J.D. Vance recently blamed Vice President Kamala Harris for an increase in prices for eggs, but observers noted that his point was undermined by a contradictory price tag behind him.
CNN's Kit Maher reported that Donald Trump's pick for Vice President "swung by a supermarket in Reading, Pennsylv...
Price increases in eggs have largely been due to the outbreaks of avian flu and producers having to cull their stock, anyway. Not something Harris or Biden caused or could wave away with a wand.
That’s the justification, and maybe the catalyst, but prices have stayed higher than they were due to price gouging. It’s not Biden/Harris fault, but rather capitalism. They saw they could still make more profit while selling less at a higher price, so they kept doing so.
On top of that, the FTC under Biden/Harris has been investigating price gouging at the grocery store level and Kroger just came right out and admitted it. While vying for a merger with another conglomerate chain grocery.
We desperately need to break up Kroger, it’s not helping anyone anymore.
Fixed it for you.
Yeah and a bunch of other shit the FTC has done under Biden to protect consumers. But Biden will never get credit for any of that.
Because the donor class is pissed about it and most of them own the media.
They want the dems to fail so trump will give them more tax breaks.
Good. Just because he appointed the excellent Lina Khan doesn’t mean that he deserves credit for the work of her and the agency.
Especially since it’s a reasonably safe bet that her appointment wasn’t his idea to begin with, but rather that of a more progressive member of whichever committee suggests cabinet picks.
Doesn’t he, and his administration, deserve credit, even if it’s just for listening to other people? If it were a particular other president it wouldn’t happen, so his administration deserves to be praised for it. Criticize where it needs to be done, but also praise where it’s deserved. If you only criticize then you’re unable to be won and aren’t worth trying to win.
No, Biden doesn’t deserve credit for not being Trump. That’s putting the bar so low that you’d need specialized drilling or diving equipment to reach it.
Likewise, Biden does not deserve credit for not stopping people within his administration from doing good things that he himself would likely not have done.
Conversely, if you set the bar too low, demanding nothing except “don’t be ridiculously awful” from the people who have the power to enact positive change, that positive change will never happen.
I didn’t say for not being Trump. I said he deserves credit for what his administration has chosen to do. Regardless of who’s idea it is, his administration chose to listen to them, if it wasn’t from them. They deserve credit for that.
You aren’t even setting the bar too high. You’re not even setting it, and then saying they came in short. You’re saying they don’t deserve credit for something they literally did. How dumb is that?
No, but given the context, it was a fair assumption that you were implying it.
He doesn’t. Not his choices, not his credit.
You’re conflating Biden with thousands of other people.
Yes, the people in his administration deserve credit for the good thing they do.
No, the administration as a whole doesn’t get credit for the work of the FTC. Because the rest of the administration didn’t do it.
That’s not true. I’ve consistently said that Lina Khan and the FTC are doing great work AKA rising above the bar.
Not giving Biden and the rest of the administration credit for work they didn’t do isn’t even criticism. It’s a “lack” of undeserved credit, which is neutral rather than negative.
Other than Lina Khan and the FTC, who I AM giving credit, they literally didn’t.
Your interpretation of what I’m saying is very dumb indeed.
What I’m ACTUALLY saying isn’t the least bit dumb, though. It’s just proper assigning of credit based on merit rather than just association.
Elizabeth Warren, btw.
She’s the one who recommended Khan? Well done, Warren!
She only recommended her! Everything she does after she doesn’t get credit for, right! /s
You can’t stay consistent, can you? “Biden bad” is the only difference between Warren getting credit for recommending her and Biden getting credit for choosing that recommendation because it was the best choice for what he wanted to accomplish.
Correct. That was exactly what I gave her credit for and that alone.
I have throughout. Just because I’m not as impressed by Biden’s ability to say “oh, alright” to someone better’s suggestion doesn’t make it inconsistent to appreciate Warren’s good suggestion.
No. If a group of people suggest which restaurant to eat at and you accept one of the suggestions, you don’t get credit for the quality of the food.
The person whose idea it was gets credit for the idea to eat there, and the restaurant get credit for THEIR work.
Best choice? Yes.
What HE wants to accomplish, rather than what more progressive parts of the party care about? Highly doubtful based on a congressional career where he was always on the side of corporations, a notable example being championing the BAPCPA, which was a major reason why the CFB was founded to protect regular people from corporations.
The FTC is part of the executive branch. Biden absolutely deserves credit for putting an actual trust buster in charge instead of a corporate lackey.
He deserves a little bit of credit for listening to the recommendations of people more progressive than himself with regards to the appointment itself, sure.
That doesn’t mean that he gets to take credit for everything she does, though, much of which he most likely wouldn’t have done in her place.
Yeah. Was quite surprised when I first read that. Brazen.
well.
yes.
though, I’m pretty sure the FDA isn’t entirely powerless to create regulations about vaccinating livestock… oh fuck. Republicans shat on that, too.
Republicans don’t want to hear facts. They just want “alpha males” to cater to their feelings.
deleted by creator
Dude what?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken
You are finding out about the disparity between commercial farm chickens and wild chickens (or rescued chickens).
Reference: (can find a bunch more about this if you want) Meat chickens: https://meatcheftools.com/how-long-do-commercial-meat-chickens-live/
Quick Summary Commercial meat chickens typically live for about 5 to 7 weeks before they are processed for meat production. These chickens are raised in a controlled environment with optimal conditions for fast growth, resulting in a short lifespan compared to chickens raised for egg production or as pets. The rapid growth rate and early processing are designed to maximize meat production efficiency in the commercial poultry industry.
Egg laying chickens:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/egg-laying-hens_n_59c3c93fe4b0c90504fc04a1
Chickens live eight years on average, but hens only productively lay eggs in the first two, maybe three years of their lives. And on the commercial level, it’s closer to two years, and sometimes less.
I really appreciate this reply, and the effort you’ve taken citing here. I was in disbelief of the fact that chickens can be grown to slaughter that fast.
Yeah, if you let them live until they die of old age. But they are killed for their meat, and that usually happens around 6 weeks.
Egg birds take 6 months from hatching to laying