• Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 29 other followers

  • July 2011
    S M T W T F S
    « Jun   Aug »
     12
    3456789
    10111213141516
    17181920212223
    24252627282930
    31  
  • Recent Bookmarks:

  • Archives

  • Categories

links for 2011-07-26

  • Quote:"Seen any walnuts in your medicine cabinet lately? According to the Food and Drug Administration, that is precisely where you should find them. Because Diamond Foods made truthful claims about the health benefits of consuming walnuts that the FDA didn’t approve, it sent the company a letter declaring, “Your walnut products are drugs” — and “new drugs” at that — and, therefore, “they may not legally be marketed … in the United States without an approved new drug application.” The agency even threatened Diamond with “seizure” if it failed to comply.

    // Zah?

  • // Interesting graphic. I have a few problems, 1) tax cuts aren't really costs, so I'd remove those. 2) TARP will probably be close to remunerative, so I toss that out. And that still leads Bush with 3.04 trillion in new spending versus Obama's 1.05 trillion dollars. Graphic ignores cuts in spending in existing programs. So it's a little slanted. But no doubt, Bush was a spender. Which is not to excuse Obama. His healthcare may be chearper than Bush's drug benefit, but the drug benefit didn't create thousands of pages of new regulations and make having health insurance more expensive for most people.

    There's another problem, but this isn't in the graphic. It's in the cyclical nature of the presidency. Presidents who reside in times of general prosperity (between 2002 and 2007, Bush enjoyed economic growth), you can increase spending as much as you want. The guys who pay the price are the presidents who work in the bad times. They can't expand programs.

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: