other. You know why? THEY’RE NOT THE SAME THING!I never said they’re the same thing. Why do you keep trying to insist that I did?
This is an excellent point.Ain't it amazing that the Party of Less Government and allowing the Hand of the Free Market to do its magic now advocates for tariffs, subsidies, and preventing legal sale of private companies?
What exactly DO Republicans stand for, anymore?
Lol, shit's getting real. TarHeel broke out the caps lock key.JFC, if they’re not the same, it is perfectly within reason to be upset by one and not the other. No hypocrisy evident. You can be upset by both...or neither...or either but not the other. You know why? THEY’RE NOT THE SAME THING!
SMH at another patented TJ gross display of stupidity. Cue the endless claims that he’s not wrong...again.
LOL...and here we go again. You did a lot of work to demonstrate these two aren't the same thing. You've admitted they aren't the same thing. Given that truth, it's entirely possible to be upset over one thing and not be upset over something that...pay really close attention here...isn't...the...same...thing.Lol, shit's getting real. TarHeel broke out the caps lock key.
Let me try to explain it to you this way:
Item A - In compliance with a Chinese government initiative to expand and diversify their food, water, and land resources by acquiring foreign companies, Shuanghui Foods makes a takeover bid to purchase Smithfield Foods - the largest pork producer in the world and a company that represents 25% of America's pork industry. This raises immediate concerns among some people regarding the safety and security of our food supply. Despite these concerns the Obama administration signs off on the deal, which was the largest takeover of an American company by a foreign company in history.
Reaction from most Democrats:
Item B - China responds to Trump's import tariffs by implementing tariffs on U.S. agricultural imports. The Trump administration then announces a "bailout" program to buy products from farmers and resell them in other markets. Two weeks prior to the election, the administration announces that Chinese-owned Smithfield is eligible for money under the program. But it is not until the day after the election that scheming Republicans finally reveal the extent of the horror. Our government planned to pay Smithfield $240,000 for 144,000 pounds of pork products.
Reaction from most Democrats:
I've admitted they aren't the same thing? Hell, I've been trying to explain to you they aren't the same thing - even as you repeatedly lied and accused me of claiming they are the same thing.LOL...and here we go again. You did a lot of work to demonstrate these two aren't the same thing. You've admitted they aren't the same thing. Given that truth, it's entirely possible to be upset over one thing and not be upset over something that...pay really close attention here...isn't...the...same...thing.
So it IS possible to be more upset about one than the other...as long as that upset conforms to YOUR view. And upon that hook, you hang hypocrisy.Of course it's possible to be more upset about one of those things than the other. My point is that it makes no sense to be more upset about our government buying $240,000 worth of ham from Chinese-owned Smithfield than about our government letting China buy the whole goddamn company.
They're not the same...and you can be more upset about one than the other...but if you're more upset about THIS than THAT...you're a hypocrite.
She is 100% the Left's congratulations!