House Republicans vote to cut funds to implement food safety law

The problem with cutting the budget is that for ANY program, you'll have the opposing side cry havok about what it will cost.
It is a common political tactic to prey on the fear of "losing" out on entitlements/program/grants.

Fact of the matter is, some may suffer. There are sure to be other programs, even entrepeneurial ones that will be provided by the private sector.

But this blatent fear-mongering is not helping. Try looking into alternate programs or rescources for the folksthat might need it.

Beez

reply to post by beezzer


Cut military spending, and set top 5% back to the clinton tax rates = win

Not only will this balance the budget, but it will create a surplus that can be used to pay down the fed debt...

Now, if we want to go crazy, we can install tariffs on imports to encourage domestic product viability, and hammer corporations that export our jobs...suddenly you have a booming economy and with all the new well paying jobs, you get more revenue, which means we can pay down the debt even faster, or have expansive social programs everyone seems to love...perhaps a free scholarship program for the sciences to get a highly educated population and ensure our technological succes for the future..

But ya,...the budget is easy...you can either cut a million small programs and have the poor and middle class suffer, or just reinstate the clinton tax rate for the top and have a few people seem slightly bothered that they can't get a 6th car in their driveway for that year...


The middle class is NOT a natural thing for society...it is a artifical creation...and its a creation that, in my opinion, the success of a society is judged on.

reply to post by SaturnFX


I would agree on military spending. Lets get us all home.

BUT!. . . . I wuld drastically cut taxes acrossthe board, let people have more of their own money. Sure, the rich will have more, but so will the middle class. Also, businsses would have extra income to actually GROW, so THEY could make more money (which is what they want) and by default, they would hire more people.

Win, win.

I can see it now. A group of General Foods corporate black hats sitting in a dark, smoky room. The leader, we'll call him Bullwinkle, says, "I have a new, grand plan! We're going to poison all of the food now that the FDA's budget has been cut! We'll take over the world!!" One of the other men, kind of a squirrely sort raises his hand.
"What is it, Rocky!?"
"Um...sir...if we poison everyone, they'll die, right?"
"Yes, yes they will! What is your point? Spit it out!"
"Well, sir, if everyone is dead, they can't buy our food! We'll..well...we'll go out of business!"
"Ahh, that true, Rocky! But there's something you haven't thought of!"
"What's that, sir?"
"Everyone in America will be dead, but WE'LL be in charge! BWAHAHAHAHA!"

The end.

I don't think it's quite as dire as you predict. It's not in a company's best interest to kill their customers.

/TOA

reply to post by SaturnFX

Someone whom works for the people or someone whom works for the profits

How does the FDA ``work for the people``? They go to work for a paycheck, they aren't volunteering to work there.

a corporation going for the profits will make good decisons...for their shareholders. if its worth risking sending out 5 million jars of tainted peanut butter to make 2$ a jar, and settle some lawsuits that come in the tune of 6 or so million bucks..well, thats just good business...only when it becomes more expensive to pay off lawsuits of sickness and death will recall become a option.

That makes no sense profit wise, WalMary could easily scratch off its expiration dates and sell old food, but they don't because if people get sick it will create a market for honest sellers. Many ``tainted peanut butter`` problems come from factories that have a long history of tainted peanut butter problems. A lot of folk assume the FDA will protect them no matter who they buy goods from, so they have no incentive to discriminate against the tainted peanut butter company.

Naa, give me government on this one...but, the government needs to function better.

Have fun chasing that rainbow.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

I would agree on military spending. Lets get us all home.

BUT!. . . . I wuld drastically cut taxes acrossthe board, let people have more of their own money. Sure, the rich will have more, but so will the middle class. Also, businsses would have extra income to actually GROW, so THEY could make more money (which is what they want) and by default, they would hire more people.

Win, win.

edit on 17-6-2011 by beezzer because: (no reason given)

That was the philosophy put in place in the early 2000's, and what followed was the slowest job growth in generations.
it is absolutely false...the record shows clearly that the less the wealthy pay in taxes, the more inclined they are to "cash out" and consolidate their funds...the more taxes they pay, the more they invest in their business so they don't have to claim on taxes.

Trickle down economics simply do not work. it was an experimental philosophy that was tried over and over and each time has slowed down the economy, and each time the fiat economic model was employed to save it from total crash.

It doesn't work...just deal with the fact...

Now, I am not in favor of returning to a 50s tax rate where the richest were paying insane amounts of taxes...I actually like our million and billionares...its nice to see the haves in their golden chariots riding around the street...makes the plebs of society dream about one day achieving that...However, a 4% increase in taxes will effect them minimally, will slightly level the playing field and ensure a middle class, and give incentive for investors to keep their money invested to mature a bit longer...this works...its been proven to work...it makes america become an economic powerhouse and with more investment comes more jobs, consumerism, and the rich end up making more money than a low tax rate and a crap economy..

that is a win win in my book...(so long as tariffs are in place to stop the exporting of jobs and importing of crappy knock offs to destroy our local production)

You and I disagree on this...probably always will. but in 100-200 years, one of us will be seen as the reasonable one, one of us will be seen as idealistically clinging to propaganda over facts. I suspect history will favor my viewpoints over yours, but at the very least, we are living out a trial and error system. I was hopeing this trial and error would be resolved already with people looking at hard numbers and facts...but sadly, emotional principles are clearly still fueling the debate.

We need to remove the two party system...if only so that nobody can cling to being right for a side. pride will let a ship sink verses accept they were incorrect about a theory.