Explaining Why Federal Deficits Are Needed[W:5330]

[jaeger19]

"Certain label information, such as the responsible firm's name and address and ingredient declaration, is required."

If the firm's name is available, couldn't an interested consumer just look up the firm's name and find out where the beef is?

Or is your complaint that the information is too hard to find?

.

Nope.. its that not all beef has to be labeled when its processed in the US.

First.. beef that comes in from another country and is processed in the US.. country of origin labels are not required.. and have never been required.

Now..in 2003.. beef that came in from another country..that went directly to the consumer had to be labeled. but even that has been rescinded.

"

If meat comes from another country direct to retail it must be labeled from that country," says Eric Mittenthal of the North American Meat Institute. "That has long been the law. Otherwise if it's processed in a U.S. facility under (Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service) inspection it is marked as such. If companies decide to offer more detail they may, but we believe that should be voluntary so that consumers may be the ultimate judge of what they value."

New rules on how meat is labeled: What you should know - Chicago Tribune

Honestly, I don't know if all agriculture subsidies are ideal. But I see definite advantages to them, because they encourage firms to grow crops when, without the subsidies, there's a good chance they wouldn't operate. This would result in reduction of supply, a rise in costs, and takes money out of the consumer's pocket.

Yeah no. First the majority of subsidies go to like you said.. big producers of corn etc. companies that are already profitable and don't need subsidizing. All studies point to the fact that they would operate.

And interestingly. on the "they would not operate"... some of the subsidies actually PAY big producers to NOT PRODUCE.

And what subsidies do. by the way is not protect the consumer. they protect the farmer.. by keeping a minimum price.. so there is a minimum the price can drop to.. but that price can increase without issue.

Seriously.. I don;t have time to further educate you.

Go do some research and then we can talk.. start another thread.

This is the general principle behind all subsidies. They're a wealth redistribution mechanism which takes money from the overall population (disproportionately from the rich) and provides benefits to everybody, but provide the greatest benefit to low-income consumers.

yeah.. had to comment.. because this is funny. You really need to see who the bulk of subsidies go toward.. its NOT taking from the rich.. and benefiting the lower incomes... :2wave:

Do a little research. heck any research on the topic. then lets talk.. in another thread.. this has been derailed enough

 

[jaeger19]

Okay, we'll go with your definition if it avoids arguing semantics.

Do you accept that America's population has increased by 25 million over the last decade?

Do you accept that America's population increased by 12 million from 1870 to 1880?

Assuming you accept these two facts, why are you stating that growth potential is lower today than it was in the 1870s?

Do not use "land constraints" as an excuse. We've already established that there are no constraints on land.

And "natural resources" is not a valid reason either. The vast majority of Americans' livelihoods do not depend on natural resources. This is demonstrable through this: Employment by major industry sector

Total (2014): 150M
Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting: 2.138M
Mining: 843.8K
In total, about 3M jobs, or 2%, are based on natural resources.

Yawn.. yes.. do you accept that americans population exists today because of the land purchase in 1804 called the Louisiana Purchase which more than doubled the size of America.?

Somehow or do you contend that our population would be just as great.. if we had never purchased the Louisiana purchase?

If you do think somehow that the doubling our land size and adding all those resources created potential for more population.. than if we had not.. the how can you argue that land and resources don;t matter?

And what has more potential.. a land that has not been developed.. or the same land that has been developed and has 300 million people already on it?

and yes.. America depends heavily on our natural resources. without them.. our economy would not only never developed.. it would tank now.

And there are definitely constraints on land. Only in your own head do you think there are no constraints on land.

 

[jaeger19]

yes set at minimum wage or higher when they should be set by the free market to maximize efficiency of economy.

Hmmm.. well we have a minimum wage.. and yet I still have to negotiate wages with my employees based on the market.

If as you contend.. my wages are set by the government and not by the market.. why do I still have to negotiate wages with my employees?

hmmmm...

 

[Gaea]

Well lets see.. now you will be silent on this issue..

P3 Bridge Project Awarded

Posted on October 24, 2014


Today at 11:00 AM the Pennsylvania P3 board in conjunction with Penn DOT announced that the Walsh team has won the competition for the Public-Private Partnership for the Rapid Bridge Replacement program. This program will replace 558 bridges in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania over the next 48 months.

GOH is a construction partner of the winning team. The development team consists of Walsh and Granite together with a financial partner Plenary. GOH participated over the past 6 months with Walsh and the other regional partners to construct the bid that won this competition. GOH will play a major role in the construction phase of the project in northern and central PA over the next few years.

The production phase will begin in 2015 following project organization and final bridge designs.

Several innovative concepts will be employed to utilize precast elements. Our sister company Northeast Prestressed Products will benefit by supplying many beams to the construction of these bridges. Overall, it will provide a nice workload to GOH over the next few years. We are pleased to be part of the winning team and looking forward to working with Walsh and Granite over the next few years.

The team’s $899 million proposal was selected based on scoring that considered cost, financial capability to carry out the project, background and experience in managing comparable projects, and understanding of the project.

That's a great starting point. But that doesn't account for the other $3.6 trillion of construction projects which aren't ongoing.

Nothing you've said explains why the US government would hire a new crew of people to work on a project that is already being done. Because that's the only way cannibalization would occur.

 

[jaeger19]

:2rofll:

You just can't help yourself.

I know right? I mean of course the potential to grow...Is NOT "growth potential"..

Man.. if only we could be as smart as you and snipe from the sidelines with useless comments...

Gee. :2wave:

 

[rocket88]

You continue to show just how little you truly know. A few democrats wanted to regulate the banks? TARP was signed in November 2008 and banks didn't change their operating procedures. 350 billion was spent in 2008, 100 plus ni 2009, who oversaw the results of TARP loans and the actions of the banks?

So you think they didn't regulate enough? Essentially you're saying Obama didn't regulate the banks further. I thought you were conservative.

 

[jaeger19]

That's a great starting point. But that doesn't account for the other $3.6 trillion of construction projects which aren't ongoing.

Nothing you've said explains why the US government would hire a new crew of people to work on a project that is already being done. Because that's the only way cannibalization would occur.

This is tiresome.

You are purposely being obtuse.

contractors are being hired to fix and replace infrastructure NOW.

If future projects then go to the US government rather than to those contractors who previously serviced public projects. .. then their business dries up and they go broke as do their employees.

COME ON man.

 

[James972]

and yes.. America depends heavily on our natural resources. without them.. our economy would not only never developed.. it would tank now.
.

Japan has no natural resources and does well; Saudi Arabia has tons and does poorly!! Freedom and capitalism matter, not natural resurces.

 

[James972]

Hmmm.. well we have a minimum wage.. and yet I still have to negotiate wages with my employees based on the market.

If as you contend.. my wages are set by the government and not by the market.. why do I still have to negotiate wages with my employees?

hmmmm...

you are free to negotiate above the minimum wage but not below. Do you understand?

 

[James972]

This is tiresome.

You are purposely being obtuse.

contractors are being hired to fix and replace infrastructure NOW.

If future projects then go to the US government rather than to those contractors who previously serviced public projects. .. then their business dries up and they go broke as do their employees.

COME ON man.

the real problem with infrastructure projects is that:
1) they steal money from one part of the country and unfairly give it to another and

2) do projects that don't need to be done (bridges to no where) and thus waste the nations resources.

Any projects that are done are mostly done by the private sector but this is not to say they should be done. Such decisions should be made locally and paid for locally to avoid waste as much as possible.

 

[jaeger19]

you are free to negotiate above the minimum wage but not below. Do you understand?

Yes.. I am free to negotiate salary above the minimum wage.. which means the government has not "SET" my wages.

NOW.. do you understand?

 

[jaeger19]

the real problem with infrastructure projects is that:
1) they steal money from one part of the country and unfairly give it to another and

2) do projects that don't need to be done (bridges to no where) and thus waste the nations resources.

Any projects that are done are mostly done by the private sector but this is not to say they should be done. Such decisions should be made locally and paid for locally to avoid waste as much as possible.

Local governments don;t have the money to provide for large infrastructure projects.. in addition.. large infrastructure projects often benefit multiple states if not the country as a whole.

 

[jaeger19]

Japan has no natural resources and does well; Saudi Arabia has tons and does poorly!! Freedom and capitalism matter, not natural resurces.

Yeah.. no...

 

[James972]

Yeah.. no...

translation: I know I was wrong

 

[James972]

Local governments don;t have the money to provide for large infrastructure projects..

if they don't have the money then they don't need the project obviously.

 

[James972]

in addition.. large infrastructure projects often benefit multiple states if not the country as a whole.

too bad we are not communist but instead believe those who benefit most from an infrastructure project should pay the most for it.

 

[jaeger19]

translation: I know I was wrong

Sure James.. You got me.. thinks like having agricultural land to feed your people

Timber to build houses

Iron to produce steel

Gas, oil and coal.

NONE of that matter in a countries economy. . . :roll:

You win. Now go away.

 

[jaeger19]

too bad we are not communist but instead believe those who benefit most from an infrastructure project should pay the most for it.

Yeah.... but we don't.

 

[James972]

Yeah.... but we don't.

Republicans do believe local infrastructure should be paid for locally while libcommies obviously want huge national taxes and all decisions made by Washington bureaucrats like the libcommies who built the bridge to no where.

 

[Gaea]

This is tiresome.

You are purposely being obtuse.

contractors are being hired to fix and replace infrastructure NOW.

If future projects then go to the US government rather than to those contractors who previously serviced public projects. .. then their business dries up and they go broke as do their employees.

COME ON man.

Okay, I understand what you're saying now.

I don't understand how that would INCREASE unemployment though.

 

[Moderate Right]

:shock:

Whaaaaat?

Is there any proof other than a supposed quote from a reporter? How about a recording that shows him saying this, or him actually acknowledging that the reporter's quote is indeed accurate? And, assuming he really did say this, how does this relate to anyone else, other than hearsay? Is there any proof such as recordings or admissions of any of the others accused of taking part in this belief?

 

[Gaea]

Yawn.. yes.. do you accept that americans population exists today because of the land purchase in 1804 called the Louisiana Purchase which more than doubled the size of America.?

Somehow or do you contend that our population would be just as great.. if we had never purchased the Louisiana purchase?

If you do think somehow that the doubling our land size and adding all those resources created potential for more population.. than if we had not.. the how can you argue that land and resources don;t matter?

I've never said that. You keep resorting to this bizarre, irrelevant strawman about the Louisiana Purchase. What does this have to do with anything?

The subject was 1874. In 1874 the USA already controlled the entire Louisiana Purchase, as well as the lands acquired from Mexico.

And what has more potential.. a land that has not been developed.. or the same land that has been developed and has 300 million people already on it?

The subject is America's ability to incorporate immigrants into the economy in larger numbers now than in 1874.

and yes.. America depends heavily on our natural resources. without them.. our economy would not only never developed.. it would tank now.

Irrelevant, nobody's talking about our natural resources vanishing/never existing. And new immigrants are not going to magically cause our natural resources to vanish.

And there are definitely constraints on land. Only in your own head do you think there are no constraints on land.

Land constraints are much less relevant today than they were in the 1800s. Productivity has increased by more than 1,200% since 1870. The US economy once relied upon agriculture, but it does not now.

In 1869, agriculture comprised 37.5% of GDP. In 2006, agriculture was 0.8% of GDP.
http://www.springer.com/cda/content...1906571-c1.pdf?SGWID=0-0-45-838614-p173903552

 

[Absentglare]

Going to CWRU to get a degree in law is about ego and overspending. Which actually explains alot about JfC if CWRU is where he went. Throwing $$$$ for a $$ education.

The irony of this pathetic attack cannot be overstated.

 

[James972]

If you want a flat across the board minimum wage increase by the Federal Government tied to CPI after that.. and every state has to abide to that.. we don't have a problem on the big picture.

you should have a problem!!! Making it illegal to hire people who are not worth the minimum wage is not good for employment. Why not set a minimum price for cars, say $30k, so companies would be sure to make enough money to survive and employ their workers at a liberal living wage??

 

[countryboy]

you should have a problem!!! Making it illegal to hire people who are not worth the minimum wage is not good for employment. Why not set a minimum price for cars, say $30k, so companies would be sure to make enough money to survive and employ their workers at a liberal living wage??

What if nobody buys the "minimum $30k car"? What a ridiculous suggestion. :roll: