chicagotribune.com— Several USDA inspectors said in interviews that their workloads are doubling or tripling as they take on the duties of inspectors who have left the department, not to be replaced.
Oct 15, 2007View in Crawl 4
How would that work, when you consider that national food production is in no way evenly distributed among the states? For example, Texas and Kansas are the nation's top beef-producing states. Should they carry the burden of inspecting the rest of the country's beef? Or should Rhode Island have to send their own inspectors down to Texas, and Kansas, to inspect the production of the beef that will end up in their state? What if Texas decides that having Rhode Island inspectors underfoot is too much of a hassle, can they kick them out? If so, who will force Texas to let them back in? And eventually, with every state sending inspectors to every other state that produces anything in any quantity, what's the answer when someone, maybe a political candidate, asks: "Isn't this ridiculous? Who's idea was this? Isn't there a better way to do it?"
When we entrust the government with power to regulate a section of the economy, we leave it up to the whims of whoever gets elected. With so many issues being placed in the hands of our leaders, we run an ever increasing risk that the politicians might not care - a president could cut and cut the USDA funding but get reelected because we love his policy on abortion or gay marriage. Having states or private corporations control these things allows individual citizens to place more pressure on the relevant leaders to deal with the problems.
DIGG coder(s): If you aren't going to let people reply below a certain depth, kindly do not add a reply box, and then spit out "Your session has expired, please refresh the page before commenting." AFTER they're done typing and hit submit.@LuaPronWith companies like Comcast and Verizon, cost went up while quality simultaneously went down. I never said the government did what they're supposed to do. The US government is product of its environment. The FDA didn't magically appear out of thin air; nor did the DEA, the IRS, or the NSA. They came to be and grew to what they are due to congressional action. Guess what? Those congress critters didn't magically appear either. Removing government oversight will not fix anything. The American people need to be weened off mama government.@Humptydank:Companies that were run out due to lawsuits and boycotts? Off the top of my head, I know of nobody hurt that bad by boycotts. When it comes to lawsuits, it's only the little guys that go under. Not even class action suits seem to hurt the big guys, noticeably. Now, for companies run under due to price (same as a boycott)? I can't name one. Doesn't mean there aren't any, just means I know of none. Going by this, I'd have to say CEOs don't give a rat's ass about either.@LuaPron:Usually that only happens when someone finds shrapnel in their Krusty-O's.
humptydankOct 16, 2007
How would that work, when you consider that national food production is in no way evenly distributed among the states? For example, Texas and Kansas are the nation's top beef-producing states. Should they carry the burden of inspecting the rest of the country's beef? Or should Rhode Island have to send their own inspectors down to Texas, and Kansas, to inspect the production of the beef that will end up in their state? What if Texas decides that having Rhode Island inspectors underfoot is too much of a hassle, can they kick them out? If so, who will force Texas to let them back in? And eventually, with every state sending inspectors to every other state that produces anything in any quantity, what's the answer when someone, maybe a political candidate, asks: "Isn't this ridiculous? Who's idea was this? Isn't there a better way to do it?"
datamyteOct 17, 2007
You can't kill the beast while still sucking it's teat....
luapronOct 17, 2007
When we entrust the government with power to regulate a section of the economy, we leave it up to the whims of whoever gets elected. With so many issues being placed in the hands of our leaders, we run an ever increasing risk that the politicians might not care - a president could cut and cut the USDA funding but get reelected because we love his policy on abortion or gay marriage. Having states or private corporations control these things allows individual citizens to place more pressure on the relevant leaders to deal with the problems.
wshsOct 17, 2007
DIGG coder(s): If you aren't going to let people reply below a certain depth, kindly do not add a reply box, and then spit out "Your session has expired, please refresh the page before commenting." AFTER they're done typing and hit submit.@LuaPronWith companies like Comcast and Verizon, cost went up while quality simultaneously went down. I never said the government did what they're supposed to do. The US government is product of its environment. The FDA didn't magically appear out of thin air; nor did the DEA, the IRS, or the NSA. They came to be and grew to what they are due to congressional action. Guess what? Those congress critters didn't magically appear either. Removing government oversight will not fix anything. The American people need to be weened off mama government.@Humptydank:Companies that were run out due to lawsuits and boycotts? Off the top of my head, I know of nobody hurt that bad by boycotts. When it comes to lawsuits, it's only the little guys that go under. Not even class action suits seem to hurt the big guys, noticeably. Now, for companies run under due to price (same as a boycott)? I can't name one. Doesn't mean there aren't any, just means I know of none. Going by this, I'd have to say CEOs don't give a rat's ass about either.@LuaPron:Usually that only happens when someone finds shrapnel in their Krusty-O's.
tobarkOct 17, 2007
Umm dumbass. Thats because they are not looking to fill the spots.