Bachmann at the meat plant

[Alferd_Packer]

Marcus was there.

 

[Minoosh]

If she hates government so much, why is she trying to get a job in it?

She already has a job in it; like Perry she's been working for the government most of her adult life.

Why does she fail to see that the employee dealing with regulations is at least employed, and in the commodities-based private sector? She goes to a meat-packing plant and tells employees she wants to throw 20 percent of them out of work. If ONLY she would get the nomination ...

 

[Drachasor]

Without wishing to put words in Piggy's mouth, I'm pretty sure that he/she meant to say regulation.

Piggy didn't say that part. I was consolidating responses. Which has now failed, since I needed a second post explaining that.

 

[Minoosh]

The rise of cable TV fragmented the viewer market to such an extent that it no longer made sense to play to the middle

A media news feed I get reports that evening news on all 3 broadcast networks went up in the past month, which hasn't happened in years, if not decades. I believe Americans are beginning to get a little bit wary of the closed loops we can create for ourselves. Or maybe they're just dropping cable?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Why does she fail to see that the employee dealing with regulations is at least employed, and in the commodities-based private sector? She goes to a meat-packing plant and tells employees she wants to throw 20 percent of them out of work. If ONLY she would get the nomination ...

Good point. I think the "small government" people forget the effect seriously shrinking the federal government will have on employment.

But even so, I don't think she's talking about a person to handle W-2s and payroll. No matter how much you shrink government, we're still going to have federal income taxes, and those records need to be kept.

I think she meant that government regulations present a burdensome amount of pointless red-tape to small business (presumably like the meat packing plant she was visiting). I think she's exaggerating the position in her claim. Putting the most generous spin on her claim, she's lumping necessary and indispensable government regulations right along with ones she thinks are burdensome.

And frankly, some of them are meant to be "burdensome". The meat packing industry bears the burden of making sure what they produce is safe for consumers and that they produce it in a manner that is safe for their workers. We could get rid of all the regulations and see if companies will voluntarily do that--oh wait--we already know what would happen based on the practices of companies prior to these regulations. (See again The Jungle.)

 

[Minoosh]

Putting the most generous spin on her claim, she's lumping necessary and indispensable government regulations right along with ones she thinks are burdensome.

Who knows what Michele means. If all meat packers are held to the same safety standards then the playing field is more or less even. Hope she includes agricultural subsidies when she blunders into business places, because the government recently ordered $40 million worth of chickens in order to prop up the chicken industry.

I don't know enough about meatpacking to comment knowledgeably on the regulatory burden. My impulse would be to focus on "accrediting" producers rather than inspecting meat. Probably some of that goes on already.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Who knows what Michele means.

I submit that all she means is to use inflammatory rhetoric against "big government" but will offer no specifics nor any specific remedy.

In fact, she's currently a member of Congress since 2006 and to date absolutely nothing she has sponsored has become law.

If what she really meant was that some federal legislation (of the meat packing industry or any other) is unnecessary or counterproductive, then she could have said which regulations those were and she could have introduced legislation to change that regulation. She could actually do that, and in today's political climate, such a thing would probably be successful and have bipartisan support. She would not need to make inflammatory (and mostly false) claims.

Instead, it's just broad ideological statements catering to her Tea Party base.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I can't speak to the truth or falsity of the statement, but it is quite clear that government regulation generally works to the benefit of big business as compared to smaller companies.

By intention? Or is just the same reason big box retailers have largely put small mom & pop stores out of business? (Economies of scale, competitive practices designed to squash small competitors, etc.) If so, one could say that it's laissez faire capitalism that favors big business over smaller companies.

 

[Piggy]

A media news feed I get reports that evening news on all 3 broadcast networks went up in the past month, which hasn't happened in years, if not decades. I believe Americans are beginning to get a little bit wary of the closed loops we can create for ourselves. Or maybe they're just dropping cable?

Dropping cable is probably a factor. I wonder if anyone has the numbers on that.

I do know that our data on interest in how to drop cable while still viewing programs is quite high.

 

[Piggy]

Good point. I think the "small government" people forget the effect seriously shrinking the federal government will have on employment.

But even so, I don't think she's talking about a person to handle W-2s and payroll. No matter how much you shrink government, we're still going to have federal income taxes, and those records need to be kept.

I think she meant that government regulations present a burdensome amount of pointless red-tape to small business (presumably like the meat packing plant she was visiting). I think she's exaggerating the position in her claim. Putting the most generous spin on her claim, she's lumping necessary and indispensable government regulations right along with ones she thinks are burdensome.

And frankly, some of them are meant to be "burdensome". The meat packing industry bears the burden of making sure what they produce is safe for consumers and that they produce it in a manner that is safe for their workers. We could get rid of all the regulations and see if companies will voluntarily do that--oh wait--we already know what would happen based on the practices of companies prior to these regulations. (See again The Jungle.)

If MB's goal is to reduce the need for small businesses to spend time on paperwork, then she should support a single-payer insurance system.

As it is, doctors' offices need at least one employee full-time to deal with the multiple insurance providers, all of whom are continually attempting to deny coverage.

In single-payer nations, the paperwork can be handled part-time.

Ah, but then, converting to single-payer would also mean throwing thousands of folks out of work.

 

[Drachasor]

If MB's goal is to reduce the need for small businesses to spend time on paperwork, then she should support a single-payer insurance system.

As it is, doctors' offices need at least one employee full-time to deal with the multiple insurance providers, all of whom are continually attempting to deny coverage.

In single-payer nations, the paperwork can be handled part-time.

Ah, but then, converting to single-payer would also mean throwing thousands of folks out of work.

True. It's not a terribly helpful viewpoint to just look at the job impact. Other jobs will crop up. It isn't like getting rid of jobs in wasteful areas is a bad thing. I don't have a problem with shrinking government employment per se, but I don't think services should be reduced (made more efficient, consistent, etc, but not reduced).

Granted, if a plan has an immediate loss of a ton of jobs, then that needs to be adjusted so that people can transition into new employment at a reasonable rate.

 

[leftysergeant]

First the capitalists insisted that they could police themselves and got inspectors who were trained not to be adversarial in their dealings with the packers.

And people are keeling over from E. coli on occassion in unacceptable numbers.

We need to go back to the days when the bosses had to live in fear of the inspector so that they actually did stuff like supervise the workers.

Looks like we need to extend some of the same rules to commercial veggies now. Last month, we had people dying from tainted fenugreek sprouts.

This week it is cantelope from Colorado contaminated with Listeria.

Republicons are a threat to public health.

 

[geni]

There probably are ways you could come up with business activity that would require a company with 5-6 employees working full time dealing with regulations.

At least one issue is how you define "dealing with government rules and government regulations". Do we just count filling in the paperwork (after all you weren't really about chuck that lump of radium onto the wasteground out the back) or do we count the complete process of disspossing of the radium in a safe and controlled manner that happens to meet the goverment's requirments.

Another thing to consider is that in the really heavily regulated areas it is somewhat questionable if you even want a small company dealing with them.

 

[leftysergeant]

Another thing to consider is that in the really heavily regulated areas it is somewhat questionable if you even want a small company dealing with them.

Nigeria has a thriving cottage industry recycling lead-acid batteries. Extreme case, but you see the relationship, right?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

True. It's not a terribly helpful viewpoint to just look at the job impact. Other jobs will crop up. It isn't like getting rid of jobs in wasteful areas is a bad thing.

You are aware that the single biggest economic problem we're struggling with is a persistently high unemployment rate?

Granted, I'd rather we spend public money on direct infrastructure projects than unnecessary red tape.

BTW, just because there is red tape and it puts a burden on businesses doesn't mean it is wasteful or unnecessary. You're making a bit of a strawman argument by recasting the observation that we should take the impact on jobs into account as we should "just look at the job impact". (In other words, you're assuming these jobs are wasteful or unnecessary.)

I don't have a problem with shrinking government employment per se, but I don't think services should be reduced (made more efficient, consistent, etc, but not reduced).

Granted, if a plan has an immediate loss of a ton of jobs, then that needs to be adjusted so that people can transition into new employment at a reasonable rate.

And since we're not creating new jobs right now, and the public sector is still hemorrhaging jobs especially at state and local levels, right now there really is no "reasonable rate".

I'm fine with shrinking federal spending in the long term (as long as we also tackle the long term debt problem by giving up the recent tax cuts and making other corrections in the tax code), but not right now. Right now unemployment is our biggest problem. There is no short term debt problem (other than the artificially made problem of the debt ceiling).

 

[Drachasor]

You are aware that the single biggest economic problem we're struggling with is a persistently high unemployment rate?

Granted, I'd rather we spend public money on direct infrastructure projects than unnecessary red tape.

BTW, just because there is red tape and it puts a burden on businesses doesn't mean it is wasteful or unnecessary. You're making a bit of a strawman argument by recasting the observation that we should take the impact on jobs into account as we should "just look at the job impact". (In other words, you're assuming these jobs are wasteful or unnecessary.)

Actually, you're making a strawman argument, because I wasn't talking about getting rid of regulation. I was talking about health care (look at what I was responding to). And yeah, a lot of jobs in the health insurance market ARE unnecessary and wasteful because the system as a whole is horrendously wasteful.

Probably not a good idea to do something about that in the middle of a recession. Ideally we should focus on economic stimulus right now (which we aren't doing at all). I was speaking in more general terms.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Actually, you're making a strawman argument, because I wasn't talking about getting rid of regulation. I was talking about health care (look at what I was responding to).

Sorry. My bad.

I thought you guys were talking about regulations, since that's pretty much the topic of the thread.

 

[Oliver]

Wait a second. Fact check anyone? Is there a company of 5 or 6 employees that needs one employee only for dealing with government rules and government regulations?

Well, concerning Bachmann's blabbering in general - look at it this way:

Actually in a company of 6 people you not just need one employee dealing with government regulations ... but also another one dealing with Hezbollah.

Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann said Monday that it would be "foolish" to normalize trade with Cuba because Hezbollah could soon have "missile sites" there.

 

[Bri]

If what Bachmann says is true, wouldn't regulations create jobs? ProPublica agrees.

Do Regulations Really Kill Jobs Overall? Not So Much

It’s become a mantra on Capitol Hill and a rallying cry for industry groups: Get rid of the job-killing regulations. In recent days, with nearly every one of the GOP presidential candidates repeating that refrain, the political echo chamber has grown even louder. Earlier this month, President Obama also asked the Environmental Protection Agency to back off more stringent ozone regulations, citing the "importance of reducing regulatory burdens" during trying economic times.

But is the claim that regulation kills jobs true?

We asked experts, and most told us that while there is relatively little scholarship on the issue, the evidence so far is that the overall effect on jobs is minimal. Regulations do destroy some jobs, but they also create others. Mostly, they just shift jobs within the economy.​

Source: http://www.propublica.org/blog/item/whats-the-evidence-that-regulations-kill-jobs

-Bri

 

[Piggy]

Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann said Monday that it would be "foolish" to normalize trade with Cuba because Hezbollah could soon have "missile sites" there.

This requires that we add a new adjective to the English language:

Hyperstupid