Hey, third grade!
I’m laughing because if you’re wealthy enough to steal from, you’re more free, here and now, to do and be more, than anywhere, anywhen, in history.
I’m also cynically amused that, as the government increasingly becomes a marionette in the hands of private business, you’re afraid of the puppet, rather than the guys holding the strings.
We have a disagreement about who the rulers are, it seems.
Good article.
What kills me the most about all this, is how ridiculous it is. I find it laughable that anybody thinks they should be able to regulate what the public eats. It makes me envision a future where we are sitting down for Thanksgiving dinner and eating a power bar and drinking green tea.
It makes NO sense. (of course, I’m a freedom nut!)
The scary thing is that there is a group out there that thinks it all makes perfect sense.
You know, I am sure the Founding Fathers never expected the Second Amendment to be used to defend my M&Ms… 
You are not smart enought to write a complete sentence.
Shall we continue, or are you willing to debate this with some semblance of civility?
What you seem to completely miss is that businesses are just as capable of stealing and exploiting as the government. In order to build a government powerful enough to prevent this - we ended up with what we have now, where ‘I steal from you’ (I doubt this, we could compare W2s but I’d wager I’m contributing more than you are, and without kids in school, student loans, or any entitlements at all I’m not getting any more back than anyone else).
If you study your history, we had a government and economic system very much like what you want at the turn of the century. For some reason though, it only made a very few people happy, and we got rid of it. I guess we are all stupid for doing what makes most of us happy.
Oh god. A typo in a grammar slam. Kill me now. Oh, and I agree with everything you say forever and ever amen.
Well, I just used that Body Mass Index (BMI) calculator that meara linked to, and guess what? I’m a whopping 35.3! And that’s on a good day! Guess I won’t be vacationing in Colorado any time soon.
Would you people get off the obvious typos for those that accuse are also the ones making the same damn mistakes. God forbid that in a message forum people ACTUALLY make mistakes, either in spelling, typing or in grammar. I do it all the time on boards, there is no excuse in professional writing but geez.
======
If you study your history, we had a government and economic system very much like what you want at the turn of the century. For some reason though, it only made a very few people happy, and we got rid of it. I guess we are all stupid for doing what makes most of us happy.
In 1902 the people were only forced into “giving” (I say giving loosely) 8% of their income, today we “volunteer” (again said loosely) 47% of our income, from federal income, state, local and hidden taxes. (gee Mr. Taxman, please continue to take my money from me, YOU are the only thing that will prtect me from me, I am a hopeless being that can’t be responsible for my own life. I can’t be trusted to know what is best for me…)
Programs like funding an obese study does nothing for a state that only has 1% of the population considered obese! If the 1% of this population in my state needs medical attention for being (no offense here) grossly overweight then by all means reduce their (and mine) taxes so they can get help from Weight Watchers or Jenny Craig. But don’t force me to pay for the weight loss, in addition it’s none of my states business whether or not I am being treated for obesity.
If people are so concerned about the plight of obese people then great, let them handle the financial burden. I have my own agenda that does not include obese people.
Oh and for what it’s worth, my state participated in the tobacco suit. They will be getting money and according to my memory (not one to make false claims) a very small portion will actually go towards tobacco related issues. That’s irresposible on the part of my state government to take money that was “won” of a suit and not use that money for the intent of the suit to begin with. It’s one thing when an individual does this but when the govt. does this it’s another thing entirely…I call it fraud.
=====
Disclaimer: Not edited for typos or grammar in case you were wondering.
tracer,
I don’t think you have anything to fear unless you actually become a resident of the state.
Hey, if you wanna come and visit us please do so. Just let me know in advance so I can give you a false identity.
< giggle >
If you don’t want government to fund medical research, including obesity research, fine. Debate that issue- but I question those trying to dress this bill up as “the government dictating we lose weight”.
If it ever came to that though, the only way they’ll take my fat is when they liposuction it off my cold, dead, potbelly.
phouka,
I forgot to address this issue:
Techchick, maybe I’m reading it wrong, but I’m not seeing anything in the bill where they are specifically trying to legislate a “don’t let the fat lady buy donuts” law.
That’s the problem with this whole issue. You don’t see a potential for a doughnut tax resulting from this, but the potential is there.
As Lib said “…sliding down the slippery slope…” which has proven its evil head in the past.
All it takes, in my eyes, is for the govt. to pass a law meant for a minority of people to do “some wrong.”
I point out Clinton’s (ick) proposal to strengthen gun laws because a minority of gun dealers are the ones that seem to be creating the problem. If the government felt that those people (businesses) are the ones that are violating the current laws on the books then why don’t they use the teeth they have now to prosecute those dealers? The laws are already there to bring charges, but are hiding behind some sense of whatever the hell it is they are hiding behind to restrict and change how free we can actually be.
It makes no sense. Why create more laws or acts that focus only on a few? In regards to overweight people, I would think that the insurance companies should focus on this and not the govt. Again, it’s none of the government’s business whether or not I am fat. In addition, it’s none of their business what kind of health condition I am.
I often wonder if maybe, possibly, the people that are elected really see that there is nothing to do but pass laws. Hey, if my work is going well and I was a dishonest person, I would consider making up ways by which I look busy just so I could gather my pay. As it stands now, I am loosing hours because my network is running smoothly. But that’s just me, I prefer to be honest with my client.
< dayum, I am in a spicy mood now! >
Cooper,
I would say that it is poetic justice that we both had typos in those sentences. I am sure you were as pissed when you saw your typo as I was when I saw mine.
Let me re-phrase that sentence to tone down the rhetoric a little.
but you are not smart enough to past the semantics
Should say:
I wish it were possible to concentrate on the message instead of the messenger.
Now as to which one of us pays more in taxes…
Do we really want to engage in an internet pissing war where neither of us has any real way of backing up their claims? This has little to do with the conversation anyway.
My situation is as follows:
I pay my taxes and taxes for having employees. I pay for my health coverage, and for part of the coverage of my employees.
I pay taxes on the materials my company uses every year.
I collect taxes for the state on the labor of my employees and pass that along to the state free of charge.
The amounts do not matter, and I am not in any way trying to “out do” anyone else. What I am trying to do is show that I spend no small amount of time working for others. I do this for free and without any choice in the matter.
RTFirefly:
You do not have to be “wealthy” to be stolen from by the government. I have always worked for myself, so I do not know what it feels like to have money withheld from you by your employer. I do know that people always want to get paid “in cash” so they can avoid taxes. I also know that I pay a lot of money (at least to me) to the government every year.
I would propose that they are not two seperate groups. Maybe at one time they were, but they have merged to the point where it would be hard to tell them apart.
All that being said, do you guys support the government trying to take care of every single problem in people’s lives? Since it looks like you guys support this Bill, where would you draw the line on where the government should stop?
Freedom you said:
I used to work for my father, he was my employer and his company was the IRS’s tax collector which cost him money. I think you would agree this is wrong that an employer should not be obligated to act as tax collector. This only creates an undo burden on the the employer financially.
In this manner the Govt. is using business to collect the money it’s owed, thereby infringing (sp?) on the private enterprise to run it’s business. If, as they say, taxes are “volunteer” then why should the IRS force employers to take money out of an employee’s check? As far as I am concerned, it’s not the employers responsibility to collect taxes, it’s up to the government and leave private enterprise out of it.
Me, I purposely have my pricing lower for my web design projects so I can collect my money without the govt. interfering. If it’s less than $600.00 a corporation does not have to report it as a 1099. I don’t give a hoot if an IRS employee reads this, I already have to answer to the IRS and my State’s Dept. of Revenue. (Both of which are claiming a surplus, hmmmmmmmm, without my measily amount of cash)
Maybe this is a subject for another thread, any takers?
The problem with this thread is that you started it with an assault on a straw-man, and continue your attack with the ‘slippery-slope’ arugment, which is a logical fallacy.
I am tempted to start a new one, and if this post does not change the direction to where I feel it should go, then I will do so. Basically the issue here is should public money be used to help fund medical research.
I think yes.
Here is why:
Let’s imagine for a minute that we stop public funding of medical research. This ends all government grants to universities (which account for the vast majority of research dollars) as well as grants and subsidies to private industries that do medical research, as well as the funding for the FDA’s trials to determine treatments that are safe and efficacious.
Now, without the FDA, without any public money - what are companies going to do to maximize profit? Are they going to sink billions into research that may never pay off - or are they going to sink millions into advertising and sell snake oil? We know from history that they will do the latter - its the best way to make a profity in the medical industry. Without the FDA breathing down your back, you can make tons of money without ever having an efficacious product. It is even being done now, great amounts of money are made in the new ‘snake-oil’, the herbal remedies.
Sure, there will still be charities that collect money and direct it into research, but we are in the situation we are in today because the fund-raising power of private charity is insufficient.
Another objection you will make is that private research is being done, and that companies have risked millions and some have had it pay off handsomely. This is true, but almost all their research had as a starting point a university program that was funded by public money, and often companies are eligible for grants from a public funded agency.
A great many unexpected by life-changing discoveries have been made as a result of pure research - and very few companies conduct few research. Also, without public money in universities you will have fewer qualified scientists since they will not be able to get the high-end training that they currently get from public-funded research projects. Businesses would contribute money to university research programs (as some do now), but again the amounts of money we are talking about here just do not add up.
In addition to providing base services that everyone enjoys (national defense, roads etc) I think it is appropriate for governments to spend money on long-range projects that are beyond the scope of corporations that must answer to their share-holders each quarter.
FDA “approval” of medications on average costs a company $300 million dollars for one medication.
Is this progress? In addition, this medication may be held from public use for 10 years before a medication is introduced.
In addition to this, the FDA will state what a doctor can prescribe these medications for and can end up in jail if he or she prescribes them for other medical use. Even if this medication has clinically proven to help with another ailment, people either suffer or die because of the FDA processes.
Based on the cost and approval process, medications for lesser concerns are being thrown out because the costs to a company to research and get through the FDA approval process out weighs the lives those who may benefit.
Cooper, I have done a lot of research on my own about herbal remedies and these are not the “snake oil” of our time.
St. Johns Wort and Kava has been proven effective in German research to help those with depression and older people with the onset of alzhemiers.
Most of your prescriptions are plant based, so don’t think for a minute that herbals are bunk. In fact, people can have serious side-effects if not taken properly.
Again, the government is not bound by a statement of a right to provide it’s citizens health care.
As for research and funding, I would like to see a report of actual dollars recieved and actual dollars spent on research. Their web site (not that I could find) had any financial reporting. Since you brought it up, lets see some are figures on exactly how much money gets spent for research. In addition, I would like to see how much of our taxes go towards administration.
If Pfizer has to spend $300 million dollars to get one medication through the FDA, no wonder prescriptions are so costly and are kept out of the hands of many that need them.
are = hard (little slow today)
techchick68 wrote:
From what I heard of Clinton’s announcement on the radio, it sounds like he is planning to have the BATF vigorously enforce existing laws against the few “problem” gun dealers, rather than ask for new laws to be enacted.
maybe I misunderstood the report I had heard.
< I am having one of those days! >
The FDA was not conceived in a vacuum. It was initially created because of rampant abuse and consumer damages that were being suffered. Like all beauracracies - it has grown so that it has perhaps become unwieldy, but there is no solution to this problem. This is a problem of beauracracy, not of intent.
St. John’s Wort may well be safe and efficacious - but there are some herbal remedies that are neither. Every once in awhile another one makes the news. Of course, they don’t make the news until millions have been bilked out of their money and perhaps even been made ill or died. The situation would be immeasurably worse were any drug allowed to sold without front-end supervision. In fact, it has been much worse in the past.
It is unfortunate that some people die for lack of a medication that has not passed FDA certification - but you really need to change your perspective. FDA certification is a necessary ‘last step’ in the production of a new drug. The drug is not done until it is certified. You are right, the government has no mandate that says it must protect everyone’s health. However, we the people have decided we want government help in deciding which drugs are safe and efficacious. You certainly cannot do this on your own.
Slippery slopes:
Slippery slope arguments are intellectual laziness, and nothing more. They say, in effect, “Here we have a continuum of possibilities. We’re at one end of the continuum now. Choosing the very opposite end would be extremely bad. So we’ll stay right here, rather than trouble our heads with any of the choices between here and there. We don’t need to consider them on the merits; we can just toss them all out.”
RTFirefly described the following slippery-slope argument:
Can I ask where I might find these girls you mention? I have been having no luck recently in getting past first base.
Sorry, tracer. These are women in the abstract - kinda like inflatable dolls, only more ethereal. 