But to answer your question better, Crown and Coke would be taken off the shelves and you would not be able to buy it if the FDA does go through with this. They know what's best for you.
So, they're going to tell bartenders they can no longer mix Jack Daniels and Coke? I'll believe it when I see it. There's a big difference between Four Loko and a Jack and Coke.
They better hand out "I'm with stupid" shirts at the 2012 convention, at this rate. I really don't get it -- it flies in the face of GOP tradition actually.
Mr. Obama is going to be busy with his veto pen this session, from the looks of things. At least I hope so.
I am all for the cuts to NASA. It's a poor return on tax dollars. I would be surprised if the Houston congressman endorse it, though. It's political suicide.
February 10, 2011 Beyond Reason on the Budget After two years of raging at President Obama’s spending plans, House Republican leaders have finally revealed their real vision of small government: tens of billions in ideologically driven cuts to job training, environmental protection, disease control, crime protection and dozens of other critical functions that only the government can perform. In all, they want more than $32 billion in cuts below current spending packed into the next seven months. They would be terribly damaging to a frail recovery and, while spending reductions must be part of long-term deficit control, these are the wrong cuts, to the wrong programs, at the wrong time. But they are not deep enough for many Tea Party members, freshmen and other extremists in the House Republican caucus. In a closed-door meeting on Wednesday, they forced the leadership to abandon its cuts and prepare to double them. The new list is expected on Friday and promises to be one of the most irresponsible budget documents ever issued by a House majority. The Senate should make it clear that it is not worthy of consideration, and President Obama should back them up with a veto threat. If House Republicans don’t come to their senses, they could shut down the government on March 4 when the stopgap measure that is now financing it runs out. If that does take place, it will at least be clear to voters that their essential government services were turned off in the service of two single-minded and destructive goals: giving the appearance of cutting a deficit that was deliberately inflated by years of tax cuts for the rich, and going after programs that the Republicans never liked in good times or bad. Many of the Republican freshmen want to stick to the “Pledge to America” that they would cut $100 billion from the president’s 2011 budget, a nice round number apparently plucked from thin air. More experienced Republican leaders knew it would be impossible to cut that much in the remaining few months of the fiscal year and said they would trim the equivalent percentage. Harold Rogers, the Republican chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, warned that the full cut would require laying off F.B.I. agents and air traffic controllers. If he was trying to make his $32 billion in cutbacks seem modest by comparison, he failed. The list would cut $2 billion from job training programs — precisely what is needed to help employ workers mismatched with the job market. It would cut $1.6 billion from the Environmental Protection Agency, which is struggling to keep up with the growth of greenhouse gases. There would be significant cuts to legal assistance for the poor and renewable energy programs and an end to all spending for AmeriCorps, public broadcasting and high-speed rail. The battle over the rest of the 2011 budget is only a prelude, of course, to the bigger fight about to begin over the 2012 budget. President Obama is scheduled to unveil his budget on Monday, and already he seems willing to feed the bottomless Republican hunger for cuts rather than fight them. An ominous early sign is his proposal to cut the low-income heating assistance program nearly in half to $2.57 billion. Administration officials say that energy prices have fallen, but, as Democratic lawmakers from the frostbitten Northeast have pointed out to him, there are many more unemployed people now. Some cuts will have to be made, but strategically it seems to make little sense to start giving away important ones before reaching the negotiating table. Republican lawmakers in the House have already made it clear that they are indifferent to the suffering and increased joblessness their cuts will cause. As the extreme reductions are heaped up in the next few days, Democrats in Congress and in the White House need to make a clear case to the public that quality of the nation’s civic life is at stake. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/11/o...-PS-E-OB-PS-TXT-TH-ROS-1010-NA&WT.mc_ev=click
NASA isn't just about space missions. They also fund a lot of research in astrophysics. You might not think that's important, but we could learn things that will prove to be valuable to society as a whole in the future.
What do you consider the biggest threat to America? Lot of countries provide support to people who want us dead.
Military expenditure in the world Military expenditure, % of GDP, 2008 United States 4.3% Russia 3.5% People's Republic of China 2.0% The United States is responsible for 43% of world military expenditure. This is in comparison to China, which is responsible for 6.6%. Considering these facts, I'd have to say the biggest realistic threat to America is Skynet or alien invaders, because unless the US Army is hiding something from us, the level of funding they require is wildly out of proportion.
You're telling me they're going to monitor what you buy and that you can't buy the two together because they're dangerous together? BS. You mix sleeping pills and alcohol, you're dead. Yet I have no doubt I could go to the store and buy those things if I wanted to. Same freaking thing here.
The biggest threat to America is a shrinking middle class and growing wealth disparity brought on by cronyism, and lack of regulation. The matter is compounded by an increasing disdain of educated people by folks like Sarah Palin, and many of those in the tea party. Businesses being too big to fail, and having too much influence in the government means that the govt. looks after the needs of big business before it looks after the needs of the people. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/06/the-more-ceos-make-the-wo_n_636606.html So with CEO's making more than 300 times what the average worker makes even though our economy is not doing that well we have a problem. Look at how different that was during the 1950's when economics and the middle class were much stronger. The sad thing is that there are plenty of tea party people out there looking out for the CEO's interest. This and threat of further damage caused by this to our economy is a far greater threat than terrorism, and the Chinese put together.
you are preaching some conservative talking points. Businesses colluding with government to apply force to the market. That's everything conservatives stand against (aka no market regulation). I am not sure what citizens' rights you think this violates. The right for everyone to be paid what you think they should be paid? The reason CEOs make more then everyone else in a company is because they have to make the toughest and most meaningful decisions.
These cuts aren't enough. If serious cuts aren't made to military spending and on our overseas presence, the cuts proposed here wont matter one bit.
