Trump 47

Texas ranchers and state Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller are pushing back on President Donald Trump's suggestion that the United States import more beef from Argentina to combat high domestic prices.

Miller, a Republican and longtime Trump ally, wrote on X Tuesday morning that increasing beef imports would hurt ranchers.

"There doesn't need to be a conflict between our beef producers and consumers," he wrote. "If we want to lower prices (and we should), we should be importing breed stock to increase our domestic herds, benefiting consumers and producers!"

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/14NEfVr4UEC/
 
Texas ranchers and state Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller are pushing back on President Donald Trump's suggestion that the United States import more beef from Argentina to combat high domestic prices.

Miller, a Republican and longtime Trump ally, wrote on X Tuesday morning that increasing beef imports would hurt ranchers.

"There doesn't need to be a conflict between our beef producers and consumers," he wrote. "If we want to lower prices (and we should), we should be importing breed stock to increase our domestic herds, benefiting consumers and producers!"

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/14NEfVr4UEC/

Im not advocating one way or the other but importing breeding stock isn't going to do anything for consumer beef prices in the near term. We could bring in 20 million bred heifers right tomorrow and we won't see the impact at the grocery store until 2027.

Long term Im not arguing against him because the problem right now is cattle inventory as much as anything. If you are a cow calf guy you usually retain replaced heifers for breeding stock. The problem is you don't see a return on that heifer until she has a calf and you sell it. You can sell your heifer right now and make a bigger return per animal than you have seen in your entire life. Holding her back and maybe the market 18 months from now isn't so hot when her calf goes to the sale barn.

To Trump's point, beef imports could help alleviate supply and therefore price issues right now, but that comes with a few problems. One, you are screwing over ranchers who are very very happy with cattle prices right now. Two, when the beef enters the supply chain it's probably going to pass through the packer and definitely through the grocer. Both of those industries were notorious in the past few years for using everything from covid to inflation as excuses to maximize profit. So there is no way to be sure the consumer will see the cost savings after the product goes into the food supply.

Trump could force the supply chain to move product through at a discount to help the consumer but that's way more socialist than anyone since FDR has done. The most capitalist answer is the cure for high prices is high prices. The consumer is going to have to reduce beef consumption to the point where the packer and grocer have to start discounting to move product. That will force prices down back up the supply chain and eventually we see $3 ground beef again. The problem with that is its painful and with mid terms coming up the Republicans don't want people griping about food the way they were a year ago. But sometimes the best answer is to accept that will happen and just deal with it.
 

Trump could force the supply chain to move product through at a discount to help the consumer but that's way more socialist than anyone since FDR has done. The most capitalist answer is the cure for high prices is high prices. The consumer is going to have to reduce beef consumption to the point where the packer and grocer have to start discounting to move product. That will force prices down back up the supply chain and eventually we see $3 ground beef again. The problem with that is its painful and with mid terms coming up the Republicans don't want people griping about food the way they were a year ago. But sometimes the best answer is to accept that will happen and just deal with it.

Trump is far from conservative. Honestly, what is now called "conservative" in our nation is far from conservative. They are authoritarian and bigoted, but far from conservative, except maybe some parts of social conservatism.

And, people always freak about the word bigoted as they think it is the same as racist, but tell me this definition doesn't fit to a "T"
Screenshot 2025-10-23 at 8.14.27 AM.png
 
Im not advocating one way or the other but importing breeding stock isn't going to do anything for consumer beef prices in the near term. We could bring in 20 million bred heifers right tomorrow and we won't see the impact at the grocery store until 2027.

Long term Im not arguing against him because the problem right now is cattle inventory as much as anything. If you are a cow calf guy you usually retain replaced heifers for breeding stock. The problem is you don't see a return on that heifer until she has a calf and you sell it. You can sell your heifer right now and make a bigger return per animal than you have seen in your entire life. Holding her back and maybe the market 18 months from now isn't so hot when her calf goes to the sale barn.

To Trump's point, beef imports could help alleviate supply and therefore price issues right now, but that comes with a few problems. One, you are screwing over ranchers who are very very happy with cattle prices right now. Two, when the beef enters the supply chain it's probably going to pass through the packer and definitely through the grocer. Both of those industries were notorious in the past few years for using everything from covid to inflation as excuses to maximize profit. So there is no way to be sure the consumer will see the cost savings after the product goes into the food supply.

Trump could force the supply chain to move product through at a discount to help the consumer but that's way more socialist than anyone since FDR has done. The most capitalist answer is the cure for high prices is high prices. The consumer is going to have to reduce beef consumption to the point where the packer and grocer have to start discounting to move product. That will force prices down back up the supply chain and eventually we see $3 ground beef again. The problem with that is its painful and with mid terms coming up the Republicans don't want people griping about food the way they were a year ago. But sometimes the best answer is to accept that will happen and just deal with it.
I guess people will have to start eating more chicken. Although, chicken prices have almost double as well...

So, eat more tofu for protein I guess? But, tofu is made from soybeans...
 
Somebody explain to me why MAGA now means Make Argentina Great Again? Why is trump so obsessed with saving them? I can only assume 2 things:
1. Argentina is a great place for fascist dictators to flee to
2. It's all part of a much larger grift
 
Somebody explain to me why MAGA now means Make Argentina Great Again? Why is trump so obsessed with saving them? I can only assume 2 things:
1. Argentina is a great place for fascist dictators to flee to
2. It's all part of a much larger grift
It's where the Nazis elite fled after WWII


AI Overview


Argentina became a refuge for thousands of Nazis after World War II, including high-profile figures like Adolf Eichmann and Josef Mengele, due to factors like a pre-existing pro-Nazi sympathizer community, support from the government under Juan Perón, and a desire by some to evade Allied prosecution. Many Nazi war criminals used ratlines, or escape routes, to travel to South America, sometimes aided by networks and false documents provided by organizations like the Red Cross or sympathizers within the Catholic Church. Recent actions, such as the declassification of government archives, are shedding new light on this history and how they evaded justice.
Why Argentina became a refuge
Government support: President Juan Perón's regime actively assisted Nazis in finding refuge, seeing them as potential allies and a way to gain skilled immigrants. They provided travel documents, financial aid, and facilitated their passage.
Pre-war pro-Nazi sentiment: Argentina had a large, organized pro-Nazi element before the war, which helped create a welcoming environment for fugitives.
Strategic and ideological reasons: Some saw the Nazis as valuable assets who could bring expertise and were anti-communist, aligning with Argentina's own political leanings at the time.
Ratlines and escape networks: "Ratlines" were clandestine escape routes from Europe to South America. Networks of former SS members, sympathizers, and even figures like Bishop Alois Hudal helped high-profile Nazis evade capture.
Key figures and examples
Adolf Eichmann: A key organizer of the Holocaust, he lived under the alias Ricardo Klement in a Buenos Aires suburb until he was captured by Israeli agents in 1960.
Josef Mengele: The notorious SS doctor from Auschwitz, who was also known as "Doctor Death," hid in Argentina before fleeing to Paraguay and eventually Brazil.
Erich Priebke: An SS officer who also lived in Argentina, he was eventually apprehended and returned to Germany.
Towns like Bariloche: The town of Bariloche became known as a haven for Nazi war criminals, some of whom lived there comfortably for decades.
Historical context and recent developments
Government response: Argentina has taken steps to address its past. In 1997, a commission was created to investigate Nazi activities in the country, and in recent years, the government has begun declassifying archives related to these events.
Ongoing investigations: The search for and prosecution of Nazis continued for many decades, highlighting the long-lasting impact of the "ratlines" and the challenge of bringing all war criminals to justice.
 
The survivor of a U.S. strike on a submersible vessel accused by the Trump administration of transporting drugs in the Caribbean was released by authorities in Ecuador after prosecutors said they had no evidence he committed a crime in the South American nation, a government official said Monday.

 
US National Debt Surpasses Grim Milestone For First Time In History

The U.S. government’s gross national debt surpassed $38 trillion on Wednesday—just two months after it reached $37 trillion—which comes as the government continues to navigate the federal shutdown.

This marks the fastest single-year accumulation of $1 trillion in debt outside of the emergency government spending during the COVID-19 pandemic and has prompted concerns about economic stability, borrowing costs, and long-term impacts on American citizens.

 
Back
Top