more payoff from Repug/conservative ideology

[boutons_deux]

.... of no regulation, bad regulation, understaffed/underfunded regulation


"The USDA's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) recently issued a shocking report (http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/246...) about the condition of the nation's industrial meat supply. It turns out that a lot of the U.S. meat supply is tainted with veterinary drugs, pesticides and heavy metals."


http://www.naturalnews.com/028905_sc...unch_beef.html


We can always trust corps to self-regulate and Do The Right Thing.

Can anybody name any benefits from Repug/conservative misgovernance that offset all the from the they produce?

[RandomGuy]

Icky.

[Wild Cobra]

What evidence do you have to tie this to Repug/conservatives?

Idiot.

It's the nature of a government en y. It's liberals who want to expand them.

[RandomGuy]

.... of no regulation, bad regulation, understaffed/underfunded regulation

We can always trust corps to self-regulate and Do The Right Thing.

Can anybody name any benefits from Repug/conservative misgovernance that offset all the from the they produce?

As I have said before, the ultimate irony is that the ed up that has happened from the trend of deregulation where the "intrusive hand of goverment" is removed from business so it can "create jobs" is used as some example of why government regulation is a bad thing.

That is some bizarre logic.

[FromWayDowntown]

It's the nature of a government en y. It's liberals who want to expand them.

I doubt that the government is encouraging meat producers to drug-up and nearly-poison their products. One would tend to surmise, I think, that such outcomes are more prone to occur when oversight is lacking and regulations (or the enforcement of regulations) are minimized -- i.e., when government is smaller.

But there's no real need to have the government interfere in the profits that can be made through America's food supply. Of course profit-driven corporations will only do what is right for consumers, even if it means losses in the bottom line.

[Wild Cobra]

As I have said before, the ultimate irony is that the ed up that has happened from the trend of deregulation where the "intrusive hand of goverment" is removed from business so it can "create jobs" is used as some example of why government regulation is a bad thing.

That is some bizarre logic.

I think it's just the nature of bureaucracy. Some regulations are fine, but when you set up an agency to protect us, then they don't do it. It's not the blame of a particular party, but the fact that government agencies are not accountable like a supply and demand based system is. There are good and bad people who get these jobs. How many of them are "paid off?"

[boutons_deux]

for 8 years, the Repugs made every effort to destroy and misgovern, FDA, USDA, EPA, Interior, etc and its pays off.

Repugs give $Bs in tax breaks and subsidies to oilcos that already make 10s of $Bs/year in profits, and look how the oilcos's behavior shows their appreciation.

[Wild Cobra]

I doubt that the government is encouraging meat producers to drug-up and nearly-poison their products.

They do authorize the usage.

One would tend to surmise, I think, that such outcomes are more prone to occur when oversight is lacking and regulations (or the enforcement of regulations) are minimized -- i.e., when government is smaller.

I'm not advocating less regulation, but correct regulation. Liberals generally take a knee-jerk reaction, and end up passing something because it just sounds good. My belief is that if this was done in a conservative style, then the regulations would be tailored to fit actual health concerns. Not silly ones that make it all but impossible to get raw milk.

But there's no real need to have the government interfere in the profits that can be made through America's food supply.

Who is saying that? I would say there is no need for the government to unreasonably interfere with profits. Oversight of food for commerce is considered a responsibility of our government. The problem is, such agencies are often just job programs to employ useless idiots.

Of course profit-driven corporations will only do what is right for consumers, even if it means losses in the bottom line.

If you make the penalties hurt the bottom line, they will. Often the fines are so low, they are just considered a cost of doing business.

[Wild Cobra]

for 8 years, the Repugs made every effort to destroy and misgovern, FDA, USDA, EPA, Interior, etc and its pays off.

Repugs give $Bs in tax breaks and subsidies to oilcos that already make 10s of $Bs/year in profits, and look how the oilcos's behavior shows their appreciation.

Example please.

I've seen republicans try to change harmful and useless agencies, and eliminate some that aren't necessary.

[boutons_deux]

You haven't seen anything but the ideological bull in your eyeballs.'

[Wild Cobra]

You haven't seen anything but the ideological bull in your eyeballs.'

Just asking for an example. Have any?

Besides, how can you say the republicans gave the oil companies tax breaks when all corporations and all Americans got tax breaks? You act as if they were the only ones.

Does this type of lie work on the people in your daily life?