Equity and Ethics

[Lemonaide]

Ethics comes up a lot in politics and especially during elections. Recently I had the opportunity to meet with a local representative who encouraged me to participate in an Ad Hoc Committee to help the Disabled.

Here's what I find to be very offensive, and what are your thoughts, especially now, during the elections.

A person who is disabled as a veteran receives a pension. He also receives a huge salary as a Politician, his wife also receives a substantial salary. He is disabled and he is not considered "nuts" and is able to work and also run for Presisent of the United States. WHEREAS: in meeting a group of Disabled people whose set income is sometimes at $500 per month to $3,000 per month [on average] all dependant upon the salary that was earned prior to their disability. That same group of people are limited to earnings of only $800 per month in addition to their SSDI. Therefore, if a coal miner earned $800 per month mining and became disabled and received $750 per month on SSDI, but a Dentist [for example] whose earnings were $75,000 before becoming disabled might be able to receive $3,000 or more per month on SSDI. Therefore the laws have been written to keep poor people poor and weathly people wealthy. A coal miner on disability will never be able to attain the same standard of living as a disabled dentist.

Question:
Do you think ANY politician would be able to resist accepting both his salary and his Disability income?
Do you think ALL disabeled people should recieve the same basic income? and therefore at least take care of that population group of 20million?

Is there no equity, even for those people?

[Beeblebrox]

A person who is disabled as a veteran receives a pension. He also receives a huge salary as a Politician, his wife also receives a substantial salary. He is disabled and he is not considered "nuts" and is able to work and also run for Presisent of the United States.

McCain shattered his knee and broke both arms when he was shot down over North Vietnam in 1967. He spent 5 1/2 years as a POW in Hanoi where he was tortured. He returned home on crutches and went through painful physical rehabilitation and eventually retired from the Navy in 1981. He still can't raise his arm above his head and you think is unfair (unethical) of him to receive $58,358 a year disability pension? You must be joking!

Therefore the laws have been written to keep poor people poor and weathly people wealthy. A coal miner on disability will never be able to attain the same standard of living as a disabled dentist.

Maybe the coal miner should go to school and become a dentist! Why should anyone receive more on disability than when they were working? If the coal miner can make more on disability than he can working, why would he work? Why should a coal miner on disability be able to obtain the same standard of living as a disabled dentist, he wouldn't be able to obtain the same standard of living if neither were disabled?

Do you think ANY politician would be able to resist accepting both his salary and his Disability income?

He shouldn't have to.

Do you think ALL disabeled people should recieve the same basic income? and at least take care of that population group of 20million?

No. It is a free market and additional disability insurance is available for anyone who wants to purchase it. If you want additional coverage, buy it. Most people choose to purchase cell phones, cable tv, etc. than purchase health or disability insurance. It is a matter of priorities. Stop whining when you make bad choices. If it is so important to you, you can always take everything you make over $300 a month and give it to those who make less. But I have a feeling you would rather take it from everyone else instead!

Is there no equity, even for those people?

Only in your fantasy socialist society. Even if we all become socialist as you propose, there will still be those that get more benefits than your average comrade.

[Lemonaide]

Case Studies

Everyday I encounter people so deprived and so desperate for basic survival, that even when they begin to enjoy some simple pleasures in life like taking a walk in the fresh air, someone is ready to take it away from them.

1. Someone fell down and had a concussion at age four and a half years old. Witnessed a murder at the age of five and then another murder at the age of seven and some odd months. Her mother broke this persons left arm, her father broke her sisters collarbone. By the age of four years old both children had concussions, bruices, and broken bones. There is more, but it's too lengthly. Both girls completed college degrees. One girl earned Honor Society, both girls have worked consistently throughout their adult lives. They are both still struggling. Both still work. Both have Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

2. There are people who have lost their lives literally serving this country as Volunteers. None of them ask for compensation. They live on as little as $250 a month in foreign nations and they work without guns.

3. Many people face tradedy. I know a military man who though devoted to his wife, was divorced by her and it nearly killed him. After many years, he finally met another woman to marry. They got a phone call telling him that his father had died. He and his new fiance started towards the funeral, when they were in an accident and she died instantly, leaving him again striken.

4. D__ went Diving with his dive team. He was in very deep water and kept an extra safety tank. His gas got messed up and he started to float to the top. Groping for his extra tank, it was 'gone'. He keep popping to the top and by the time he got there he was unconscious. His team pulled him up - he had the bends. As they raced him to the shore he suffered several strokes and a heart attack leaving him in a coma. For the past ten years or so he has been in a wheelchair. People envy him because he has material wealth, but one thing they don't see - his wheelchair. I picked up his wheelchair and hauled it into his truck one day, it was very heavy.

5. In Louisiana I found two elders living under a bridge. I was apparently, the only person who spoke to them. I asked them to tell me what happened. I followed their situation and had to force people to help them. Often case managers take power of attorney from discombobbulated clients. Some people don't know where their own money is going - and they're being ripped off.

6. In New York state, retired elders upstate are being forced into foreclosure because they haven't enough Social Security Retirement income to continue to pay off their thirty year mortgages. Who says that these people didn't also serve their countries. Why is necessary to serve in the Military in order to keep your home? The person in question is a Nurse, coming into contact daily with injured, sick, and helpless people, some of whose lives she saved, some of them vets.

7. I worked with a POW who was also captured by North Vietnamese. He was tortured for 'seven' years as he mentioned to me. People used to make fun of his 'constant chatter', but I felt that he needed to talk so I let him run his mouth as much as he wanted. People used to ask me "How can you let him talk so much"? I was mystified....I thought everyone loved Neal. He was a fantastic person. His arms are limp as well.

I have been advocating for the elderly, the disabled and the injured for many years and it is a costly fight. It seems out of control when a person with real money receives additional income just become he or she technically 'qualifies'. They mistakenly think "I'll use it to help someone", or 'I feel badly, but it is not against the law".

While I am a fan of Mr. McCain and would like to see him run successfully, the public should become aware of this as an issue. It's not a personal attack, it's an attack on a system that has failed many Americans. It's become painfully obvious to many Americans by this turn of the Millinium and Century, that the systems that once worked - don't work very well and we're finding many many many areas that need repair. The first step in solving a problem in any of the identified campaign issues in this 21st Century is to admit that the problems stem from our own inability to Govern in equity.

These structures and systems have been put into place by "Rich White Peeeeeeoooooople". This is why I actually enjoy listening to Rev. Wright. No-one can argue a strong case against what he says about conservative republicans! To be conservative does not mean to 'become mean', conservative means to "CONSERVE". To PROTECT. It belongs in the hands of people who know what that means.

Income is always scrutinized during elections. All candidates are studied for their donations, income, their spouces income, their income tax returns, their capital gains, tax shelters, pac-money and so forth. That issue has come up not for the first time and it is an important one. Earned income credits that are promised just before elections; IRS returns that are offered just before elections 'of up to 600 dollars', meanwhile, I'm watching two females get thrown out of their rooms. They have no money. They aren't criminals; I checked, they simply have no do-re-mi.

There are men, women, children, the infirm, the blind, and the crippled living on the streets of America and they have served the country in other ways. I don't think McCain wants a pity vote. If I were running I would say: "I served my country in dignity. I did my best job. It was an experience that I will never forget, but I have come to terms with this part of my life. While I have suffered injuries, they were not fatal. I wish to serve again and work with a team of people who can untie all of the knots in a system that has literally bankrupted its citizens."

[Beeblebrox]

Case Studies
Everyday I encounter people so deprived and so desperate for basic survival, that even when they begin to enjoy some simple pleasures in life like taking a walk in the fresh air, someone is ready to take it away from them.

Unless they are locked up in prison, I find it hard to believe that someone is preventing anyone else from taking a walk in the fresh air!

1. Someone fell down and had a concussion at age four and a half years old. Witnessed a murder at the age of five and then another murder at the age of seven and some odd months. Her mother broke this persons left arm, her father broke her sisters collarbone. By the age of four years old both children had concussions, bruices, and broken bones. There is more, but it's too lengthly. Both girls completed college degrees. One girl earned Honor Society, both girls have worked consistently throughout their adult lives. They are both still struggling. Both still work. Both have Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Yes, this is a tragic story, but do you expect the government to guarantee everyone a happy, trouble free life? What about the fact that both were able to complete college and work consistently. The sad fact is that bad things happen to people. What happened was a crime and there are laws and organizations to help. What more do you want the government to do?

2. There are people who have lost their lives literally serving this country as Volunteers. None of them ask for compensation. They live on as little as $250 a month in foreign nations and they work without guns.

Very noble of those who sacrifice for the benefit of others. As you said, they Volunteer and none of them ask for compensation. I myself have performed mission work in other countries. But what do you want, the government to pay everyone who volunteers? The US is the most generous country on Earth and private organizations help better than the government.

3. Many people face tradedy. I know a military man who though devoted to his wife, was divorced by her and it nearly killed him. After many years, he finally met another woman to marry. They got a phone call telling him that his father had died. He and his new fiance started towards the funeral, when they were in an accident and she died instantly, leaving him again striken.

Again, a tragedy. Everyone suffers. What do you want the government to do, outlaw death? There is nothing to prevent this type of suffering. Of course, you can get help with suffering by clinging to religion!

4. D__ went Diving with his dive team. He was in very deep water and kept an extra safety tank. His gas got messed up and he started to float to the top. Groping for his extra tank, it was 'gone'. He keep popping to the top and by the time he got there he was unconscious. His team pulled him up - he had the bends. As they raced him to the shore he suffered several strokes and a heart attack leaving him in a coma. For the past ten years or so he has been in a wheelchair. People envy him because he has material wealth, but one thing they don't see - his wheelchair. I picked up his wheelchair and hauled it into his truck one day, it was very heavy.

The government can actually help here ... outlaw diving! Tragic accident, yes, but that happens.

5. In Louisiana I found two elders living under a bridge. I was apparently, the only person who spoke to them. I asked them to tell me what happened. I followed their situation and had to force people to help them. Often case managers take power of attorney from discombobbulated clients. Some people don't know where their own money is going - and they're being ripped off.

Typical of what happens when the government does get involved, the money doesn't go where it is needed. So, your answer is more government? We should give more money to corrupt case workers!

6. In New York state, retired elders upstate are being forced into foreclosure because they haven't enough Social Security Retirement income to continue to pay off their thirty year mortgages. Who says that these people didn't also serve their countries. Why is necessary to serve in the Military in order to keep your home? The person in question is a Nurse, coming into contact daily with injured, sick, and helpless people, some of whose lives she saved, some of them vets.

Why do they commit to a 30 year mortgage they can't afford? You know how much you get in SS and retirement, so why get a mortgage you can't afford? This is simple budgeting. And everyone knows they should put extra money aside for retirement in addition to SS. I don't buy that they can't afford it ... they just have different priorities.

7. I worked with a POW who was also captured by North Vietnamese. He was tortured for 'seven' years as he mentioned to me. People used to make fun of his 'constant chatter', but I felt that he needed to talk so I let him run his mouth as much as he wanted. People used to ask me "How can you let him talk so much"? I was mystified....I thought everyone loved Neal. He was a fantastic person. His arms are limp as well.

I'm sure he was a fantastic person and has a great story to tell. But, so what do you want the government to do, send someone out to talk to him?

[QUOTE]I have been advocating for the elderly, the disabled and the injured for many years and it is a costly fight. It seems out of control when a person with real money receives additional income just become he or she technically 'qualifies'. They mistakenly think "I'll use it to help someone", or 'I feel badly, but it is not against the law".[/QUOTE}

So, what is your goal? It may be a costly fight, but just what are you trying to accomplish? It sounds like you are just upset that some people make more money than others. What you are really promoting is using the government to take from those you feel are undeserving and give it to those you feel are deserving. Both of the democrat candidates are promising you just that, but both will fail to deliver.

While I am a fan of Mr. McCain and would like to see him run successfully, the public should become aware of this as an issue. It's not a personal attack, it's an attack on a system that has failed many Americans. It's become painfully obvious to many Americans by this turn of the Millinium and Century, that the systems that once worked - don't work very well and we're finding many many many areas that need repair. The first step in solving a problem in any of the identified campaign issues in this 21st Century is to admit that the problems stem from our own inability to Govern in equity.

The system hasn't failed Americans, it was never meant to be a welfare system, and government systems have never worked. The systems you talk about once working were local communities, let by churches and religions, helping each other in times of need that worked.

These structures and systems have been put into place by "Rich White Peeeeeeoooooople". This is why I actually enjoy listening to Rev. Wright. No-one can argue a strong case against what he says about conservative republicans! To be conservative does not mean to 'become mean', conservative means to "CONSERVE". To PROTECT. It belongs in the hands of people who know what that means.

Before now, I thought your views were very liberal and even socialist, but now I see that you are also racist. And you think that noone can argue a strong case against what he says? Just so you know, there are lots of reports that show conservatives are more likely to support, work, and give to charities than liberals, who would rather the government do it for them.

Income is always scrutinized during elections. All candidates are studied for their donations, income, their spouces income, their income tax returns, their capital gains, tax shelters, pac-money and so forth. That issue has come up not for the first time and it is an important one. Earned income credits that are promised just before elections; IRS returns that are offered just before elections 'of up to 600 dollars', meanwhile, I'm watching two females get thrown out of their rooms. They have no money. They aren't criminals; I checked, they simply have no do-re-mi.

There are men, women, children, the infirm, the blind, and the crippled living on the streets of America and they have served the country in other ways. I don't think McCain wants a pity vote. If I were running I would say: "I served my country in dignity. I did my best job. It was an experience that I will never forget, but I have come to terms with this part of my life. While I have suffered injuries, they were not fatal. I wish to serve again and work with a team of people who can untie all of the knots in a system that has literally bankrupted its citizens."

Are you suggesting the $600 rebates were a bad idea? Is that because everyone got one and not just your needy friends? Why are your two friends getting thrown out of their rooms? Didn't get a job, pay their bills? The landlord should let them stay free? You seem to have no problem taking from others to help them, why don't you let them live with you? I'm sure you will have some reason why you can't. Again, the system has not bankrupted its citizens ... the only ones bankrupted are those that made bad decisions.

[Lemonaide]

They are an example of the many people who are in the same boat. California has 7,000 people homeless today just in one town. I'm saying that your simplistic idea that someone 'didn't pay their bills' or 'didn't get a job' is out of step with reality. Reality is 200 homes getting burned down to the ground while the residents get shuttled off to a 'school shelter'. Does anyone ever think past the idea of "School shelter"? That's what made me get involved with the community. What happens, I ask myself, to those people after their time at the "School shelter" expires? Right now in every major city, there are literally thousands of people lying on the streets without any hope. Does anyone remember the movie that was made about a black man and his son who were on the streets and how someone took the time to rescue them? That man became an investor. He had brains but noone ever noticed. I have limited means and can't do much for people except listen to their stories and hope that someone with more access to things can do something to help them.

As far as a promise of a tax refund goes, it's too close to elections to believe that it's a real rebate. It smacks of bribe. Why suddenly are these 'little people' being offered this minor windfall? $600 is absolutely nothing to people living in a 'shelter' and moreover, people living in a 'shelter' will never see a penny, they have no address. When people like Rev. Wright bellow their fury at America, while I wince, I have to realize that his whole point seems to be based on reality. That while I don't approve of his choice of language or the melodrama, or I even question the legitimacy of his church, I have to agree that many Americans are shoved out into the world delibertly, and left to shuffle into obscurity, and death. This slow death march of poor Americans who have out-lived their so-called "usefulness" is reprehensible.

[Grimaldi]

I'm going to have to agree wholeheartedly with Beeblebrox. I'm not sure what you want the government to do (or rather, I do understand, but that's not the role of our government).

The government offers free education through high school for everyone, and the poorest of the poor are often eligible for many scholarships. I had the misfortune of working in my high school guidance counselor's office for a semester as a secretary, and we had a 4-drawer filing cabinet full of various scholarship applications, the majority of which were needs-based. I don't recall a single person coming up and getting an application, despite it being advertised in the school. The education system here is good...it's just that too many young people are too dumb to properly take advantage of it.

Disability pay is similar (as is most insurance). Few people want to pay for it, because they don't plan on using it, or rather, most don't see the benefits of investing in it. So, they don't buy it, the worst happens, and now they come looking to Uncle Sam to help them out, which means the responsible tax payers have to pay for their irresponsibility, and are therefore screwed for taking care of themselves. The liberal solution to this, of course, is to cover everyone fully with government provided insurance...hopefully your experience with the people under the bridge will give you an idea of how efficient that program would be!

This nation was founded on the principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those are accomplished through limited government involvement in your life and finances, not more.

Sure, some people get dealt a crappy hand in life: poor socio-economic status, mental/physical abuse from parents/guardians, etc. The government does its job by outlawing and prosecuting criminals, not running a police-state against law-abiding citizens and deregulating to allow people to do as much as possible without harming one another. Sounds like a good plan to me.

[Neinteen]

I'm going to have to agree wholeheartedly with Beeblebrox.

So Seconded.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

2. There are people who have lost their lives literally serving this country as Volunteers. None of them ask for compensation. They live on as little as $250 a month in foreign nations and they work without guns

See, this is where out of control socialism leads us: zombie claims from beyond the grave. And, based on the most recent zombie movies, we'd BETTER keep them unarmed!

[Epee_Pox]

And, based on the most recent zombie movies, we'd BETTER keep them unarmed!

How dare you infringe my right to earn a living selling weapons to zombie hordes! (I wanted to sell them arms, but Inq beat me to it.)

[Lemonaide]

Don't worry about it. It's like this, you find one area of deficit and try to fix it, then you turn around and find another area that needs fixing, and so on and so on. It's like going into the finding a rusty pipe under the sink. You say: Ah-ha, I think I'll fix this myself!! You get one thing done, stand up, turn around and see that another leak has formed somewhere else, you fix that. To me, what I see in general, is simply overwhelmed systems: both material and written systems. It's time to revamp the world. It just needs a look from an overall perspective and dust it off.

[fencerchica]

Sure, some people get dealt a crappy hand in life: poor socio-economic status, mental/physical abuse from parents/guardians, etc. The government does its job by outlawing and prosecuting criminals, not running a police-state against law-abiding citizens and deregulating to allow people to do as much as possible without harming one another. Sounds like a good plan to me.

Unfortunately this concept, that one should be able to "drown the government in the bathtub," as the saying goes, tends to lead to a phenomenon Rick Perlstein has dubbed "e. coli conservativism." This refers to deregulation carried to such an excess that the public well-being is significantly harmed, all in the name of minimal government intervention (even in areas where only the government has the capacity to intervene as needed).

Two recent examples: Ten or so people have died in the US over the past few weeks as a consequence of taking tainted blood-thinning medication imported from China. (The fact that we import 40% of our medicines is troubling enough, but let's not even go there for now.) The Bush administration has defunded the FDA to such a degree that it does not possess the manpower, the resources, or the cash to carry out the needed inspections abroad or the needed inspections of the imported products to properly assure the safety of the medicines we take.

The bat population of the northeast US has for several months been in the grip of an epidemic called "white-nose syndrome" which is decimating major bat colonies. The Fish and Wildlife Service, under whose purview this should be, does not even have a single person assigned to this matter on a full-time basis. Yet who can blame them; they and the Parks Department are both pretty eviscerated. The Parks Department barely has enough personnel to protect our most valued national monuments, and doesn't have the budget to hire more.

Bats, Fish & Wildlife:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=89852947

FDA can't adequately monitor food imports:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=10410111

FDA, other agencies falling short:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=89661647

E. Coli Conservativism:
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/200...nservatism.php

[Grimaldi]

Don't get me wrong, I certainly agree that government has a role in people's lives...I'm not on the extreme libertarian side of the political spectrum. But the amount of government intervention today is more than I think is appropriate.

Let's look at some of your examples. Diseased bats? I know, I know, bats are important to the environment, eat a ton of pest insects, etc. But seriously, how did bats survive this long without human intervention? What happens if bats in the region do all die off? Other bats will come in, colonize, and the problem is solved, unless you think this disease will spread and kill all the bats in North America. Heck, let the disease kill of the bats in the area, the disease goes away, and you repopulate from zoo stock and bats from other regions. Unless there is a direct impact on man, or man is the direct cause....why do we pay to "fix" it?

Medicine (and, indeed, most of what is imported into the US) isn't thoroughly screened. It would take an army of people to inspect every crate/container that reaches the US, let alone chemically analyse ever food/drug/product that enters the country. If you only test a sample, you're assuming risk that something will slip through. Sure, we should have some inspectors to check things on a routine basis, and focus on trouble contries/products, but they'll never be able to screen even a majority of what enters the country...assuming you want to be able to afford products.

Thankfully, there are several options available with minimal government intervention:

1- Buy brand name products made in advanced countries. Many of the tainted food products/chemicals are indeed from China, and are discount products at places like Wal-Mart. Choose to pay the extra cost for greater safety.

2- Sue the company that imported and/or sold the tainted product. This puts the responsibility for product quality where it belongs, on the business, and punishes them where it counts, the bottom line, for failure.

3- Don't worry about it. The country is at 300 million people...how many people have died from tainted products that should have been checked? How much should the government be willing to spend (and raise prices) to lower the risk of those deaths further? It would take tens of millions to hire enough people and test enough products to make a significant impact, and again, you'll never completely remove the risk...so where do you draw the line between cost and safety?

Looking at the number of people injured every year from things like this, I'd say we're at about the right place right now.

[jeff]

Regarding the tainted Heparin, it was interesting to see Wall Street Journal calling for more government regulation - at least in China (WSJ Asia edition; may not have appeared in US). When even the WSJ recognises the need for government regulation, you know that the "free market solves everything" crowd is in the minority position.

[Beeblebrox]

I just found this link that I thought everyone who needs the government to care for them would love and the self reliant would find interesting.
www.governmentisgood.com
Of course, many of you probably already have this as your homepage.

[fencerchica]

By the way, is this Michael from NYC? I used to fence with a Grimaldi...

Don't get me wrong, I certainly agree that government has a role in people's lives...I'm not on the extreme libertarian side of the political spectrum. But the amount of government intervention today is more than I think is appropriate.

I think the debate here is two-pronged: 1) is there as much government intervention as is commonly believed? and 2) how much government intervention should there be? I think people who argue for less of (2) almost always overestimate (1)! Anyway...

Let's look at some of your examples. Diseased bats? I know, I know, bats are important to the environment, eat a ton of pest insects, etc. But seriously, how did bats survive this long without human intervention?

It's unknown whether there's a human role in white-nose syndrome (so far we don't know much of anything about it), but bat populations have been squeezed heavily by humans over the past few decades, and placed in a more precarious position than formerly. So I don't think your question of "how did they survive this long w/o human intervention?" is valid, because it is at least partly due to human intervention that they're as vulnerable as they are to diseases wiping out their remaining colonies. Which leads to your next point...

What happens if bats in the region do all die off? Other bats will come in, colonize, and the problem is solved, unless you think this disease will spread and kill all the bats in North America.

I think one of the worries is that this could potentially be the case. Not necessarily in all of North America, but in the most affected regions of North America.

Heck, let the disease kill of the bats in the area, the disease goes away, and you repopulate from zoo stock and bats from other regions.

Economically speaking, this sounds rather penny wise and pound foolish... also sounds like there are a lot of possibilities for things going wrong. What if there's not enough genetic diversity in the zoo stock? What if the bats from other regions don't include species that fit the ecological niche of the bats that perished? What if the recovery time is long enough that the other species of animals and plants (and thus humans) are negatively impacted by the absence of the missing bats in the meantime?

Unless there is a direct impact on man, or man is the direct cause....why do we pay to "fix" it?

Because we set up the situation where the population was so vulnerable in the first place, and because inevitably there is a direct impact on us. In the case of the bats, these would include losing a pollination vector, losing the suppression of harmful insects, the economic value of guano, etc.

Medicine (and, indeed, most of what is imported into the US) isn't thoroughly screened. It would take an army of people to inspect every crate/container that reaches the US, let alone chemically analyse ever food/drug/product that enters the country. If you only test a sample, you're assuming risk that something will slip through. Sure, we should have some inspectors to check things on a routine basis, and focus on trouble contries/products, but they'll never be able to screen even a majority of what enters the country...assuming you want to be able to afford products.

I agree that you can't have 100% supervision, but the problem is that the FDA has fallen below the level to maintain routine inspections and spot-checking of imports. In fact, the FDA is not even able to maintain a minimal level of supervision over domestic products. You may recall the furor a few months ago over "downer" cows entering the food supply; that was another issue with inadequate resources available to the FDA to sustain a minimal level of supervision.

1- Buy brand name products made in advanced countries. Many of the tainted food products/chemicals are indeed from China, and are discount products at places like Wal-Mart. Choose to pay the extra cost for greater safety.

This is complicated because you're basically throwing the poor to the wolves with this proposition... I agree though that there should be an economic impact on suppliers of subpar products.

3- Don't worry about it. The country is at 300 million people...how many people have died from tainted products that should have been checked? How much should the government be willing to spend (and raise prices) to lower the risk of those deaths further? It would take tens of millions to hire enough people and test enough products to make a significant impact, and again, you'll never completely remove the risk...so where do you draw the line between cost and safety?

This is proposing allowing a really disquieting divide between the haves and the have-nots... I also am not ready to accept the thesis that it would be prohibitively expensive to expand inspections enough to make a significant impact. It's self-evident that you can't entirely remove risk, but the fact that this is so doesn't invalidate attempting to at least reduce the risk as far as is economically feasible.

[Lemonaide]

No man is an island! That's for the 'self reliant' reponse above. I used to feel that I was completely 'self reliant', but examine closely the many connections that we have with one another and you'll see that really, no one is completely self reliant. I get sort of grossed out by the mere expression "haves and have nots" and the reason should be clear by now - every single person everywhere on the planet should be aware by now, that when your house is blown away you instantly enter into the 'havenots' category. And, that scares people to the degree that they begin to keep their things 'quiet'. They feel threatened that what little they have will be swept away in a tide of river water. Or, one day they'll buy a suit, or a toy, or someother item that doesn't pass inspection. Maybe we should make Brazil our Most Favorite Nation. Those people like the same stuff as we do, they had a guy on TV the other day who was into fashion and really their architecture and art is all from the same root as our stuff. So, maybe that's what we should look for. I'd like to move in their direction. They have many commonalities. Ole!
Merenge!

[jeff]

No man is an island!

He is a peninsula.

(Rep to anyone who knows the band, album or song that had that line)

[Phaeton]

Sounds kind of like a John Prine or Jefferson Airplane thing to say. People don't write lyrics like that no more.

Could be Tom Lehrer...but I'd probably remember it if that were the case.

[jeff]

And the prize goes to Phaeton! It was Jefferson Airplane.