http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-republicans-vote-to-cut-funds-to-impleme

[Crabtownboy]

Does this make you feel safer? I find it interesting in light of the big e. coli. scare that has been going on all over Europe the last few weeks. I hope and pray this does not come back to bite the Republicans hard.

Sorry about the title. I accidentally pasted the link in the title line. Can a moderator or administrator change the title. I cannot find a way to do so.

Arguing that the U.S. food supply is 99 percent safe, House Republicans cut millions of dollars Thursday from the Food and Drug Administration’s budget, denying the agency money to implement landmark food safety laws approved by the last Congress.

Saying the cuts were needed to lower the national deficit, the House also reduced funding to the Agriculture Department’s food safety inspection service, which oversees meat, poultry and some egg products. And lawmakers chopped $832 million from an emergency feeding program for poor mothers, infants and children. Hunger groups said that change would deny emergency nutrition to about 325,000 mothers and children.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ty-law/2011/06/16/AGMS82XH_story.html?hpid=z4

 

[mandym]

Everything needs to be cut. Nothing should be immune until we get our debt under control.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Everything needs to be cut. Nothing should be immune until we get our debt under control.

Hmm, that was not my question. Does it make you feel safer? And, why not tax the rich more and not cut aid to the poor? Just curious.

 

[mandym]

Hmm, that was not my question. Does it make you feel safer? And, why not tax the rich more and not cut aid to the poor? Just curious.

To give a direct answer ie yes or no would be to not allow for a proper representation of my position. My answer to your question is no. But Neither do I feel less safe. It just is not a problem with me. Facts are we do not have money for this even if it makes us less safe. So the safety issue is not relevant. Whether we are more or less safe does not change what we need to do. Why tax the rich more? To do so would cause a further slow down of the economy and not provide the revenue that is desired. Economics 101 when you are in debt beyond your means quit spending, cut spending, and pay your bills. What you do not do is continue to raise spending and unfairly confiscate the income of other people.

Why is it the left always wants to confiscate the income of other people rather than empower people who are in need to stand on their own?

 

[billwald]

Personally, I think there is more danger from govt approved GMOs than from ecoli. See

http://www.nongmoshoppingguide.com/why-should-i-avoid-gmos.html

 

[Salty]

Does it make you feel safer?

IMHO, the government means well, but as time goes on - they keeping adding more and more regulations to the point where it becomes ridiculous.

And, why not tax the rich more and not cut aid to the poor? Just curious.

First define Rich. Second in general the rich are paying most of the bills now.
Second, if the government was not handing over money, folks would find a way to subsist. Either family, friends, or heaven forbid religious organizations. And the same thing holds here as well, rescind some of the ridiculous regulations so charities can do a better job of helping the needy (as opposed to the greedy) instead of having so much paperwork to complete, file, and maintain.

What group of Americans pay 50% of all federal income taxes?

 

[Arbo]

And, why not tax the rich more and not cut aid to the poor?

Because taxing the so-called rich has been tried and it's not working.

 

[Don]

What group of Americans pay 50% of all federal income taxes?

Wow, Crab. I think, with that link, Salty just blew you out of the water.

Salty - the only thing that would make those IRS figures have even more impact? Population comparison (i.e., top 5%= those making equal to or greater than $159,000; what percentage of the population does that 5% represent?).

2003 figures are the only ones I could find (cited http://www.thomhartmann.com/users/tom-burns/blog/2011/03/90-income-taxes-paid-top-1-wrong and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States) and indicate that only 7% of households make over $150,000. Over $250,000 puts you in the top 1.5%.

First set of numbers are from 2008 IRS statistics; second set is from 2003 Census statistics. Using the "all things being equal" (at least, until someone can provide matching year population numbers): Numerically speaking, the only way Crab's position (increase taxes on the wealthy) would work, is to tax the wealthy to the point that their household income is $50,000 or less after taxes.

Think about that: You made $250,000 last year, but in order to "relieve" the burden on others, you give up $200,000 and live on only the $50,000. Make sure you're giving it careful thought: You legally and honestly worked your hind end off, and your hard work and honesty rewarded you with $250,000; but in order to be "fair" with all other Americans, the government takes $200,000.

In the meantime, what is your $200,000 contribution used for? To fund oh-so-many others that you now identify with, because you, too, make less than $50,000?

Does that logic really work for you, Crab?

--- edited to add:
2010 estimates show approximately 114.8 million households (U.S. Census records; http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_households_are_in_the_US). 1.5% = approximately 1.7 million households. Current U.S. debt: $14.3 trillion (not including unsecured obligations).

When I get home tonight, I'll try to do the calculations of the 1.5%, and the estimation of how much those households would actually contribute towards the current total debt. I have the inkling already that we're talking (at best) 10% of the total debt...which leaves the question, how do we pay the rest, if we don't cut programs?

 

[Ruiz]

I trust businesses whose reputation is on the line than Government who is inept, and I am a federal government employee. The problem with e coli is that we have a better system of reporting it than in prior years, thus we know about it more. But in my reading, the experts believe there are much fewer e coli problems than in years past. As well, nothing has beat the 1980's in deaths and sicknesses.

Finally, I would rather businesses self monitor than have happen like what has happened in the following stories:

http://reason.com/blog/2010/11/17/raw-foods-raid-fight

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPRMOij6Nfo&feature=player_embedded#at=77

Freedom does mean there will be risks. I would rather have more risks but more liberty than a government who believes they must protect me from everything out there.

 

[Don]

Okay, just to continue this: The top 1.5%.

.12% (137,760 households) that make over $1.6M. 1% (1,148,000 households) that make over $400,000. Leaves .38% (436,240 households) that make over $250,000.

Using these three figures ($1.6M, $400K, and $250K), we drop these folks down to the $50,000 per year figure, putting them on the same level as the "poor." The contribution to the national debt: $213,528,000,000 + $401,800,000,000 + $87,248,000,000 = $702,576,000,000.

That's $702.5 billion. Someone please feel free to check my math.

National Debt: $14 trillion. Without unfunded obligations.

In other words, you can tax the backside off every "rich" household in the United States, and we're still so far in debt it's insane. So yep, let's just tax the rich until they're poor, too...and we will still *have* to cut programs.

Got any other alternatives, Crab?

 

[mandym]

Okay, just to continue this: The top 1.5%.

.12% (137,760 households) that make over $1.6M. 1% (1,148,000 households) that make over $400,000. Leaves .38% (436,240 households) that make over $250,000.

Using these three figures ($1.6M, $400K, and $250K), we drop these folks down to the $50,000 per year figure, putting them on the same level as the "poor." The contribution to the national debt: $213,528,000,000 + $401,800,000,000 + $87,248,000,000 = $702,576,000,000.

That's $702.5 billion. Someone please feel free to check my math.

National Debt: $14 trillion. Without unfunded obligations.

In other words, you can tax the backside off every "rich" household in the United States, and we're still so far in debt it's insane. So yep, let's just tax the rich until they're poor, too...and we will still *have* to cut programs.

Got any other alternatives, Crab?

He doesn't want to tax the rich to get us out of debt. He wants to tax the rich because he wants it to go to the poor. A regular modern day Robin Hood.

 

[billwald]

Social Security and Medicare ARE income taxes

Social Security and Medicare ARE income taxes because they go into the treasury and are used to pay the bills. KEEP IN MIND that the people who claim SS is snot an income tax are the same ones who claim that the SS fund doesn't exist. They can't have it both ways. Either the SS fund exists OR the money was spent for other stuff. If it was spent for other stuff it is an income tax.

 

[mandym]

Social Security and Medicare ARE income taxes because they go into the treasury and are used to pay the bills. KEEP IN MIND that the people who claim SS is snot an income tax are the same ones who claim that the SS fund doesn't exist. They can't have it both ways. Either the SS fund exists OR the money was spent for other stuff. If it was spent for other stuff it is an income tax.

Wow, something we agree on.

 

[Salty]

Social Security and Medicare ARE income taxes because they go into the treasury and are used to pay the bills.

A big part of the problem is folks who are recieving SS who have never put into the system.

 

[billwald]

SSI is administered by SS Administration but the funds are not SS funds but a separate appropriation out of the general budget.

 

[Don]

Crab?.......

 

[Don]

Guess Crab didn't want to address the mathematics of his proposal....