Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, I'm just curious; those of you who advocate for smaller government. Are you looking for smaller government across the board or are there specific departments you want you eliminate?
I ask because I just got a letter in the mail today (first I have ever received of this kind) about a recall on a medication being initiated by the FDA. Apparently the Chinese made drug contains a chemical that is a known carcinogenic. If not for the FDA's pushing the recall, (I'm pretty sure) the drug company would have been happy to keep the drug on the market.
So again, curious... How do you all feel about this department of the government? Is this something you want eliminated?
Last edited by blktoptrvl; 07-25-2018 at 03:28 PM..
So, I'm just curious; those of you who advocate for smaller government. Are you looking for smaller government across the board or are there specific departments you want you eliminate?
I ask because I just got a letter in the mail today (first I have ever received of this kind) about a recall on a medication being initiated by the FDA. Apparently the Chinese made drug contains a chemical that is a known carcinogenic. If not for the FDA's pushing the recall, (I'm pretty sure) the drug company would have been happy to keep the drug on the market.
So again, curious... How do you all feel about this department of the government? Is this something you want eliminated?
At times it is doing a great job. Other times it does a horrible job. But either way, it is not in the Constitution so it is up to each state. If the states decide it would be easier to have the feds do it, then change the Constitution.
I would like to see the DEA eliminated, or cut massively. Big waste of money and resources trying to tell people what they can't put in their bodies, and it simply doesn't work. Our society is full of drugs, despite the government's best efforts, and all the money we have thrown at the problem.
The welfare class created by the government is counterproductive and entirely unnecessary. There should be social safety nets in place for the truly needy, not the lazy and entitled who choose to be burden.
Overall, the government today is too large for our own good. We are going into debt as a nation because we cannot afford the government at today's present size.
I'm always amused at people who grumble at "big government" or call it "socialism" until there's a government program that helps them.
At that point, they either discount what they just complained about (big government is about waste and handouts for those "other people") or seem baffled that the program they or a loved one benefits from actually is possible because of "big government".
I can give a couple of examples. One might be that they "forget" that their 10 grandkids (or their parents) who attend public schools don't pay anything extra for tuition because others (who may not even have kids) are paying for it. At that point, their own become those "other people." Or they forget that although they may have paid into social security, they're getting back a much bigger payout than they put in or would have been able to have gotten back had they kept the money and tried to save/invest it on their own (the program for younger generations may not be as generous).
I want everything outside of national defense, international trade and interstate infrastructure to be handled at the state and local level where it is more intimate with the public, where the tax payers will see where and how their money is being used, where it's on a smaller more manageable scale. I don't necessarily want less government I just want my government handled at a more local level where I can walk in an talk to my representative if I have a problem and not deal with bureaucrats in DC. This is a very popular and common sense sentiment and the numbers reflect this, local governments are more popular than state governments and state governments are more popular than the federal government.
China’s Huahai suspended manufacturing and supply to those markets and informed regulatory agencies after it discovered the residue in its supplies. It attributed the impurity to a new manufacturing process it recently adopted.
And the FDA said:
Quote:
Because valsartan is a common medicine to help patients with high blood pressure and to reduce the chance of heart attack, the FDA suggests patients taking the recalled medicine to continue taking their medicine until a replacement is in place
I see nothing in this story to justify an FDA..Or said another way, this could have been handled with an independent reporting agency/s
I want everything outside of national defense, international trade and interstate infrastructure to be handled at the state and local level where it is more intimate with the public, where the tax payers will see where and how their money is being used, where it's on a smaller more manageable scale. I don't necessarily want less government I just want my government handled at a more local level where I can walk in an talk to my representative if I have a problem and not deal with bureaucrats in DC. This is a very popular and common sense sentiment and the numbers reflect this, local governments are more popular than state governments and state governments are more popular than the federal government.
That would reduce some states to third world status, some do not have the resources to support Medicaid, infrastructure. They do not have the economy
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert_J
At times it is doing a great job. Other times it does a horrible job. But either way, it is not in the Constitution so it is up to each state. If the states decide it would be easier to have the feds do it, then change the Constitution.
"Promote the general welfare" is very open to interpretation.
alright, lets start with the FDA, the USDA, and fourteen other government agencies that regulate food. we can cut that way down to three or four agencies. keep the field agents out there, but eliminate the vast majority of the middle and upper management jobs.
lets take the DEA, BATF, and other law enforcement agencies, and again, roll them all together under one or two umbrellas, and eliminate much of the middle and upper management.
we can do things like this across the board.
once we have finished consolidating departments, we can then move on to programs that dont work, or ultimately do very little but disrupt the things that should be done at the state level. for instance the department of education should be dropped as a cabinet post, and go back to being a small federal agency that has oversight over the state departments of education, and instead of them coming up with various programs that are insulting to everyone, they examine what works and what doesnt, and encourage other states to institute programs that work.
we can push welfare back onto the states where it belongs, same with the EPA, for the most part.
the things that should be done at the federal level should remain there, the things that should be done at the state level should be put back there.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
