Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Athena

Politics and our food supply

Recommended Posts

Same can, really, since the methods by which we receive information about government and food supplying corporations seems tainted by the difference between journalism and marketing. Subsidized public media at least has the profit angle removed. I trust the journalistic integrity of NPR more than I do Fox News.[/Quote]

 

Oh my goodness Phil and with all the scandal that has been revealed, including Juan Williams now a prominent member of the Fox News Team???

 

NPR chief Vivian Schiller ousted amid video scandal.[/Quote]

 

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/03/npr-vivian-schiller-resigns-video-scandal-/1

 

I think there are some things that are in conflict with motives involving profit. News should be as presented with as few special interests as possible. I don't see how that can happen when your boss also happens to own the company you want to do the investigative report on.[/Quote]

 

Media is simply a for profit industry and must cater to the most profitable segment/niche of the consumer audience or advertisers they can attract. It's always been this way in the US, but so long as competition remains viable (fairness doctrine, gone), people are welcome to see, listen or read any media they wish, including some really biased internet sites.

 

 

I believe in a fair market and its ability to weather most economies, but I feel that corporations have too much influence on political and economic processes. It tips the scales too much in their favor and when it comes to food, water and air regulations, I don't trust a pure profit angle to keep the market fair. [/Quote]

 

If you mean the "Free Market" then yes, those forces can and have survived many economic downturns, but if those forces are regulation from Government, with the intention to destroy free market principles (control) then those involved will naturally evolve to better places to practice, that is move.

 

I don't know if your heading toward AGW, but Industry via competitive technology to improvement has allowed the additional availability of food and water to many places on the planet. Fresh water from salt water in the Middle East, to increased harvest per acre and not just in the US. While for business the incentive is to succeed or make money (generate wealth), Government can only exist by taking wealth from private sector....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

swansont; If a subsidy makes sense with gasoline at 2.00/G and if the subsidy help control cost, thereby the market price, while increasing usage, to my aging mind, it would be more important to subsidize at the higher price.

 

If it's profitable with the subsidy at $2 a gallon, why isn't it profitable at $4 a gallon? Seems to me that if ethanol were energy-positive you should be making $1.50 a gallon in profit when you sold it at $4 a gallon. You could sell it for less, and that would drop the price of gas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If it's profitable with the subsidy at $2 a gallon, why isn't it profitable at $4 a gallon? Seems to me that if ethanol were energy-positive you should be making $1.50 a gallon in profit when you sold it at $4 a gallon. You could sell it for less, and that would drop the price of gas. [/Quote]

 

swansont; I'm sorry sir, but I've lost your point. Refineries or oil companies profits are no more than 10% of sales, profits at 1.50/G , 15 cents and at 4$/G about 40 cents. The subsidy was to keep retail prices down, during both periods doing more so, at the higher price, 40 vs. 15 cents. I'm sure you know many oil producing countries subsides their own usage, including Mexico, where Americans can cross the border, buying American refined Gasoline at much cheaper prices, than in the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my goodness Phil and with all the scandal that has been revealed, including Juan Williams now a prominent member of the Fox News Team???

What does this have to do with their journalistic integrity? They weren't the ones doing secret tapes or wire taps. And Juan Williams made remarks that brought his integrity into question, was fired by NPR for it, and is now with Fox, where questionable integrity must be OK. None of this about pieces written and aired on NPR. None of this has anything to do with what I said, so I have to ask why you bring it up? Is this an attempt at guilt by association?

 

 

Media is simply a for profit industry and must cater to the most profitable segment/niche of the consumer audience or advertisers they can attract. It's always been this way in the US, but so long as competition remains viable (fairness doctrine, gone), people are welcome to see, listen or read any media they wish, including some really biased internet sites.

That's a big part of what's wrong these days. People listen to pundits saying things they already agree with and want to hear, rather than journalists who try to bring a story to the people with as little special slant as possible.

 

 

If you mean the "Free Market" then yes, those forces can and have survived many economic downturns, but if those forces are regulation from Government, with the intention to destroy free market principles (control) then those involved will naturally evolve to better places to practice, that is move.

I'm sure there are many regulations which need to be adjusted. I'm also sure there are many that keep my drinking water and air cleaner for me, so forgive me if I don't want to throw out the baby with the bath water. Because the baby is going to want to drink and breath too when he grows up.

 

I don't know if your heading toward AGW, but Industry via competitive technology to improvement has allowed the additional availability of food and water to many places on the planet. Fresh water from salt water in the Middle East, to increased harvest per acre and not just in the US. While for business the incentive is to succeed or make money (generate wealth), Government can only exist by taking wealth from private sector....

You prefer to look at it as "taking wealth from private sector". I prefer to look at it as creating a resource pool to share things we all deserve. It should be a benefit living in a prosperous society with a high and growing technological level.

 

I can understand why a wealthy person who owns his own pool doesn't want his tax money to pay for a community pool. He and his kids will probably never go there. But I can see why building a community pool is a good thing for the community, and sometimes you just have to think that way when we're all jammed in together like this.

 

And I can understand why a politician who needs to be seen as environmentally friendly decides to kill two birds by tossing his campaign friends at ADM a bone with legislation that ethanol additives made from corn be mandated for use with gasoline. I think this is a case where Big Agra beat Big Oil in the special interest race. But I see no benefit from it. It seems a stupid use of our resources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

swansont; I'm sorry sir, but I've lost your point. Refineries or oil companies profits are no more than 10% of sales, profits at 1.50/G , 15 cents and at 4$/G about 40 cents. The subsidy was to keep retail prices down, during both periods doing more so, at the higher price, 40 vs. 15 cents. I'm sure you know many oil producing countries subsides their own usage, including Mexico, where Americans can cross the border, buying American refined Gasoline at much cheaper prices, than in the US.

We're talking about ethanol, not oil. If I can make a profit on it at $2 a gallon with a $0.50 subsidy, why can't I make a profit on it when I can sell it for $4?

 

If ethanol was costing more than $4 a gallon when gas was $2 a gallon, then it wasn't bringing the cost down, even with the subsidy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil; Juan was fired, over the phone, according to him, for his appearances on the "Bill O'Reilly" show. Head's of any concern, set the policy for that concern or might do so at the request or command of others, companies can fail or succeed on this alone. By choice, I don't watch or listen to NPR, therefore I can't speak to the journalistic integrity, but I do recall in my years of managing small business, I NEVER hired a person, I felt would not follow my policy or the policies of the company involved.

 

That's a big part of what's wrong these days. People listen to pundits saying things they already agree with and want to hear, rather than journalists who try to bring a story to the people with as little special slant as possible. [/Quote]

 

Well IMO most people don't listen/read, to much of anything classified as news, but those that do, of course WANT to hear things they agree with. I'd validate this with the election of Obama, who said exactly what he has helped get enacted and those that elected him are now complaining...

 

I'm sure there are many regulations which need to be adjusted. I'm also sure there are many that keep my drinking water and air cleaner for me, so forgive me if I don't want to throw out the baby with the bath water. Because the baby is going to want to drink and breath too when he grows up. [/Quote]

 

The people that purify your local drinking water or business that sequester their exhaust emission have long been concerned (well before EPA or any Government regulation) and are more concerned with your opinions than any Federal Government.

 

You prefer to look at it as "taking wealth from private sector". I prefer to look at it as creating a resource pool to share things we all deserve. It should be a benefit living in a prosperous society with a high and growing technological level.[/Quote]

 

And just who determines "Things we all deserve" or what we don't all deserve, or better yet at what point is a person responsible to and for themselves? If you educate yourself, work hard, play by the rules and somehow create a business, employing thousands, that generates a few billion dollars of wealth, are you then obligated to pay for my failure? That's just not why this country has thrived over so many generations or in fact the principles it was founded on, individualism!!! They didn't want the King of England to choose their destiny and I don't want the Federal, making the choice.

 

I think this is a case where Big Agra beat Big Oil in the special interest race. But I see no benefit from it. It seems a stupid use of our resources. [/Quote]

 

Maybe but remember not many years ago, farm subsidies were paid to farmers, NOT to grow, in this case, corn. This was to maintain a certain price level, around 2$/B as was sugar and you might not know what all the food you drink/eat involves one or both, keeping prices stable. That is, it probably was the politicians, that introduced ethanol into the equation, to be seen as reducing dependency on foreign oil, while not exploiting our own, for other reason, creating the unintended consequences. I do agree, there has been "benefit from it", to the contrary, very costly to the price of food, worldwide.

 

 

swansont; The subsidies were paid according to what ethanol was produced, shipped and blended from the times involved, increasing usage (%) over the years. I could do some research on this, but with the exception of a few years of lower crude prices, in turn gas prices, keeping the price down a few cents IMO was more beneficial to the economy, when the prices are/were higher....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil; Juan was fired, over the phone, according to him, for his appearances on the "Bill O'Reilly" show. Head's of any concern, set the policy for that concern or might do so at the request or command of others, companies can fail or succeed on this alone. By choice, I don't watch or listen to NPR, therefore I can't speak to the journalistic integrity, but I do recall in my years of managing small business, I NEVER hired a person, I felt would not follow my policy or the policies of the company involved.

Juan was fired because, while on the nationally televised O'Reilly show, billed as an NPR political analyst, he made some remarks about feeling uncomfortable on airplanes with people who dress like Muslims, racial remarks that run counter to NPR's policies. He was NOT fired "for his appearances on the 'Bill O'Reilly' show". Obviously, the head of NPR felt the same way you do about people who won't follow company policy.

 

Well IMO most people don't listen/read, to much of anything classified as news, but those that do, of course WANT to hear things they agree with. I'd validate this with the election of Obama, who said exactly what he has helped get enacted and those that elected him are now complaining...

It is strange that people are complaining because Obama is doing exactly what he promised in his campaign. Why didn't they complain when Bush II campaigned on a return to Reagan Republicanism and then changed completely and proceeded to grow the federal government, become the world's police, double the national debt, and pass a 700B prescription bill for Medicare/Medicaid, the very same program the Tea Party wants to do away with now? Why wasn't that spending bad then like it is now?

 

 

The people that purify your local drinking water or business that sequester their exhaust emission have long been concerned (well before EPA or any Government regulation) and are more concerned with your opinions than any Federal Government.

Definitely your opinion.

 

 

And just who determines "Things we all deserve" or what we don't all deserve, or better yet at what point is a person responsible to and for themselves? If you educate yourself, work hard, play by the rules and somehow create a business, employing thousands, that generates a few billion dollars of wealth, are you then obligated to pay for my failure? That's just not why this country has thrived over so many generations or in fact the principles it was founded on, individualism!!! They didn't want the King of England to choose their destiny and I don't want the Federal, making the choice.

Who determines what we deserve? We do. Don't we all deserve to breathe clean air, drink clean water, eat food that's had some high-criteria inspection done on it to make sure it's as good as we've been told? And since everyone can't be a business owner (who would be the workers?), isn't it in our own best interests to create programs that help people get by a little better? Because unlike you, I don't consider non-business owners to be failures (I can't believe you said that!).

 

As I said before, some things are better without a profit motive and the attitudes it creates. Personally, I'd rather not have a for-profit insurance company tell me that I'm not covered for my health problems because they've determined it wouldn't be profitable. If it were handled the right way, Medicare would be a perfect use of a taxpayer risk pool. If we didn't pass laws to hobble its purchasing power or cut its funding to make it look bad, Medicare could be something to be proud of, something we could all deserve. The same with the EPA or the FDA or other government agencies and programs that have been systematically degraded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviously, the head of NPR felt the same way you do about people who won't follow company policy.[/Quote]

 

Phil, then you agree NPR is bias, which from what I hear, is correct. I do kind of wonder saying what Williams did say (uncomfortable) about Muslim clad passengers on an Airplane, after 19 Muslim Radicals successfully downed four planes and another one tried to down a plane heading into Detroit, is a just cause for firing their only Black News Analyst, Commentator and most certainly a loyal liberal.

 

It is strange that people are complaining because Obama is doing exactly what he promised in his campaign. Why didn't they complain when Bush II campaigned on a return to Reagan Republicanism and then changed completely and proceeded to grow the federal government, become the world's police, double the national debt, and pass a 700B prescription bill for Medicare/Medicaid, the very same program the Tea Party wants to do away with now? Why wasn't that spending bad then like it is now?[/Quote]

 

Another GOOD example, that people only listen to what they want to hear, thanks. The problem here and I WAS politically involved in 2000, was GWB claimed to be a Compassionate Conservative. I warned people then, but I could hardly promote Al Gore, over GWB, could I?

 

As for the prescription drug fiasco, no child left behind, faith based initiatives, TARP and a few other domestic issues, I've complained just as much as anyone, often on this forum. You might remember the "Unfunded Prescription Drug" debt from other threads now over 20T$, was around 16T$ when I first mentioned, at the bottom of the time this link....

 

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

 

"Definitely your opinion." Yes, with some experience. I remember going on vacations in the 40's, with my parents, seeing smoke rising from people burning their own trash, roadside trash on every highway and black smoke/plumes of emissions from every business smoke stack. I remember as all this ceased to be in the later 50's and 60's, as local authorities did their thing, generally without any regulation, certainly NONE from the Federal. We didn't need Government telling us what to do, what light bulbs we could buy or what to eat....

 

Who determines what we deserve? We do. Don't we all deserve to breathe clean air, drink clean water, eat food that's had some high-criteria inspection done on it to make sure it's as good as we've been told? And since everyone can't be a business owner (who would be the workers?), isn't it in our own best interests to create programs that help people get by a little better? Because unlike you, I don't consider non-business owners to be failures (I can't believe you said that!). [/Quote]

 

Who is we, in a country of 310M people, with very diverse needs and cost of livings. Should we all live like those in NYC, where it might take 5K$ or more, to live like I do here in Southern NM for about a thousand a month. Should what any person deserves be decided by politicians, who could be gone after any two year cycle, as it was intended or some department head that only has their own life experiences to work with, determining some regulations meaning.

 

I'm not aware of anyone promoting dirty water or air to breath and every business has a quality control department, of some kind, especially those involved with food/drink and they have been around, long before the Federal Inspectors.

 

If you educate yourself, work hard, play by the rules and somehow create a business, employing thousands, that generates a few billion dollars of wealth, are you then obligated to pay for my failure?[/Quote] My words...

 

The analogy used for you, was not intended to imply what your thinking, but the extreme and under today's spin, those being attacked. There are a whole lot more wealthy workers, than there are wealthy business owners to start with and many business owners fail, some many times, dying relatively poor I might add especially in past few years.

 

As I said before, some things are better without a profit motive and the attitudes it creates. Personally, I'd rather not have a for-profit insurance company tell me that I'm not covered for my health problems because they've determined it wouldn't be profitable. If it were handled the right way, Medicare would be a perfect use of a taxpayer risk pool. If we didn't pass laws to hobble its purchasing power or cut its funding to make it look bad, Medicare could be something to be proud of, something we could all deserve. The same with the EPA or the FDA or other government agencies and programs that have been systematically degraded. [/Quote]

 

Of course you know, your asking for socialized medicine, possibly under the single payer system and your end cost via taxes will be much greater OR quality (coverage) greatly reduced. As for your chances today of being denied medical service, it's statistically greater under the Government, than through the private sector.

 

What none of these politicians will tell you is that the largest insurance claim denier in the United States is the federal government by way of Medicare. Shocking, no? The way we’re all told, the federal government treats absolutely everyone on Medicaid and Medicare and we’re told that ObamaCare will continue this high level of treatment.[/Quote]

 

http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/2010/04/12/federal-programs-deny-more-claims-than-private-insurance/

 

As to degrading the EPA/FDA or other Federal Agencies, I'd really like to know where all the added Federal employees over the past 3 years are going, not to mention the increased pay scale and future obligations involved.

 

"Over the time that President Obama has been in office, we have lost 2.5 million free enterprise system jobs, and, yet, 500,000 federal government jobs have been added."[/Quote]

 

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2010/aug/08/pete-sessions/pete-sessions-federal-government-has-gained-500000/

 

Personally, I'd like to see SS/Medicare/Medicaid privatized, completely under the private sector and the Federal Government put back on track with it's intended purpose...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil, then you agree NPR is bias, which from what I hear, is correct. I do kind of wonder saying what Williams did say (uncomfortable) about Muslim clad passengers on an Airplane, after 19 Muslim Radicals successfully downed four planes and another one tried to down a plane heading into Detroit, is a just cause for firing their only Black News Analyst, Commentator and most certainly a loyal liberal.

NPR does a great job of coming at their stories from all sides, being especially sensitive to NOT having a special interest. If there is any bias, it might come from a perspective of being open to learning, which many call "liberal".

 

And personally, if I see a person in traditional Muslim clothing on a plane, that's the person I would least suspect as a terrorist. I'd look for the guy who doesn't want to stand out.

 

Yes, with some experience. I remember going on vacations in the 40's, with my parents, seeing smoke rising from people burning their own trash, roadside trash on every highway and black smoke/plumes of emissions from every business smoke stack. I remember as all this ceased to be in the later 50's and 60's, as local authorities did their thing, generally without any regulation, certainly NONE from the Federal. We didn't need Government telling us what to do, what light bulbs we could buy or what to eat....

You're about a decade off in your reckoning. The 50s and 60s in the US were some of the worst years for pollution in our history. Remember Tom Lehrer, the singer/songwriter/satirist from the 50s and 60s? Remember his song

? The first clean water legislation from the federal government came in 1960, but the Clean Air Act didn't come about until 1970. Prior to that, only a few of the bigger cities did anything about their smog. I'll grant you that the Clean Air Act couldn't have happened without the work done in California (and Los Angeles as early as 1947, in particular), but in those instances pollution was literally making it difficult for healthy people to breath, and many businesses continued to pollute until absolutely forced to stop by legislation. The fact that there was legislation that worked but wasn't being adopted by all states naturally led to the federal act in 1970. I don't know why you remember it differently; there is plenty written about the smog problems of the 50s and 60s.

 

 

Who is we, in a country of 310M people, with very diverse needs and cost of livings. Should we all live like those in NYC, where it might take 5K$ or more, to live like I do here in Southern NM for about a thousand a month. Should what any person deserves be decided by politicians, who could be gone after any two year cycle, as it was intended or some department head that only has their own life experiences to work with, determining some regulations meaning.

You throw out so many red herrings! Why wouldn't NY want clean water and air just like NM? For things that are national, what's so bad about national laws? And politicians are supposed to represent what WE want, even though lately they cater more to the needs of big business, which brings us now full circle t%o my original arguments.

 

 

The analogy used for you, was not intended to imply what your thinking, but the extreme and under today's spin, those being attacked. There are a whole lot more wealthy workers, than there are wealthy business owners to start with and many business owners fail, some many times, dying relatively poor I might add especially in past few years.

I don't even know where to start with this statement. You use the same word "wealthy" to describe both the business owners and the people who work for them. That is completely incompatible with what I know to be true, and what I see from many sources. In fact, the CEOs from the top 200 US companies are making 27% more now than they were in 2010, because they saved the company so much money by firing US workers and moved those jobs overseas. Their workers wages (those that still have a job) didn't even keep up with inflation.

 

Of course you know, your asking for socialized medicine, possibly under the single payer system and your end cost via taxes will be much greater OR quality (coverage) greatly reduced. As for your chances today of being denied medical service, it's statistically greater under the Government, than through the private sector.

I said it earlier, Medicare today has been strangled by legislation enacted under Bush. The present system is understaffed and underfunded. But there is no reason why we can't set it up to function as well as a health insurance company, without denying claims (we can do this because it wouldn't have to profit stockholders).

 

Personally, I'd like to see SS/Medicare/Medicaid privatized, completely under the private sector and the Federal Government put back on track with it's intended purpose...

Sure so it can cost more like my privatized utilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to degrading the EPA/FDA or other Federal Agencies, I'd really like to know where all the added Federal employees over the past 3 years are going, not to mention the increased pay scale and future obligations involved.

 

"Over the time that President Obama has been in office, we have lost 2.5 million free enterprise system jobs, and, yet, 500,000 federal government jobs have been added."

 

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2010/aug/08/pete-sessions/pete-sessions-federal-government-has-gained-500000/

 

Umm, the link (i.e. your own link) rates that claim as "mostly false" and points out that most of those were temporary hires for the Constitutionally-mandated census. For the lion's share there is no future obligation, since they are temporary employees.

 

What we learned: Nearly all of the uptick in federal workers from early 2009 to June 2010 reflects temporary hires by the U.S. Census Bureau, which is conducting the constitutionally required census of U.S. residents.

Not counting the temporary census workers leaves 46,000 other federal workers added on Obama’s watch.

 

Bush added more than 300,000 permanent jobs in his time in office.

http://wiredworkplace.nextgov.com/2010/09/too_many_federal_workers.php

 

If you look at employees per unit population, it keeps trending down, even with the Bush expansion. i.e. the population is rising faster than the number of government employees.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/09/how_many_federal_workers_are_t.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NPR does a great job of coming at their stories from all sides, being especially sensitive to NOT having a special interest. If there is any bias, it might come from a perspective of being open to learning, which many call "liberal".[/Quote]

 

That's not what I'm hearing or what I think Williams would agree with but as said, I just don't watch the network. To do so, would be like so many I know, some here, that rarely or never watch Fox or listen to Rush Limbaugh, yet often condemn them, hypocritical in my mind.

 

And personally, if I see a person in traditional Muslim clothing on a plane, that's the person I would least suspect as a terrorist. I'd look for the guy who doesn't want to stand out.[/Quote]

 

It's the psychology of seeing the dress/attire, a reminder of the event so to speak. Obviously those 19/20 involved with US Airplanes were trying to fit in, as would anyone wanting to harm American's for whatever reason.

 

You're about a decade off in your reckoning. The 50s and 60s in the US were some of the worst years for pollution in our history. [/Quote]

 

They probably WERE THE worst and the point of my statement, however my antidotal experiences was intended to show the people or if you prefer local governments, acted without regulation. They increased putting in road side rest area's, with trash cans, some just along the roadway, towns that had not already doing so, began trash pick up were doing so and there were constant media articles for business to clean up there act. Yes, I also remember trips into California, well into the 70's, where smog was terrible but with your indulgence, I'll suggest the clean up and needed private technology was improving all along.

 

You throw out so many red herrings! Why wouldn't NY want clean water and air just like NM? For things that are national, what's so bad about national laws? And politicians are supposed to represent what WE want, even though lately they cater more to the needs of big business, which brings us now full circle t%o my original arguments.[/Quote]

 

The Red Herring thing is your opinion and why these are my final arguments for this thread. The point was, people in the Federal Government cannot justly regulate the difference is the entire society of 50 States, with entirely different needs and I'll add some VERY different enforcement policy.

 

I don't even know where to start with this statement. You use the same word "wealthy" to describe both the business owners and the people who work for them. That is completely incompatible with what I know to be true, and what I see from many sources. In fact, the CEOs from the top 200 US companies are making 27% more now than they were in 2010, because they saved the company so much money by firing US workers and moved those jobs overseas. Their workers wages (those that still have a job) didn't even keep up with inflation. [/Quote]

 

What's a "Red Herring" anyway; I gave you an analogy you have twice twisted it, to fit your argument. To give a reply justice, it would take a week, but I summarize one. People, both in business or those that work for others, by saving, investing or other means can do quite well over a lifetime. There are a whole lot of folks that during that lifetime try and fail in some business venture, sometimes more than once, not equaling what some workers accomplish. Many of the CEO's and CFO's your trying to condemn for being successful, STARTED out as an employee or took the risk involved to begin one. For instance Fred Smith CEO and founder of Fedex, started out as an USPD employee and nearly went under a couple times. Sam Walton, deceased but founder of Wal Mart, worked for some dime store of his day, if not Ben Franklin like them. On disposable incomes, there are many reason, labor has suffered including the cost to even employ a person and local taxes.

 

I said it earlier, Medicare today has been strangled by legislation enacted under Bush. The present system is understaffed and underfunded. But there is no reason why we can't set it up to function as well as a health insurance company, without denying claims (we can do this because it wouldn't have to profit stockholders).

 

Sure so it can cost more like my privatized utilities. [/Quote]

 

I'm not sure what Bush had to do with Medicare/Medicaid or any of Johnson's "Great Society" programs, other than "Prescription Drugs" (already addressed), but you might look to the Democratic Congressional actions from about 1965 to 1994, which greatly increased the benefits and yes under both R and D Presidents.

 

It's hard to figure out your argument, your telling me Government (that draws all income from the people) can operate as efficiently as the private sector (draws income from only those involved), yet Government already denies more service, then the private sector. Said another way, Government today could service everyone, their obligated to and simply increase payroll taxes to meet the needs, but won't.

 

Not wanting to research the 50 States, who are authorized to provide services, you might check out whom is making up the difference, especially labor and current/future obligation for that labor. Over the past 50 years or so many services have been outsource or privatized by States to save labor cost, in many cases also the cost of maintenance.

 

Phi for All; I want to commend you for your debating skills, which came as a surprise to me and hope you will consider producing threads or at least post on more political issues. For the most part you stuck to the issues, without showing too much emotion and for me, that's what makes for good debate.

 

For this thread however, the above are my final arguments, normally not offered (I just stop), but know you spent some time working on them. I'll be looking forward to seeing more of your work, down here in Politics and wonder why you haven't been more involved, all along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not what I'm hearing or what I think Williams would agree with but as said, I just don't watch the network. To do so, would be like so many I know, some here, that rarely or never watch Fox or listen to Rush Limbaugh, yet often condemn them, hypocritical in my mind.

I understand the hypocrisy and feel the same way. I don't watch any televised news, but I do read Fox News articles along with several others, and have seen clips from O'Reilly et al and so feel qualified to a degree to comment on at least those portions of their integrity. I stopped listening to Limbaugh and Howard Stern for the same reasons: both say shocking amounts of shocking crap just to anger a good portion of their listeners, imo.

 

In case you want to look at just one NPR story so you can avoid hypocrisy when you complain about them (didn't mean this to be as harsh as it sounds), here is a great investigative piece about Congress wasting money on promoting dollar coins. Both Republicans and Democrats are to blame for this fiasco, as NPR points out, and no one wants to anger the Federal Reserve by talking out about it. I listen to NPR because this is how they've been treating stories about the politics surrounding the nation's food, too.

 

They probably WERE THE worst and the point of my statement, however my antidotal experiences was intended to show the people or if you prefer local governments, acted without regulation. They increased putting in road side rest area's, with trash cans, some just along the roadway, towns that had not already doing so, began trash pick up were doing so and there were constant media articles for business to clean up there act. Yes, I also remember trips into California, well into the 70's, where smog was terrible but with your indulgence, I'll suggest the clean up and needed private technology was improving all along.

Keep America Beautiful started when Eisenhower was president, but it didn't really get national attention and federal sponsorship for public service announcements until Lyndon Johnson's wife Lady Bird joined the group. Her endorsement was a federal effort I'm proud to have been a part of. To this day I can't stand to see people littering.

 

 

The Red Herring thing is your opinion and why these are my final arguments for this thread. The point was, people in the Federal Government cannot justly regulate the difference is the entire society of 50 States, with entirely different needs and I'll add some VERY different enforcement policy.

I didn't mean to be offensive and I'm sorry if it came off that way. I had mentioned universally relevant things like clean air and water, where you can regulate how much contaminate can be allowed (something that is scalable to any environment since more population and manufacturing means more contaminates) and you brought up the differences in cost-of-living between New York City and Alamogordo (not sure if that's your southern NM residence, but I've been through Alamogordo to get to White Sands and it's beautiful). Cost-of-living didn't seem to be pertinent to whether our nation's water was clean or not, so it seemed like a tangent designed to mislead me.

 

 

What's a "Red Herring" anyway; I gave you an analogy you have twice twisted it, to fit your argument. To give a reply justice, it would take a week, but I summarize one. People, both in business or those that work for others, by saving, investing or other means can do quite well over a lifetime. There are a whole lot of folks that during that lifetime try and fail in some business venture, sometimes more than once, not equaling what some workers accomplish. Many of the CEO's and CFO's your trying to condemn for being successful, STARTED out as an employee or took the risk involved to begin one. For instance Fred Smith CEO and founder of Fedex, started out as an USPD employee and nearly went under a couple times. Sam Walton, deceased but founder of Wal Mart, worked for some dime store of his day, if not Ben Franklin like them. On disposable incomes, there are many reason, labor has suffered including the cost to even employ a person and local taxes.

Again, I apologize if I offended. You mentioned wealthy business owners and wealthy workers in the same sentence. I felt that wasn't an adjective that could be used fairly in that context.

 

 

I'm not sure what Bush had to do with Medicare/Medicaid or any of Johnson's "Great Society" programs, other than "Prescription Drugs" (already addressed), but you might look to the Democratic Congressional actions from about 1965 to 1994, which greatly increased the benefits and yes under both R and D Presidents.

I was referring to the Medicare Modernization Act. No one has ever adequately explained why it's good for Medicare not to be able to negotiate prices with the pharmaceutical companies. It jars with my free market sensibilities, just like no-bid contracts do.

 

 

It's hard to figure out your argument, your telling me Government (that draws all income from the people) can operate as efficiently as the private sector (draws income from only those involved), yet Government already denies more service, then the private sector. Said another way, Government today could service everyone, their obligated to and simply increase payroll taxes to meet the needs, but won't.

Take the best run private health insurance company (let's call it Insuricare). Imagine I've been with them a loooooong time so they can't deny me coverage based on Pre-Existing Conditions. Now take the risk-pool premium payments we members and employers are paying and divert that to a government program modeled almost exactly the same way. It can use part of the profits to cover PEC claims that newer members have, and give the rest back in the form of lower premiums. This should create a program that works better than anything else out there. It's modeled correctly, it doesn't deny PEC coverage (of course the policies on bogus claims that every insurer has will continue), and quality doesn't go down because we still use the same doctors, right? What's wrong with this model?

 

Phi for All; I want to commend you for your debating skills, which came as a surprise to me and hope you will consider producing threads or at least post on more political issues. For the most part you stuck to the issues, without showing too much emotion and for me, that's what makes for good debate.

I've enjoyed it as well.

 

For this thread however, the above are my final arguments, normally not offered (I just stop), but know you spent some time working on them. I'll be looking forward to seeing more of your work, down here in Politics and wonder why you haven't been more involved, all along.

I hope you'll make some small exceptions. Please, take a few of the points above and answer what you feel like answering. I'll stop being so adversarial in the interests of pure curiosity. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil; So you don't misunderstand, I've enjoyed (appreciated) our little debate and it's not possible to offend me. I know where I am and knowingly encouraged your adversary participation. Having said that, this thread is drawing few viewers, a waste of both our times and literally going nowhere. I'll give you a reply, asking you take an issue or two to a new thread, since I really don't have the time to follow up authoring new threads, myself....or frankly the popularity.

 

On the NPR thing; Far too often, news outlets use edited sound bites or edit programming to promote some agenda. Limbaugh seems to be a prime target and often, his comments on air and the one quoted come off with the exact opposite meaning.

 

 

Well since my first real business was a Coin Shop (1960), with a couple first (in store teletype and first in State "Coin Show") and I still have about 20K$ worth of Morgan Dollars, let me add a little to your NPR article. Minting coinage is the Federal Governments obligation, not the Federal Reserve and has long been used to produce a profit. Susan B Anthony Dollars, Eisenhower Dollars, Proof/Mint Sets, along with a host of Commemorative Coins, have been issued by Government, knowing whatever was charged (always above cost to mint) would show a profit and for the Federal. I'd agree the program was mishandled, probably because no numismatic was involved, but as your article indicates, the potential is there. In fact, if I was 20 years younger, I'd be buying up those already minted, feeling a full set when completed to Obama, if it continues (stopping when contract up would be foolish, IMO) could be extremely profitable, for some. For the nit-pickers, the Anthony Dollar was minted, in hopes it would be used, but never was...

 

from your link;

Some 2.4 billion dollar coins have been minted since the start of the program in 2007, costing taxpayers about $720 million. The government has made about $680 million in profit by selling some 1.4 billion dollar coins to the public since the program began.[/Quote]

 

Keep America Beautiful started when Eisenhower was president, but it didn't really get national attention and federal sponsorship for public service announcements until Lyndon Johnson's wife Lady Bird joined the group. Her endorsement was a federal effort I'm proud to have been a part of. To this day I can't stand to see people littering.[/Quote]

 

Yes he was in office, but the program is credited elsewhere and I remember it well. As for "Lady Bird", that's a far different issue, bringing into the picture mandatory regulation IMO, hurting progress that had been made. I could bring in Wal Mart and Waste Management, not many years later though before regulation, did a great deal along the line conservation, but another issue.

 

Keep America Beautiful was founded in 1953 by consortium of American businesses, nonprofit organizations, government agencies, and concerned individuals[citation needed] in reaction to the growing problem of highway litter that followed the construction of the Interstate Highway System, and an increasingly mobile and convenience-oriented American consumer. The goal of the organization was to reduce litter through public education and advertising.[/Quote]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keep_America_Beautiful

 

You mentioned wealthy business owners and wealthy workers in the same sentence. I felt that wasn't an adjective that could be used fairly in that context.[/Quote]

 

In all honesty, this 'social justice" issue seems to be an obsession for many people, but in the real world, there has to be the wealthy to produce a middle class. This has always been an American thing, where any person can achieve their own objectives in life and millions from here or that came here, have done just that. To somehow say they don't deserve whatever is feared they have, is simply ridiculous.

 

We have tens of thousands, maybe millions involved in Entertainment or Sports alone, that are rarely mention, but by branding their name have gained success. I mentioned a couple workers (using your words) that achieved extraordinary wealth for themselves or their families and I have no idea how many there are that worked hard (for somebody else), invested wisely and worth millions, not to mention agriculture (farmers) or small/middle size business people that may not have taken a day off in years, just to accomplish something.

 

I was referring to the Medicare Modernization Act. No one has ever adequately explained why it's good for Medicare not to be able to negotiate prices with the pharmaceutical companies. It jars with my free market sensibilities, just like no-bid contracts do.[/Quote]

 

You not talking all drugs, since I think Wal Mart, Walgreens and others now offer thousands of Drugs to everyone for really reduced prices. As for the Act itself, it probably has more to do with some body in Government playing the "Death Panel" card on 2003. I'm kind of torn between two sides on this, since some of these new medications or treatments involve thousands of dollars per day, to save people for, sometimes a week or so. Medical people will tell you, other treatment that started out to do the same (heart transplants) have developed into longer lasting life spans, five years and more.

 

In the years since Medicare's creation in 1965, the role of prescription drugs in U.S. patient care has significantly increased. As new and expensive drugs have come into use, patients, particularly senior citizens for whom Medicare was designed, have found prescriptions harder to afford. The MMA is meant to address this problem.

 

The benefit is funded in a complex way, reflecting the diverse priorities of the lobbyists and constituencies whose support was needed:

 

it provides a subsidy for large employers to discourage them from eliminating private prescription coverage to retired workers (a key AARP goal; the 2005 Annual Report for IBM estimates that company will receive a $400 million subsidy during the six-year period beginning in 2006);[4]

it prohibits the Federal government from negotiating discounts with drug companies;

it prevents the government from establishing a formulary, though does not prevent private providers such as HMOs from doing so.

 

As of 2007, most employer sponsors had chosen to take the retiree drug subsidy and continue offering drug benefits.[[/Quote]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Prescription_Drug,_Improvement,_and_Modernization_Act

 

Take the best run private health insurance company (let's call it Insuricare).[/Quote]

 

Maybe you should start a thread on Healthcare, maybe even Obamacare; The only thing about what to many people is or would be "Free Health Care", is prevention and it's hard for me to visualize people taking advantage of free check ups or for Government to allow check ups for many items, which can come early in life. Then the real problem for me is many, maybe most people, are actively involved with some bad habit, hobby or profession, knowing they are taking health risk!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On the NPR thing; Far too often, news outlets use edited sound bites or edit programming to promote some agenda.

This argument would be far less weak if you said exactly how often and gave a few precise examples of it actually happening. You see, far too often, people make stuff up which isn't true and base entire groups of conclusions on those unfounded premises. The best way to "found" those premises is to be specific in the frequency of occurrence and share precise examples of the point. As Phi for All noted, the agenda of NPR is to educate people effectively. If you were truly so concerned with programming laden with agendas, you would be equally (and potentially more) dismissive of the content on Fox.

 

 

Well since my first real business was a Coin Shop (1960), with a couple first (in store teletype and first in State "Coin Show") and I still have about 20K$ worth of Morgan Dollars, let me add a little to your NPR article. Minting coinage is the Federal Governments obligation, not the Federal Reserve and has long been used to produce a profit. Susan B Anthony Dollars, Eisenhower Dollars, Proof/Mint Sets, along with a host of Commemorative Coins, have been issued by Government, knowing whatever was charged (always above cost to mint) would show a profit and for the Federal. I'd agree the program was mishandled, probably because no numismatic was involved, but as your article indicates, the potential is there. In fact, if I was 20 years younger, I'd be buying up those already minted, feeling a full set when completed to Obama, if it continues (stopping when contract up would be foolish, IMO) could be extremely profitable, for some. For the nit-pickers, the Anthony Dollar was minted, in hopes it would be used, but never was...

Just because the government is obligated to mint coinage does not validly lead to the conclusion that they are obligated to do so in denominations and using materials which cause them to operate at a loss. Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise.

 

 

 

As for "Lady Bird", that's a far different issue, bringing into the picture mandatory regulation IMO, hurting progress that had been made.

Your use of the word "progress" is strange here. It is clear that after Lady Bird's involvement awareness of the littering issue grew significantly across the entire nation, and the act of littering became far less frequent. That seems quite well in line with making progress. What are you saying, and why are you suggesting that the reduction in litter and increase of awareness "hurt progress that had been made?" That doesn't seem to make sense given the context of the exchange.

 

 

In all honesty, this 'social justice" issue seems to be an obsession for many people, but in the real world, there has to be the wealthy to produce a middle class. This has always been an American thing, where any person can achieve their own objectives in life and millions from here or that came here, have done just that. To somehow say they don't deserve whatever is feared they have, is simply ridiculous.

I believe you've quite badly misinterpreted the position of others. Nobody thinks that wealthy people who have worked hard do not "deserve" what they have. The point is there are some parts of our society which should be available to all... This includes things like clean drinking water and safe food. The point, Jackson, is that you insinuated that workers were wealthy just like business owners, you used wealth as a proxy for morality and "being a good human," and your point is both insulting and flat out wrong to the millions of people who do not fit that narrow view you presented.

 

 

 

You not talking all drugs, since I think Wal Mart, Walgreens and others now offer thousands of Drugs to everyone for really reduced prices. As for the Act itself, it probably has more to do with some body in Government playing the "Death Panel" card on 2003. I'm kind of torn between two sides on this, since some of these new medications or treatments involve thousands of dollars per day, to save people for, sometimes a week or so. Medical people will tell you, other treatment that started out to do the same (heart transplants) have developed into longer lasting life spans, five years and more.

Your ability to miss a point is nothing if not consistent. This isn't about Walmart, this isn't about death panel arguments, and this isn't about new experimental techniques and drugs which cost more on average than established ones. The point is that when Bush enacted this legislation in 2003, it expressly prevented the government from negotiating lower rates on (even common) pharmaceuticals. This is something which has unnecessarily caused our debt and deficit to be even larger, and which seems like it was done only to pander to special interests.

 

The way you replied above was off-topic, and completely tangential from the point. To help you understand, it was a red herring. Also, as I often tell young people, if you don't know what something means, you should look it up. Google is a beautiful thing. There is no need to reply "I don't know what that is," and continue with your comments while failing to take into account points made by others. You use logical fallacies far too often when arguing, Jackson. You don't even know you're doing it, and it's annoying to those of us who appreciate an internally consistent and well-supported position.

 

 

 

Maybe you should start a thread on Healthcare, maybe even Obamacare; The only thing about what to many people is or would be "Free Health Care", is prevention and it's hard for me to visualize people taking advantage of free check ups or for Government to allow check ups for many items, which can come early in life.

People who make valid arguments about healthcare for all tend to easily recognize that healthcare coverage provided by the government is not free. The argument is not about healthcare being free. It's about healthcare being available regardless of life circumstances, and provided in a way which doesn't cause you to go bankruptcy for unavoidable illness. People should not be forced to choose whether or not to see a doctor or have a procedure done, or instead to eat for the next few weeks or feed their kids or pay their mortgage. A great many very hard working, responsible human beings get sick and are completely eviscerated financially as a result, even people who paid into the private healthcare market steadily and consistently. And frankly, so what if people take advantage of free check-ups? Doesn't that result in few downstream serious health issues, and increase the chances of cheaper more effective treatment before too late? You say so many things so very often which just cause my mind to boggle.

 

Also, speaking of logical fallacies, you've just argued from incredulity. It means that you assume that since you're not personally aware of something, or because it's "hard for you to visualize" that it simply won't happen. Your inability to envision something does not mean that something is impossible.

 

In much the same way, I can't envision our country getting better without drastic improvements to our education, respect for science and evidence, and ostracization of manufactured hysterias and realities, but that doesn't mean it won't ever happen without those things.

Edited by iNow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GOP hopeful Gov. Rick Perry drew fire from some quarters earlier over a remark, reported by ABC News’ The Note blog, that “a ‘big black cloud’ hangs over the country.”

 

As it turns out, Perry’s remark was much more specific. While he did use the phrase “big black cloud,” he was referring explicitly to the debt, as the full video of Perry’s remark reveals.[/Quote]

 

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rick-perry-big-black-cloud-quote-taken-out-of-context-by-msnbc-and-abc-news/

 

iNow; While this is the extreme, most any political speech can be reviewed or commented on, other than the intent of the speech.

 

How the Highway Beautification Act Became a Law

 

In announcing an America the Beautiful initiative in January 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson (D) said:

I want to make sure that the America we see from these major highways is a beautiful America.

 

The cornerstone of the initiative would be the Highway Beautification Act of 1965, which called for control of outdoor advertising, including removal of certain types of signs, along the Nation's growing Interstate System and the existing Federal-aid primary system. It also required certain junkyards along Interstate or primary highways to be removed or screened and encouraged scenic enhancement and roadside development.[/Quote]

 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/beauty.cfm

 

I'm not sure, the US Constitution indicates such decisions are in the Federals jurisdiction, to command.

 

The Coinage Act or the Mint Act, passed by the United States Congress on April 2, 1792, established the United States Mint and regulated the coinage of the United States.[1] The long title of the legislation is An act establishing a mint, and regulating the Coins of the United States. This act established the silver dollar as the unit of money in the United States, declared it to be lawful tender, and created a decimal system for U.S. currency.[2][/Quote]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coinage_Act_of_1792

 

Powers of Congress;

 

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;[/Quote]

 

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8

 

If you have established an account, you can buy directly from the US Mint. For instance the latest set of US Presidents, eight coins/packaging, my estimated cost to mint and package $8.00 or less, for 20.00 or from coin shops for a little more. From an above link "Some 2.4 billion dollar coins have been minted since the start of the program in 2007, costing taxpayers about $720 million", giving an approximate cost for those 8, dollar coins...$2.40.

 

http://catalog.usmint.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?langId=-1&storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&identifier=2000

 

As mentioned, I certainly think the program, as contracted (quantity) has been NOT been well handled. I can't verify, but would bet Congress expected a large return on the this one program, the CBO then using those expectation, increasing estimated revenues with some spending program in mind. Let me guess...which party was in charge of Congress, in 2007?

 

Phi, has started a reasonable post on Healthcare, so why don't you start one on "Social Justice"? Both issues are viable, especially NOW into an election year, where either issue might determine the outcome...especially State and Locals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did you direct your post toward me when nothing you said related to what I posted?

 

 

Below is how I experience exchanges with you, Jackson:

 

You: It was hotter in my town today than it ever has been.

Me: How hot was it? What type of thermometer was used, and how do the readings compare to historical temperatures?

You: I don't know why you're asking about the history of thermometers, but here's a wiki link which says animals often have eye lashes, and Obama is a crazy marxist nazi muslim socialist who hates business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did you direct your post toward me when nothing you said related to what I posted?

 

 

Below is how I experience exchanges with you, Jackson:

 

You: It was hotter in my town today than it ever has been.

Me: How hot was it? What type of thermometer was used, and how do the readings compare to historical temperatures?

You: I don't know why you're asking about the history of thermometers, but here's a wiki link which says animals often have eye lashes, and Obama is a crazy marxist nazi muslim socialist who hates business.

 

He is pulling links from emails he gets or "he" is more than one person.

 

I have met people who run a social media company who pay people and get paid to go into sites and add content. They usually talk about the latest style jeans but I can imagine it is a part of "social media strategy" for politicos too. The more links you add the more you get paid.

 

The Tea party is well funded so I can see his laundry list of links could be paid for by them. His inability to respond to anyone else's input doesnt bode well for someone who cares to use forums to think and respond.

 

So is the reason no one cares and/or cares to examine the huge number of food insecure children what? Here the facts get in the way of what? I am truly asking. It mystifies me that so little concern during a recession perhaps depression is turned towards this. Why?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He is pulling links from emails he gets or "he" is more than one person.

I may often disagree with Jackson, but he's a good man and I feel that I know him pretty well as a result of our exchanges through the years. I am rather confident that what you've just suggested is not the case... Not even close.

 

 

I have met people who run a social media company who pay people and get paid to go into sites and add content.

I may often disagree with Jackson, but he's a good man and I feel that I know him pretty well as a result of our exchanges through the years. I am rather confident that what you've just suggested is not the case... Not even close.

 

 

They usually talk about the latest style jeans but I can imagine it is a part of "social media strategy" for politicos too. The more links you add the more you get paid.

I may often disagree with Jackson, but he's a good man and I feel that I know him pretty well as a result of our exchanges through the years. I am rather confident that what you've just suggested is not the case... Not even close.

 

 

The Tea party is well funded so I can see his laundry list of links could be paid for by them.

I may often disagree with Jackson, but he's a good man and I feel that I know him pretty well as a result of our exchanges through the years. I am rather confident that what you've just suggested is not the case... Not even close.

 

 

His inability to respond to anyone else's input doesnt bode well for someone who cares to use forums to think and respond.

He responds to other peoples input, though. It's just that when he does it's sometimes logically distracted, contextually displaced, and peripheral to the central topic.

 

 

So is the reason no one cares and/or cares to examine the huge number of food insecure children what?

Can you please try that again, but this time using English?

 

 

It mystifies me that so little concern during a recession perhaps depression is turned towards this. Why?

Numerous people are concerned, though, including those in power. Please clarify what is your threshold for "so little?" What number of people to you consider must be concerned to be above that threshold, and what number must be concerned to be below it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think there is a whole aspect of this that truly goes right over my head. The newspaper shows a program where families show up and get a paltry bag of groceries. The article goes on to show the studies which show that 30% of todays children in the United States are food insecure and also - in my county!

 

I am mystified. Truly.

 

Who do you know that wouldn't be appalled by that? If not, why not? Isn't this just logical common consideration to make sure every child goes to sleep on a stomach that isnt gnawing with hunger.

 

What do guys say when they wake up at Paneras over coffee and see it? How about them Bulls?

 

If so, why so?

 

Is it psychiatric? Is it a social norm gone haywire? Is it too real for life? Are scientists not just studying the actual shortage but this huge disconnect ignoring it? Is it the sudden 30% drop in church attendance so no one has someone to tell them to get a conscience?

 

As soon as one acknowledges reality must one pick a team? If so, why? Who can argue in favor of having hungry children? If so, is that someone you would even want to sit next to on a bus?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are not easy questions, but I'll take a guess. The problem is so large that it seems overwhelming, and we tend to avoid thoughts which cause us distress when we as individuals can't reasonably take action to resolve that cause. Since we so often feel we cannot fix the hunger problem ("I am but one man, what can I truly do to even make a dent?"), we ignore it because we don't like the inner turmoil an despair that deep consideration of such issues cause within.

 

As I said, I don't know (but I can reasonably suggest it has zero to do with church attendance decreasing).

 

 

Being a science forum, we must first always take time validating our premises. For example, I was listening to NPR this morning where they said that despite the bad economy we actually did a pretty damned good job at keeping the hunger rate steady (as opposed to increasing during high unemployment and tough times). That seems positive in my mind, and is opposite to what you're suggesting here. There's always room for improvement, and we can, should, and MUST do better... but searching for conspiracies and unfounded explanations won't generally help us to achieve that.

 

As I often tell colleagues before they present to our VPs... You need to focus on solutions when you talk to these people, not on problems. Spend your time describing the future, the specific steps you'll take to get there, and what you'll do instead if any of those steps fail. This will serve you better than if you focus on the past or what's wrong with the present.

 

 

http://www.npr.org/2011/09/07/140261239/usda-food-aid-kept-hunger-rate-down

 

Despite the bad economy, the number of Americans who struggled to get enough to eat did not grow last year, and in some cases declined, according to new government data. Still, a near-record number — almost 49 million people — were affected.

 

Federal officials say an increase in government food aid kept the numbers from going even higher.

 

According to the new data from the Department of Agriculture, about 17.2 million households last year had trouble putting food on the table — what it calls "food insecure." And more than a third of those households had members who went hungry at some point during the year because they couldn't afford enough to eat.

 

Agriculture Undersecretary Kevin Concannon says those numbers dropped slightly from 2009 and could have been a lot worse.

 

"And I think the principal reason for that is the impact of these nutrition programs across the country — the food stamp, or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; programs for women, infants and children; some of the school-based programs," Concannon says.

 

All of those programs have seen an increase in enrollment since the start of the recession. Today, more than 45 million people get food stamps, or SNAP benefits, as they're now called; that's 1 in 7 Americans. Concannon says children are among the main beneficiaries.

 

"There's no question in my mind that there would be catastrophic levels of people that were facing food insecurity without this," Concannon says.

 

Still, children in 386,000 households went hungry at some time during 2010.

 

gr-food-stamps-20110907-300.gif

Edited by iNow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are not easy questions, but I'll take a guess. The problem is so large that it seems overwhelming, and we tend to avoid thoughts which cause us distress when we as individuals can't reasonably take action to resolve that cause. Since we so often feel we cannot fix the hunger problem ("I am but one man, what can I truly do to even make a dent?"), we ignore it because we don't like the inner turmoil an despair that deep consideration of such issues cause within.

 

 

 

 

http://www.npr.org/2...unger-rate-down

 

 

 

gr-food-stamps-20110907-300.gif

 

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Working-poor-are-swelling-ranks-of-Houston-1683757.php

 

"Every day more than 700,000 people in Harris County are uncertain about where they will get their next meal. Not all of them are poor — many are working people who don't qualify for federal food programs.

 

These are among the findings of a recent study that provides the first detailed look at hunger at the county level. Harris County families struggling to keep food on the table have a food budget shortfall of $12.97 per week, per person. To fill the meal gap, $277 million is needed annually to ensure that every person has three meals a day, according to the report's calculations.

 

The federal government defines food insecurity as limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate foods. On average, food insecure families go at least seven months of the year without enough food, the study said."

 

Families are key here. As guys take off they are still considered able bodied. I would like data on how many out of work singles qualify for food stamps per state. Michigan a college student qualifies while Florida he would have to have a disability. So help is lenient for kids and yet . . .

 

The giveaway I saw had families with $20 of food that had to travel to a location. Food stamps are quick, efficient and make it not insurmountable. How much would it cost to give every nonworking or minimum wage adult $200 a month for food? The earned income credit is a type of welfare for the working poor but now that mechanism is faulty when so few work and they really need kids to benefit.

 

I also wonder if we are getting through the baby boomlet so perhaps less kids- less hungry kids.

 

How is this hard? Just feed people. That stimulates the economy because they are in that wonderful category that is so hand to mouth they will not hoard cash. They can't. That improves the money supply.

 

Let's see $300 million for Houston a welloff oil rich city. My city doesn't have traffic jams anymore like Houston still does. Population what 4 million people. There are 320 million people in the USA so times 80 is 24 billion dollars. Really? Less than the budget of some counties. Is it one hundredth of what the "welfare for bankers program" got? And they hoard the cash not stimulating the economy. Where are those who run us and can't they talk? If not, why not?

 

The silence is deafening.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Working-poor-are-swelling-ranks-of-Houston-1683757.php

 

"Every day more than 700,000 people in Harris County are uncertain about where they will get their next meal. Not all of them are poor — many are working people who don't qualify for federal food programs.

 

These are among the findings of a recent study that provides the first detailed look at hunger at the county level. Harris County families struggling to keep food on the table have a food budget shortfall of $12.97 per week, per person. To fill the meal gap, $277 million is needed annually to ensure that every person has three meals a day, according to the report's calculations.

 

The federal government defines food insecurity as limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate foods. On average, food insecure families go at least seven months of the year without enough food, the study said."

 

Families are key here. As guys take off they are still considered able bodied. I would like data on how many out of work singles qualify for food stamps per state. Michigan a college student qualifies while Florida he would have to have a disability. So help is lenient for kids and yet . . .

 

The giveaway I saw had families with $20 of food that had to travel to a location. Food stamps are quick, efficient and make it not insurmountable. How much would it cost to give every nonworking or minimum wage adult $200 a month for food? The earned income credit is a type of welfare for the working poor but now that mechanism is faulty when so few work and they really need kids to benefit.

 

I also wonder if we are getting through the baby boomlet so perhaps less kids- less hungry kids.

 

How is this hard? Just feed people. That stimulates the economy because they are in that wonderful category that is so hand to mouth they will not hoard cash. They can't. That improves the money supply.

 

Let's see $300 million for Houston a welloff oil rich city. My city doesn't have traffic jams anymore like Houston still does. Population what 4 million people. There are 320 million people in the USA so times 80 is 24 billion dollars. Really? Less than the budget of some counties. Is it one hundredth of what the "welfare for bankers program" got? And they hoard the cash not stimulating the economy. Where are those who run us and can't they talk? If not, why not?

 

The silence is deafening.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please don't "cut and paste quote" something without adding your own thoughts. While not exactly against the rules, we'd much rather discuss things with members rather than authors who can't respond.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please don't "cut and paste quote" something without adding your own thoughts. While not exactly against the rules, we'd much rather discuss things with members rather than authors who can't respond.

 

You missed the " but thanks for confusing my writing with that of a professional journalist. Any thoughts about why scientists can't motivate politics with facts?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You missed the " but thanks for confusing my writing with that of a professional journalist.

 

It's helpful when one distinguishes quotes from original writing a little more distinctly. Italics, colors and quote tags are all available options.

 

Any thoughts about why scientists can't motivate politics with facts?

 

Because facts don't matter to many politicians & pundits, to too many people (especially if there is a collision between the facts and an ideology), and increasing, to the journalists that frame the stories, when they treat opinions and facts on equal footing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's helpful when one distinguishes quotes from original writing a little more distinctly. Italics, colors and quote tags are all available options.

 

 

 

Because facts don't matter to many politicians & pundits, to too many people (especially if there is a collision between the facts and an ideology), and increasing, to the journalists that frame the stories, when they treat opinions and facts on equal footing.

 

Well, at least I finally quit rerepeating quotes :)

 

At one meeting this guy said "studies show" and it was just in a group who nodded and were ok with just that. He was saying it so he sounded like a big guy.

 

For a response which would say," really that counters studies I've read?" is very socially verbotem.

 

No one likes the science guy. It appears to be some kind of buzzkill. I am very puzzled but it appears that "winning" without much facts on your side appears to increase bravado not chagrin. It reminds me of the bully in the schoolyard who says "cause I am telling you this." So the less real substance the more it shows you are getting what you want from throwing your weight around.

 

Is there anyway to en mass require from "those who run us" more than third grade sandbox tactics. If so, how? The study I mentioned was very good. It let the bigwigs in each town know they were passing by 700,000 food insecure humans - in their town. A buy in by the 2% that hoards so much wealth like Buffett mentions may be the only hope. Today's top 20% blue next 20% red next 20% green

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec11/makingsense_08-16.html

 

56051a84ae2a25e97ec8f4b1a77c3219.png

 

 

Wow, where is the middle class today? It wasn't always thus. Reality is a bummer. Even the fat cats can't be happy to drive by all those food-insecure. Are they powerless to change? This kind of poverty is never going to be addressed by food banks.

 

I am fascinated by the behavioral economics guys. Anything they ever say about putting people back to work or incentivizing the rich to quit funding electing more rich to make them more rich?(and some of that cash is 'reverse robin hood' from the rest of us)

 

Obama's speech: Saving teacher's jobs will prevent that multiplying effect on job losses in communities. Cash in paychecks for those that have them is a help. The infrastructure stuff takes too long doesn't it? If we can fund wars bypassing congress can a president executive order if need be? The GDP and inflation numbers keep getting revised but appear to be getting ever closer. Will they announce next year that for this year any growth was actually only inflation?

 

Haven't heard the whole Obama speech but I imagine he left out food uncertainty in children. Figures.

 

And clueless pundits call it a Obama reelection campaign so does that mean causing total economic meltodown destroying many of us would be a Republican campaign strategy?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.