Usda Closes 259 Offices

Johnnyorganic said:

That's mentioned in the Preamble and again in Article 1, Section 8.

Promoting the general Welfare does not mean government cheese.

And just how does a National Debt which exceeds 100% of GNP promote the general Welfare?

Answer: It doesn't.

Click to expand...

While I agree with our debt to gdp being way out of whack, the general welfare clause is a superb idea. One must remember we as a nation were not always in this mess now. Also the definition of welfare seems to have changed, I think they ment it in the context of the saftey and well being of all Americans, by regulating some aspects that without said regulation would lead to a drop in the health of standard of living we are all aforded under the constitution.

Yes, it is promote the general welfare, not provide the general welfare.

NLXSK1 said:

Yes, it is promote the general welfare, not provide the general welfare.

Click to expand...

I am sure you will agree that because no regulating body can "provide" welfare, that promoting is the best they can ever do and testing food and monitoring food production is well within the perview of the GW clause.

canndo said:

I am sure you will agree that because no regulating body can "provide" welfare, that promoting is the best they can ever do and testing food and monitoring food production is well within the perview of the GW clause.

Click to expand...

Hmmm.. might want to tell that to the section 8, food stamp, and welfare people then because the federal government is providing it all over the place.

fenderburn84 said:

While I agree with our debt to gdp being way out of whack, the general welfare clause is a superb idea. One must remember we as a nation were not always in this mess now. Also the definition of welfare seems to have changed, I think they ment it in the context of the saftey and well being of all Americans, by regulating some aspects that without said regulation would lead to a drop in the health of standard of living we are all aforded under the constitution.

Click to expand...

But it is the squishy manner by which the Constitution has been interpreted did bring us here. Federalism was left by the side of the road long ago.

And I wish to make clear that I lay the blame at the feet of BOTH parties. It would be unfair to single out one party when each played a part.

There is nothing wrong with reasonable regulation. And the Constitution set forth a template by which states had responsibilities and the Federal government had responsibilities.

What we have now is over-regulation and regulatory overlap; largely because of Federal agencies which should never have been established in the first place.

Johnnyorganic said:

But it is the squishy manner by which the Constitution has been interpreted did bring us here. Federalism was left by the side of the road long ago.

And I wish to make clear that I lay the blame at the feet of BOTH parties. It would be unfair to single out one party when each played a part.

There is nothing wrong with reasonable regulation. And the Constitution set forth a template by which states had responsibilities and the Federal government had responsibilities.

What we have now is over-regulation and regulatory overlap; largely because of Federal agencies which should never have been established in the first place.

Click to expand...

I would not have a problem with the federal government setting standards on things such as meat handling, etc. However, it should be up to the states to decide how it is tested to meet and comply. We dont need federal offices in every state.

And things like scientists trying to come up with ways to use fishery waste should be eliminated. That is part of the bloat of government.

Dan Kone said:

congrats libertarians. You've won a great victory over safe food

Click to expand...

Yep, a great victory. But according to the USDA......

"There will be no reduction in inspection presence at slaughter and processing facilities and no risk for consumers," Hagen said. "Not only do we have a statutory obligation to be in every facility, we have an unwavering commitment to food safety," she added. "We will still be on the job, in every facility, every day."
Vilsack said he didn't anticipate widespread layoffs, in part because 7,000 USDA employees took early retirements over the past year. He said the agency is trying to do more with less in light of federal cutbacks, and many of the offices to be closed had few employees or were near other offices.

Click to expand...

NLXSK1 said:

And things like scientists trying to come up with ways to use fishery waste should be eliminated. That is part of the bloat of government.

Click to expand...

They should just throw it all back in the ocean so it becomes food for the fish.

NLXSK1 said:

I would not have a problem with the federal government setting standards on things such as meat handling, etc. However, it should be up to the states to decide how it is tested to meet and comply. We dont need federal offices in every state.

And things like scientists trying to come up with ways to use fishery waste should be eliminated. That is part of the bloat of government.

Click to expand...

While I agree about the fish farm. I don't think it would be a realistic goal for all 50 states to come up with the same regulations, meaning unless there was some sort of universal standard the area I live in wich is the upper plains would have different rules than where the foodstuffs are sent. There is a problem in that theory only in one part of the country really does grow a majorityof the rests food.

NLXSK1 said:

Hmmm.. might want to tell that to the section 8, food stamp, and welfare people then because the federal government is providing it all over the place.

Click to expand...

i ws ujnder the impression we were talking about regulatory agencies.

Rob Roy said:

Isn't he a pot prohibitionist? Can you elaborate on why you would support somebody that has been so hypocritical in the racist drug war?

Click to expand...

have you seen the frothy, flip-flopping, adulterous, turtle fucking alternatives?

fenderburn84 said:

While I agree about the fish farm. I don't think it would be a realistic goal for all 50 states to come up with the same regulations, meaning unless there was some sort of universal standard the area I live in wich is the upper plains would have different rules than where the foodstuffs are sent. There is a problem in that theory only in one part of the country really does grow a majorityof the rests food.

Click to expand...

As I said, I dont have a problem with the federal government SETTING THE STANDARDS. I dont want them to be involved in testing, etc. I think the states can do that just fine on their own.

And if you look at the number of departments in the USDA you begin to understand why our government is so bloated. They spend 145 billion dollars a year...

Oh I agree I was just talking it out.

I feel much more free knowing that I have an increased chance of getting poisoned from eating. Libertarianism is great.

NLXSK1 said:

As I said, I dont have a problem with the federal government SETTING THE STANDARDS. I dont want them to be involved in testing, etc. I think the states can do that just fine on their own.

And if you look at the number of departments in the USDA you begin to understand why our government is so bloated. They spend 145 billion dollars a year...

Click to expand...

So you have a problem with redundancy in the Federal government but don't have a problem with 50 different testing organizations doing the same thing for each state.

Do you constitutional Libertarians even bother to read the Constitution?

Article 1 Section 8

Willyßagseed;6910147 said:

Do you constitutional Libertarians even bother to read the Constitution?

Article 1 Section 8

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

Provide and promote are not the same thing.............

Notice, I did not use quotes so you 2-3 "Libertarians" can fix your shit so as to not be embarrassed........ lol​

Click to expand...

That's against the rules. You're only allowed to bring up the constitution if you want to cut government. You're not allowed to mention the constitution if you're advocating keeping a part of government. Why do you hate the constitution so much?

My Bad, I forgot Libertarians and the Constitution are like Religious folk and their books........... Pick and choose.

Do I seriously have to post the quote AGAIN from James Madison in regards to the general welfare clause? Or can the left wing start actually researching shit by themselves.

Google is a handy tool for that.




fucking liberal circle jerking.

sync0s said:

Do I seriously have to post the quote AGAIN from James Madison in regards to the general welfare clause? Or can the left wing start actually researching shit by themselves.

Google is a handy tool for that.

fucking liberal circle jerking.

Click to expand...

Dig it the fuck out................. intent is a bullshit argument that can be had from both sides, pro and con. All we can argue on is what is written......... I forget tho, Libertarians claim to worship the constitution but only if the "Intent" is on there side.

If what Mr. Madison said about the clause is law then why is it not in the constitution dumbass ?

Intent would mean you can't vote, do jack shit and have no rights unless you are a landowner, and guess what..... 99% of people own no land... they are "Life tenants"



So, due to intent, the constitution does not apply at all.................. Nice fucking , dumbass argument you have.