The Pavlic family received assistance from the HOME Investment Partnerships Program to fix their deteriorating home in 2015. Mr.
Pavlic can no longer work due to his advancing multiple sclerosis, and Mrs.
Pavlic can't make enough money to keep the roof from leaking over their family
members' heads. These Trump voters discovered this popular federal program--which helps folks like them, the working poor, the low income elderly and disabled--is to be cut so the defense budget can be expanded. They essentially
voted away any help they could expect to receive in the future to keep their home
safe and livable.
The Pavlics, by voting for the tangerine tyrant, may have planted
the seeds of their own homelessness. Trump did the Pavlics and the millions of struggling American families like them no favors. They don't owe him blind loyalty at the cost of their families' health and safety. It's high time for them to #TrumpExit.
If domestic policy doesn't scare off these Trump supporters, consider the dangerous position the orange commander-in-chief has placed the U.S. by dropping a Massive Ordinance Air Blast or MOAB (better known as a "mother of all bombs") on Afghanistan. Yeah, it could wipe out a scattering of ISIS fighters, but more than likely it was dropped to cover the CIA's tracks in
that war torn part of the world. After all, we helped
the mujahideen fighters in the 1980s build the very same tunnels where ISIS and
other terrorists have been living for the last few years. ISIS fighters have been using our
arms against us, too, as we're the number one supplier of armaments in the
world. It's not a list where any so-called peace-loving people want to be number one, either. We're already number one in defense spending over all--we spend more than the rest of the top ten nations combined. Can you imagine all the good we could do with the taxpayers' dollars if we even halved or quartered our defense budget?
Starting a war isn't likely to bring back our country's reputation or our dead and wounded soldiers or our jobs, but who
cares, right? If you're heavily invested into arms manufacture, you know it's where the real
profits are to be made. It's fun to watch people suffer, particularly if they're of a different race, creed or ethnicity, huh? (Read this piece on how Afghan villagers and farmers are dealing with the trauma of the bombing.)
So, supporters of the spray-tanned man in the Oval Office, if the thought of profiting off the suffering of others makes you feel just a little bit queasy, it's time to for you to #TrumpExit. Get out now before you're labeled a racist war hawk by the decent folk you're trying to convince you're not before you convince yourself you are.
It's easy to #TrumpExit. Read the article below about how Trump's "pro-business policies" will further hurt you and your loved ones. Then take down that faded Trump/Pence sign in your window and call up your friend or neighbor who posted the Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein sign in their front yard last year. You know the one. Ask them how you can join the political revolution and when is the next town hall or rally event you can attend.
Attend the event and find out more about grassroots democracy, or as we like to call it, "government of the people, by the people and for the people. After you've experienced democracy the way the founders envisioned it, you won't want to go back to the tyranny of the tiny-handed. You'll realize all we need to do in order to make America truly great is to #TrumpExit and become informed and involved citizens. If you can't do it for yourself, then do it for the next generation. The world we leave behind is how our children will judge us. Let's leave it better than we found it. #TrumpExit today.
***
Will Trump’s Pro-Business Policies Hurt
Consumers?
by Bridget Stack
Donald Trump has been a businessman for far longer than he has
been a politician, so it’s no surprise that he sees government regulations as
the enemy of business. One of his first acts of business since in office has
been to “streamline” multiple United States Government Agencies.
“I will ask each and every federal agency to prepare a list of
all of the regulations they impose on Americans which are not necessary, do not
improve public safety, and which needlessly kill jobs. Those regulations will
be eliminated.” — President Donald Trump. The areas that will be
most affected are food safety, drug safety, legal rights, and environmental
safety.
Food Safety
Every year, roughly 1 in 6 Americans get sick, over 128,000 are
hospitalized, and 3,000 die of foodborne diseases. There is no question that
food safety regulations like testing and supply chain tracking encumber
efficiency and profit margins for farmers and businesses, but it’s important to
remember that they are in place to protect consumers. For example, in 2010, we
saw a salmonella outbreak linked to peanuts that resulted in 9 deaths and
caused over 700 people to get sick. Without the government’s regulatory
shields, incidents like this could become commonplace.
Drug Safety
Since Congress toughened the drug approval process in the wake
of the worldwide crisis over thalidomide, the F.D.A. has come to be viewed as
the world’s leading standard on food and drug safety. With President Trump vowing to overhaul the Food
and Drug Administration, companies may not have to prove that their drugs work
in clinical trials before selling them to consumers. This could have
long-lasting impacts on patients’ health. The FDA recently published a study on 22 drugs
that were promising in the early studies but failed the final, large-scale
trials. Deep cuts in funding and staff at the F.D.A. could impair the
department’s ability to evaluate these studies properly, and may result in
ineffective or dangerous drugs making their way into consumers’ hands.
Congress passed legislation in 1962 requiring companies to
provide “substantial evidence” of a drug’s efficacy and safety before it can be
sold. This law has forced drug manufacturers to rigorously test their products,
run clinical trials, and submit them to the F.D.A. for approval. Ninety percent of drugs that enter the final
stages of clinical development fail these trials, which means they are
essential to protecting consumers.
Legal Rights
Budgets and regulations aren’t the only thing on Trump’s
chopping block. He’s also taken aim at consumer rights. Government laws may
seem burdensome to businesses, but they’re designed to protect consumers’ legal
rights by allowing them to seek damages from companies and manufacturers that
have put profits ahead of their customers’ safety. Fines don’t mean much to
billion dollar companies, but a public lawsuit resulting in hundreds of
millions in damages and loss of public opinion can be enough to force action.
The most powerful examples include litigation around asbestos,
used in construction and even cigarette filters. Once touted as a miracle
material for its insulating properties, asbestos is now the subject of lawsuits
linking it to a deadly form of lung cancer called Mesothelioma. The current government has
stated they will look into lawsuit reforms specifically around asbestos
exposure claims—which will impact everyone from veterans to firefighters, and
could send the wrong message to companies profiting from products that result in
serious injuries.
If you look on the label of a pack of cigarettes, there are
warnings of how smoking can lead to lung cancer. Even though the first studies
suggesting a link between tobacco and lung cancer emerged
in 1950, the tobacco industry refused to admit that smoking caused cancer. It
took over 33 years for the first court victory, and another decade before any
damages were awarded.
The threat of harmful materials in common products is once
again making headlines with the possible connection between talcum powder and
ovarian cancer. Though evidence has been around since the early 1970’s, the
first guilty verdict was only handed out to Johnson and Johnson in 2013. After
evidence surfaced that J&J knew about the risks, but decided not to warn
consumers, three more women won talcum powder lawsuits against the company in
2016.
These cases are all tell the same tale. Companies cut corners
and denied facts until there was enough proof to hold them accountable. The
most powerful weapon consumers have to wield against corporations is
litigation. So while it may be good for business to remove barriers to growth
and profits, consumers will pay the price with their health and safety.
Environmental Rights
In one of the most stunning victories for protecting the
environment, The Paris Agreement on climate change was agreed upon by 197
countries, including the United States under President Obama’s presidency. This
agreement is the first international, voluntary deal to
curb greenhouse gas emissions from both rich and poor countries. One of Donald
Trump’s first acts in office was to back out of the Paris Agreement and appoint
Scott Pruitt to the Environmental Protection Agency. Pruitt is a climate change denialist.
Trump campaigned on rolling back most, if not all, President
Obama’s environmental protection acts. In late March, Trump signed his 19th
executive order: “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth.”
This order consisted of one terrifying sentence: a sentence directing Ryan
Zinke, the Secretary of the Interior, to “review the rules which regulate oil and gas
drilling in national parks and to repeal, suspend, or rescind them if they are
found inconsistent with the president’s energy goals.” In other words, we could
soon have oil rigs in Grand Teton National Park.
In his first few weeks in office, President Trump signed an executive order placing a hiring freeze on all national parks, directed the Army to issue the final permit for the Dakota Access Pipeline, and invited the company behind the Keystone XL to reapply for the permit denied under President Obama’s presidency.
The formation of the EPA, FDA, and CDC were to protect
environmental and consumer rights. Government regulations are a safety net to
keep corporations in check, and they provide people with a means to force
compliance when companies put profits before safety. Deregulation would result
in a rise in illness and deaths from products. Even more than the danger of
personal health deregulation promises, the greater risk would be removing
consumers’ rights to sue when they are harmed
BIO: Prior to joining ConsumerSafety.org Bridget worked in marketing, social media, and journalism. She previously worked for numerous national brands, and she now focuses her passion for research on protecting consumers.
***
Trump supporters...
Remember...
The United States has become the world's cop, judge, jury - and executioner. One of these days it will lead to disaster for all of us, all because of a small bunch of greedy old men.
ReplyDelete