In our American two party system, the two parties are so close together in political stance that there is no real choice. And how will voting for a specific party cause the secret negotiations to end? Do we think either party is against this? So, I'm not sure what voting has to do with anything. It's more about how the system is broken.

Capitalism isn't a political system, it's an economic system, and it's not going to fail. It will always work because it's goal is for the people participating to make money, and they do.

Democracy is a political system. Ours democracy started off badly when the economic policies of Alexander Hamilton got the newly born nation into a bunch of stuff a gov't doesn't need to be involved in, The Federalist party, founded by Hamilton further promoted American treasury policy that helped capitalists make money. And our gov't has slowly slide further and further into the hands of capitalists. Don't get me wrong. I think capitalism is great and is perhaps the only economic system that can work. But it can be kept separate from gov't to a much larger extent than we now do.

-Kevin

Assuming you are American or from another developed country Free Trade probably isn't the goal. Free Trade will mostly benefit big corporations who will make more money by producing items in whatever country who's employees will work for the least. And those 3rd World Countries will benefit big time. Effectively wages and standard of living gets averaged out. Rich North Americans and Europeans get poorer as our jobs move out of our countries, and our money moves out of our economies.. Poor Africans and Asians get richer.

-Kevin

The TPP isn't for American Citizens. It's for companies that are buying american politicians. That's why. It's very obvious..

- Kevin.

Don't know why you're ROTFLing. The people that are needed to work the restaurant with the automated systems will need to be a higher caliber of employee than the 10th graders you see learning how to press buttons on a PAR terminal now. And they'll get paid more because they won't get people good enough if they don't pay them a little more.

IMO automation like this is what will allow industries to pay a 'living wage", so increased the quality of life for some. Services industry will have less employees, but they will be doing the harder more demanding jobs, and they will be payed more. Quality of life will go up for those who keep their jobs at a higher pay rate, and down for those who were only marginally employable before, who now become absolutely unemployable due to their lack of skills, motivation, work-ethic, etc...

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want the service industry to pay their employees more, obviously, that industry is going to find a way to not hire the unskilled marginally employable people who aren't worth the living wage hourly rate.

Looks to me like this study was about how long bacteria live in noses of people. So they found people that would have a lot of bacteria in their noses, like farm workers, and looked for bacteria. BIG SURPRISE! They find some.

So I wonder how much MRSA and Multi-resistant other stuff they would find in noses of healthcare workers, or noses of teachers. Both groups that are exposed to a lot of mammals, in this case people, and thus flying bacteria, and thus all kinds of bacteria, including the nasty resistant stuff.. Compare those counts with farm works and then get back to me. Maybe we will have a reason to get wound up then...

Oh. Okay. I thought you were actually trying to say something.

'But calling people moronic for thinking that farmers never give cows spoiled feed and thinking that cows might still eat it is backwards.' I know farmers give cows spoiled feed. The usually won't eat what is bad for them, but sometimes they do, obviously. Meat Packers usually don't butcher sick cows, but sometimes they do. And meat is usually safe, but sometimes it's not.

My point. ( I was making a point, if it wasn't clear ) was that the chance of bad brewers grain causing a problem in the food supply, is pretty small. Like, it's never been a problem. No reason to think it would be. And Yes, If you are a person who thinks we should force brewers grain to be handled differently, be federal law, to prevent a problem that has never yet happened, I am calling you a moron. I'm not sure you think that though, so I'm probably not calling _you_ a moron.

So you think Farmers should want the Fed Gov't to make it illegal to buy ( or get for free ) brewers grain like they do now? So that the possibility of mycotoxin poison will be reduced? And so those farmers can trace the grain back to the brewer the farmer bought it from? Is that the problem you think the Fed Gov't should be solving for us here? Have you ever worked on a farm?

Someone thinks that we need to regulate brewers, so they won't ship bad feed to cows. Presumably a farmer wouldn't be able to tell the grain was bad, and would feed it to cows anyway. And then presumably the cows would eat the bad feed, making them sick, unhealthy, but not dead. The butchers would butchers these cows into tainted meat, and sell the meat. Then people would unknowingly eat the tainted meat and get sick. A bigger load of crap I've never seen or heard, Anybody that thinks this regulation is needed is a moron.

What makes you think a farmer would feed spoiled feed to cows. Why would a cow eat spoiled feed? How sick could a cow be and still be sold to slaughter? Who would slaughter _that_ sick cow? How would one sell the meat? If you think this is needed you shouldn't have a vote, because you are a moron.

If you have a concern over a situation like this, you should ask yourself how we can continue to import _ANY_ food from China.. Spend some time on _THAT_ problem, it's an actual problem.

If the brewer can not sell or give away the spent grains w/out incurring significant expense, they'll probably do something easier, like dump it in a land fill. _That_ will cost money. It's a drain on the economy any way you dice it, all to solve a problem that doesn't exist..

Are you looking out for creditors? Or Employess?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malden_Mills

"The Malden Mills factory burned down on December 11, 1995. CEO Aaron Feuerstein decided to continue paying the salaries of all the now-unemployed workers while the factory was being rebuilt. By going against common CEO business practices, especially at a time when most companies were downsizing and moving overseas, he achieved recognition for doing the right thing"

This is slanted wrong. Public companies have share holders to answer to. They've sold their soul to the devil, AKA: Share holders who almost always buy shares to make money.

A private holder, a guy who is already rich, he can do what he wants. Maybe try to make money. Maybe try a long term growth strategy that won't make money for a few years. Maybe keep people on the payroll who should be layed off now, just so they will be ready to go to work in 6 months. I'd be way more critical of what public companies do to make money than I would be critical of private companies.

There are quite a few examples of privately held companies going the extra mile for their employees at the expense of short term profits.

According to wiki:

Patek Philippe created the first wristwatch in 1868 for Countess Koscowicz of Hungary.

Too bad Job wasn't still around. He could "reinvent" that wristwatch.