Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 05-11-2010, 03:08 PM
 
6,084 posts, read 6,048,996 times
Reputation: 1916

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by kovert View Post
Look like the administration is going after Big Agri.

"He then went on to detail how the rising age of the average farmer, now 57 as reported in the 2007 Ag census, the higher and more prolonged rates of unemployment in rural America and the loss of economic opportunity in rural areas across the country were all issues that he planned to address by improving programs at the USDA."

I hope increased interest and opportunity in farming and other agricultural areas (along with unions and e-verify) can help revitalize rural America.

We need them strong and vibrant along with our manufacturing industry.
Speaking of reviving our agricultural sector.

"Niman, an environmental attorney, and livestock rancher (Niman Ranch), feels passionately that our food system is broken, and is working to shed light on the horrifying industry practices that have become commonplace, but largely unknown to the general public."

 
Old 06-03-2010, 05:50 PM
 
6,084 posts, read 6,048,996 times
Reputation: 1916
As goes our agriculture so goes the health of the nation.

"To keep farmers on the farm we must maintain a strong farm safety net, but we will also have to build a thriving companion economy to compliment production agriculture in rural America. The improved safety net must pursue new approaches that create more good-paying jobs in rural America, in addition to the time-tested programs that support our abundant agricultural system."
 
Old 06-03-2010, 06:26 PM
 
1,650 posts, read 3,866,006 times
Reputation: 1133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckhorn View Post
I know what he's trying to convey.

Frankly, I've never understood the miserly character of some people. It doesn't matter if they have modest means or are millionaires several times over, their money is their money.

That's so shortsighted and counterproductive that it hurts.

These misers stand on the shoulders of others. They exist as they are only b/c of the accomplishments of others. So kicking a little bit back to the system to keep it humming along in a humane manner seems like a pretty good idea to me.
I am 29 and give to charities often. I actually enjoy helping charities. If the government decides to tax me to death, I won't be able to help charities anymore.

I have asthma and am against socialized medicine. When I first started having trouble breathing, I knew I needed to see the doctor right away. I was thankful that we didn't have socialized medicine at the time because I was able to see the doctor right away. Under socialized medicine, I would have been forced to wait four months or so to see a doctor. I probably would have died waiting to be seen by a doctor. If you can't breathe, you can't wait four months to see a doctor. I paid around $1000 in medical bills without any help from anyone. I didn't want to be a burden.

As far as taxing things deemed bad, who decides what is bad? One study says chocolate is bad, another says it is good. One says coffee is bad, another says it is good. One study says bread is bad, another says it is good. One study says wine is bad, another says it is good.
 
Old 06-03-2010, 07:35 PM
 
6,084 posts, read 6,048,996 times
Reputation: 1916
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluebelt1234 View Post
I am 29 and give to charities often. I actually enjoy helping charities. If the government decides to tax me to death, I won't be able to help charities anymore.

I have asthma and am against socialized medicine. When I first started having trouble breathing, I knew I needed to see the doctor right away. I was thankful that we didn't have socialized medicine at the time because I was able to see the doctor right away. Under socialized medicine, I would have been forced to wait four months or so to see a doctor. I probably would have died waiting to be seen by a doctor. If you can't breathe, you can't wait four months to see a doctor. I paid around $1000 in medical bills without any help from anyone. I didn't want to be a burden.

As far as taxing things deemed bad, who decides what is bad? One study says chocolate is bad, another says it is good. One says coffee is bad, another says it is good. One study says bread is bad, another says it is good. One study says wine is bad, another says it is good.
Since you're so against "socialized medicine", it would be interesting to see you go in front of a mob of angry tea partiers (by most accvounts older Americans), and watch to see if you can make it out in one piece once you tell them, you want to take away THEIR government backed health benefits.
 
Old 06-04-2010, 12:41 AM
 
372 posts, read 221,289 times
Reputation: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovert View Post
tax all products un-nutritiously high in processed sugar, sodium, fructose corn syrup; tax McDonald's, Dominoes, BK and all the fast food chains; slap a big fat juicy tax on the firearms industry; and for good measure the producers and users of pollutants in our environment.

Cost of universal health care solved.

There is another glaring example that the myth of capitalism and free markets is really a sham.

This industry is actually oligopoly that begs for and receives government bailouts. Why doesn't any scream and shout about these corporate welfare queens milking the system out of tax payer money?

There shenanigans have a direct impact on the nation's health.

Those that make statements about national security should investigate the posted links.
Your post wasn't worth the pixels it was written on, excepting, of course, for comic relief.
 
Old 06-04-2010, 12:45 AM
 
372 posts, read 221,289 times
Reputation: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by cap1717 View Post
despite all of the snarky remarks on this topic, the best, most sensible way to pay for UHC, the way to bring costs down so that it can be paid for with less money than is now being used for a system that fails to insure many, is to take the profit motive out of HC insurance, primarily, and in some cases out of the H.C. itself. Now, please note, I am speaking of medically necessary H.C. Cosmetic procedures should be totally "for profit", and available to anyone who wishes to pay for them. A certain standard of necessity must be both determined and applied (call it rationaing, if you like), right now it is the insurance companies with a profit motive that are doing the rationing! Priority should be given to the young, end of life procedures should not cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, etc. That is the realistic and sensible way. . . .and I'm not even saying that private insurance companies should be eliminated. A reasonable level of profit for these organizations can be determined, their practices monitered, and their salaries kept in line with those of non-profit insurance providers. . . .strict oversight will be necessary. . . but all will be insured, costs will be dramatically reduced for all necessary care, and the rich will still be able to get all of the extras that they desire.
Your "solution" is absolute gibberish. Complete and total rubbish, refuse and folderal.

If you take the profit out of an activity, you GUARANTEE you won't have any of that activity, for profit is the only reason people engage in it. Take the profits of the health care industry, or any particular segment of it, and you guarantee, beyond any question whatsoever, that you will have none of that industry or segment.
 
Old 06-04-2010, 12:48 AM
 
8 posts, read 4,593 times
Reputation: 11
More gov.............
Has anyone seen the euro take dive??????
It is obvious if we don't change government we are in deep trouble!
Obama wants the USA as a normal nation. We are a world power house
and he wants no part of that!
I say we impeach the son of bitchy ASAP!
He is a socialist...most States now are broke, because of the
stimulus!
 
Old 06-04-2010, 09:50 AM
 
90 posts, read 87,397 times
Reputation: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovert View Post
Since you're so against "socialized medicine", it would be interesting to see you go in front of a mob of angry tea partiers (by most accvounts older Americans), and watch to see if you can make it out in one piece once you tell them, you want to take away THEIR government backed health benefits.
Socialized Medicine is a failure wherever it is in play. The head of the Canadian system says it is on the verge of implosion, and there were several news articles of late discussing the intolerable issues associated therewith. Contrast that with the market-driven Vetrinary-medicine industry in Canada, with NO rationing, NO waits, NO limits on treatments due to government assessment of "need" or "cost" or "return on investment" etc., Just great service delivered in a timely fashion - all of which driven by the making of PROFITS.
 
Old 06-04-2010, 06:04 PM
 
6,084 posts, read 6,048,996 times
Reputation: 1916
Quote:
Originally Posted by navyapproved View Post
Your post wasn't worth the pixels it was written on, excepting, of course, for comic relief.
Hmm, I wonder, if my post is not worth a few pixels, then how much more worthless (or just plain stupid) is the troll who not only spends time to read it but posts twice to the thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jetair View Post
Socialized Medicine is a failure wherever it is in play. The head of the Canadian system says it is on the verge of implosion, and there were several news articles of late discussing the intolerable issues associated therewith. Contrast that with the market-driven Vetrinary-medicine industry in Canada, with NO rationing, NO waits, NO limits on treatments due to government assessment of "need" or "cost" or "return on investment" etc., Just great service delivered in a timely fashion - all of which driven by the making of PROFITS.
Guess what, the system is not working and it is not sustainable.

Although I do not agree with this guy's method of dealing with the problem at least he acknowledges there is one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

And now back to news on how to save rural America.

"We are all for growing the rural economy, but when the USDA talks about growth, we need to ask, growth for whom? Conspicuously off the Secretary's agenda was restoring competition in agriculture: getting fair prices to farmers, and breaking up the monopoly market power of multinational corporations.
Just four companies (http://nfu.org/issues/economic-policy/resources/heffernan-report - broken link) control 84% of the nation's beef and 70% of pork. One company controls 40% of our milk supply, another holds patents on 80% of our corn, and just five chains sell 50% of the nation's groceries.


We will not "grow" the economy for America's family farmers if they stay under the thumb of corporate monopolies that can essentially name their price.


If Secretary Vilsack wants to revitalize rural America, he needs look no further than his second in command, Kathleen Merrigan. The Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food program to increase local food purchases is a baby step in the right direction - and not because food is the latest liberal fad. Local food systems can be an engine for local economic development."
 
Old 06-04-2010, 06:16 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,531,102 times
Reputation: 27720
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovert View Post

If Secretary Vilsack wants to revitalize rural America, he needs look no further than his second in command, Kathleen Merrigan. The Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food program to increase local food purchases is a baby step in the right direction - and not because food is the latest liberal fad. Local food systems can be an engine for local economic development."
This is key and and rings so true. The small farmer is local..not a rent-a-farmer who farms for some billionaire living in CA. The factory farms MUST use the company directed feed shipped in for them.

The local farmer deals locally for parts, feed, sales.
I deal with them for my food and even plan to go that route myself in the next year or two. And it's a shame that there are so many Ag programs available but the big Ag guys grab them. Some are lucky to get help with fencing or pasture renovation but for the most part the billionaire farmers who least need the money are getting it

It is truly sad that many people don't know this.
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:55 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top