Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Jun 21, 2011, at 1:26 PM:
In the news today are three more examples of the nanny state culture we have today.
1) The FTC, FDA and USDA (Obama Administration) all teamed up with new food guidelines that must be adhered to. If you don't comply then you can't advertise anywhere that a child may see your ad - NASCAR, billboards, commercials, restaurant menus, etc. Included in the list are oatmeal, Frosted Flakes, fruit juice, milk, girl scout cookies and 1000's of other foods that don't meet their fat/sugar guidelines. All in the name of childhood obesity. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44343
2) New anti-smoking pics will now be put on cigarette packs to deter smoking. I'm sure they'll do an excellent job of stopping people (heavy sarcasm). People have ALWAYS known that smoking is not good for your lungs yet we all know people that have smoked and lived to 90.
Just to protest I think I'll float down Current River this weekend in an inner tube with no jacket munching on Frosted Flakes while I smoke a cigarette. When will they stop?
Replies (183)
And, if I understand correctly, all vehicles manufactured or sold in the US will be required to have back-up cameras by 2014. The rationalization for this is safety; to reduce the number of small children struck by vehicles backing out of driveways or in parking lots.
Of course, the same reduction in accidents could be realized by drivers walking around their cars and visually inspecting the area before backing out.
-- Posted by Robert* on Tue, Jun 21, 2011, at 2:15 PM
Of course I left out the famous ban on incandescent light bulbs coming our way soon.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Jun 21, 2011, at 2:20 PM
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 put the ban on the light bulbs.
-- Posted by Zorb on Tue, Jun 21, 2011, at 2:59 PM
My sister living in another state told me last week that she was upset because the preschool, where her 3 1/2 year old grandson goes, is having his and his classmates lunches rifled through by the teachers and they are then graded on what their Mothers have packed for them to eat. She believes it comes from all of this crap cominging out of the White House. That's where the poster child for healthy eating lives, except she is off to Africa with her entourage. Ever catch a rear view of her... she could stand some healthy eating of her own. The government wants their fingers in every aspect of our lives.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Jun 21, 2011, at 3:52 PM
1) The FTC, FDA and USDA (Obama Administration) all teamed up with new food ....it's a good thing i favor roadkill , huh..
2) New anti-smoking pics will now be put on cigarette packs ....i certainly hope they put fat , ugly , missing teeth , real people on this pics instead of Models...
3) King county in WA state (Seattle) just passed an ordinance .....can't say as i ever been there or ever will be there
Wheels...is what mousetraps were created for...☺
-- Posted by Rick* on Tue, Jun 21, 2011, at 4:55 PM
Yea, and of all the nerve. They have 70 mph speed limit on the interstate. When will all this madness stop, Dug?
-- Posted by howdydoody on Tue, Jun 21, 2011, at 5:24 PM
Theorist - a t-shirt because of a sunburn or you've actually seen me without one :-) ?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Jun 21, 2011, at 6:17 PM
Wheels
i just remembered something...at one point in time , i had a problem arise where my workers started to pilfer each other's sandwiches out of lunches...so i initiated the Secret BabyShat Sandwich Program..
things took their natural course and the problem went away..
-- Posted by Rick* on Tue, Jun 21, 2011, at 8:44 PM
Rick,
Some adults, as in your case definitely may needto be graded on what they eat, especially if it came from someone else's lunch box. But gradig a 3 1/2 year old on what his Mother packs him for lunch. Gimme a break.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Jun 21, 2011, at 9:15 PM
Wheels
since the teachers work for the moms , it's only fair for the moms to go to the teacher's lunchtime and grade the teachers on what they eat...IMHO
-- Posted by Rick* on Tue, Jun 21, 2011, at 9:31 PM
Government know better than you what is best for your family.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Jun 21, 2011, at 9:46 PM
That thing about teachers checking what children bring to school for lunch can't be true. We all know children don't eat unless the school provides.
Children bring home food from school on Friday or they go hungry during the weekend.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jun 21, 2011, at 10:17 PM
OJ
That is because momma egts cash for the EBT card.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Jun 21, 2011, at 10:22 PM
Texas has now authorized the manufacture and sale of incandescent bulbs within the state of Texas.
A similar measure was passed by the Arizona legislature, but vetoed by the governor.
I wonder if the feds will be cracking down on bootlegging of incandescent bulbs being smuggled out of Texas.
Montana passed a similar measure regarding firearms - firearms manufactured and sold in Montana are exempt from federal firearms requirements. It seems some Western states are re-discovering states' rights. I'm curious when the next 'civil' war will erupt over this matter.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 22, 2011, at 8:20 AM
I vaguely remember a court decision (supreme?) regarding interstate commerce. Wasn't a ruling made where wheat that was bought (seed), planted, grown and sold WITHIN a state still considered "interstate" commerce? Because the sale of that wheat in-state affected pricing in other states?
Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure someone will! :-)
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Jun 22, 2011, at 9:30 AM
Dug,
Yes, the Courts have held that 'regulation' of insterstate commerce includes the authority to regulate any commerce that may affect interstate commerce, if even it is not, in itself, a component of interstate commerce.
Some states are now 'pushing the envelope' on that idea. Having long senses that the growth of federal power based on that concept, they are starting to fight back.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 22, 2011, at 10:07 AM
speaking of Constitution...how many cows constitutes a herd ?
-- Posted by Rick** on Wed, Jun 22, 2011, at 9:41 AM
A farmer named Bud was overseeing his herd in a remote Ozark mountain pasture when suddenly a brand-new BMW advanced out of a dust cloud toward him.
The driver, a young man in a Brioni suit,Gucci shoes, RayBan sunglasses and YSL tie, leans out the window and asks the farmer, "If I tell you exactly how many cows and calves you have in your herd, will you give me a calf?"
Bud looks at the man, obviously a yuppie, then looks at his peacefully grazing herd and calmly answers, "Sure, Why not?"
The yuppie parks his car, whips out his Dell notebook computer, connects it to his Cingular RAZR V3 cell phone, and surfs to a NASA page on the Internet, where he calls up a GPS satellite to get an exact fix on his location which he then feeds to another NASA satellite that scans the area in an ultra-high-resolution photo.
The young man then opens the digital photo in Adobe Photoshop and exports it to an image processing facility inHamburg , Germany .
Within mere seconds, he receives an email on his Palm Pilot that the image has been processed and the data is stored. He then accesses a MS-SQL database through an ODBC connected Excel spreadsheet with email on his Blackberry and, after a few minutes, receives a response.
Finally, he prints out a full-color, 150-page report on his hi-tech, miniaturized HP LaserJet printer and finally turns to the farmer and says, "You have exactly 1,586 cows and calves."
"That's right.. Well, I guess you can take one of my calves," says Bud.
He watches the young man select one of the animals and looks on amused as the young man stuffs it into the trunk of his car.
Then Bud says to the young man, "Hey, if I can tell you exactly what your business is, will you give me back my calf?"
The young man thinks about it for a second and then says, "Okay, why not?"
"You're a Congressman for the U.S. Government," says Bud.
"Wow! That's correct," says the yuppie, "but how did you guess that?"
"No guessing required," answered the cowboy. "You showed up here even though nobody called you; you want to get paid for an answer I already knew, to a question I never asked. You tried to show me how much smarter than me you are; and you don't know a thing about cows...this is a herd of sheep....Now give me back my dog."
-- Posted by Joe Dirte on Wed, Jun 22, 2011, at 10:56 AM
Joe, that is so good I am going to borrow it!
-- Posted by Robert* on Wed, Jun 22, 2011, at 11:37 AM
Joe, that is so good I am going to borrow it!
-- Posted by stnmsn8 on Wed, Jun 22, 2011, at 11:37 AM
Borrow away, not an original work of mine
This one explains what different types of government would do if you owned 2 cows... to long to post here..
-- Posted by Joe Dirte on Wed, Jun 22, 2011, at 11:57 AM
With all of those cows and bulls.... there has to be some BS here somewhere. ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Jun 22, 2011, at 12:32 PM
BS or no, I don't care if the gov't outlaws Oatmeal, Frosted Flakes, and all cigarettes. But said gov't's gonna have a revolution on its hands if they mess with my Cream of Wheat (Instant)!
It ain't the sugar content of food that bothers me. It's the amount of salt! Causes my blood pressure to get out of control.
Havwe you ever read the labels on prepared and processed foods for the sodium content? Outrageous!
-- Posted by voyager on Thu, Jun 23, 2011, at 11:39 AM
Dug,
In the future I recommend not allowing people do you thinking for you. Otherwise, you look like an idiot when regurgitating the stupid things they say. This is an editorial and not backed by an facts what so ever.
There are no guidelines, nothing must be adheared, nor are there advertising restrictions.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Thu, Jun 23, 2011, at 3:22 PM
Voyager,
Agree 100%. I get ticked when I have to buy tureky or chicken because it was injected with salt water. So at least 20% of the purchase price isn't meat, but salt water.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Thu, Jun 23, 2011, at 3:26 PM
lumbrg - since you're such an expert, please reply to which story I posted that is an editorial. They are all laws / policies that have been passed or will be soon implemented. The only editorial comments I see on here are yours with the usual liberal regurgitation.
Who is doing my thinking?
Which of these are editorials?
Which of the facts are wrong?
If you're biggest concern is about your "tureky" content then you should be fine following all the laws your President is implementing on your food choices. I hope they never pass a law that we must eat BS, you'd probably put that on a sandwich too if your President tells you.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Jun 26, 2011, at 4:41 PM
Spaniard - go ahead and question the "veracity" of it.
Now, which statement is untrue? You libs love to throw out accusations (like your president) and then offer nothing to back it up.
What in the original posting is false? Nothing. You can't refute that.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 8:28 AM
Lumberg/Spaniard - Hello?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 11:25 AM
Dug...listen to lumbrgfktr ...he knows firsthand what an idiot looks like..
-- Posted by Rick** on Thu, Jun 23, 2011, at 3:43 PM
Lets see. I am once again correct and Rick resorts to personal attacks.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 9:08 AM
lumbrg - since you're such an expert, please reply to which story I posted that is an editorial. They are all laws / policies that have been passed or will be soon implemented. The only editorial comments I see on here are yours with the usual liberal regurgitation.
Who is doing my thinking?
Which of these are editorials?
Which of the facts are wrong?
If you're biggest concern is about your "tureky" content then you should be fine following all the laws your President is implementing on your food choices. I hope they never pass a law that we must eat BS, you'd probably put that on a sandwich too if your President tells you.
-- Posted by Dug on Sun, Jun 26, 2011, at 4:41 PM
The first one. I didn't bother looking at the others because of how far off the first comment was.
Lets see, you comment on regulations that don't exist? I point out that they don't exist, and you call it liberal regurgitation.
Who is doing your thinking? The person who you cited in the article. You presented no fact to back up your claim. Instead, you rephrased what they said and liked to their editorial as fact.
So now I eat BS because I call your incorrect post? How desperate you people get when you can't back up your claims.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 9:16 AM
lumbrg - apparently you're the desperate one. You can't back up YOUR claim that what I posted is wrong. You haven't said one word to back up your claim.
Who is doing your thinking? While you fiddle around posting on here, regulations like the one I posted above are going to be implemented and you laugh at them. Here is the FTC government site that discusses this new regulation at length.
You are just like common. Obama says "shovel ready wasn't shovel ready" and common says that even Obama's words are "misinformation". I've now given you the regulation and you'll have another excuse to cover for your president. There are more links to this if you'd like. Enjoy eating that BS sandwich.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 9:25 AM
Dug,
Did you even read this. Look at the first page..
Preliminary Proposed Nutrition Principles
to Guide Industry Self-Regulatory Efforts
Request for Comments
They are seeking Public Input.
For self-regulation
You incorrectly stated:
Guidelines that MUST be adhered to
Advertising bans
Are you too embarrased to admit you are wrong or are you really that dillusional. What you posted actually backs me up and you are calling me covering for Obama.
And did Obama actually have anything to do with this?
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 9:42 AM
Dug,
Thank you for posting that. The heading indicates that it is directed at Children but I saw coffee in there somewhere.
While there is no way in hell I am going to spend that much of my remaining life reading all of that, it just goes to point out that people better take control of what these nutcases in Washington are up to.
This all comes from agencies created by a bunch of idiots that at this moment cannot even come together on a budget for this country.
And my mind tells me that a lot of it is being pushed through these agencies by the White House, so a non-elected nobody (The President's Wife) can leave her fingerprints in the history books.
It is the parents responsibility to regulate their children's eating habits not the governments.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 9:43 AM
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 9:43 AM
True. But still doesn't change the fact that Dug was 100% wrong.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 9:47 AM
lumbrg - did you read it? Apparently not.
"The Working Group will consider this input in developing its recommendations to Congress." Clue: Congress passes laws not recommendations.
"definitions of advertising, promotion, and other marketing activities targeting children and adolescents to which the nutrition principles would apply" Clue: what can be shown on TV because of the trans fat, sugar, et al content.
"The Working Group recommends that industry work toward the goal that all foods within the categories most heavily advertised or otherwise marketed directly to children and adolescents would meet the nutrition principles by the year 2016" Clue: You can only advertise to children products that meet the federal governments nutrition principles.
The simple subject of this thread is "nanny state". Apparently that is a little bit over your head. Especially for someone who is a self-proclaimed "south park republican/conservative democrat". No wonder you can't read a simple government document.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 9:59 AM
-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 9:59 AM
You post incorrectly about things obviously over your head and say I can't read a government document.
How sad of a life you must lead.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 10:33 AM
..again , in your mind only...
-- Posted by Rick** on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 10:01 AM
Very ture.
Being correct does that.
ITs funny how Dub posted the form and you still try and defend his comments.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 10:35 AM
lumbrg - maybe I should have explained "nanny state". It has nothing to do with memories of your day care or in-home baby sitter.
The first sign someone is losing a debate is name calling and changing the subject. You are the tops in both those areas.
Again, the post and links stand on their own. Others on here have read, others will judge if the FTC government document is "incorrect". I hit it on an earlier post. You, like common, read Obama or even an FTC document posted on-line about "marketing directly to children and adolescents... meet the nutrition principles by the year 2016" and say - "it's a lie!". Yet you have not ONE comment refuting anything I've said - just name calling.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 10:55 AM
-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 10:55 AM
I have not changed the subject. In fact, i have to keep brining it back up. Interesting how you consider my comments name calling, but conveniently leave yourself and rick out. I guess name calling is ok for you and people who think like you, but those that actually hold you to the facts deserve otherwise.
Its sad that I actually have to explain this.
The original post you provided does not stand on its own. Its an editorial filled with untruths and unfounded assumptions. Which is kind of OK because that what editorials are. However, in your original comment, you incorrectly stated that there were new guidelines and they must be adhered to and there would be a ban on advertising.
All 3 are incorrect. The document does not ban anything, nor does it prohibit advertising, nor does it require compliance. All three items you said that document actually did. Did you not list that in your opening post?
As far as name calling, I have been called an idiot, told I was a $h!t eater among other things. So please, if you are going to comment on name calling, try to avoid doing it yourself.
Oh, and try to be more accurate in the future.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 11:23 AM
How was it that the thousands of pages of the health care legislation just happened to be up and ready so fast? It was because the same procedures of "recomendations" were followed with very few people paying attention. Once put together it was sold to the congress on a "hope to gain fear of loss" basis.
Why would these guidelines be presented if not the agenda of the administration that all these agencies answer to?
These recommendations are just the first step to passing into law.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 11:39 AM
These recommendations are just the first step to passing into law.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 11:39 AM
Old John,
You are truly getting too old.... you are becoming suspicious of our glorious leaders!
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 11:44 AM
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 11:39 AM
Sometimes. But that doesn't make them law.
But Obama ran on the platform of Healthcare reform. So it hardly crept up and happened so fast.
I think the patriot act might be a better example.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 11:47 AM
lumbrg - again with the spin. And quit being "so sad" all the time. I'm not sad. I'm happy to actually have to explain this to you.
The only name I called you was a "south park republican/conservative democrat" (whatever that is - sounds like your searching for some values) - I believe that's one you called yourself. Now you're going to call me out on your own self-ascribed quotes?
All you've said is the article is an editorial. So what? The editorial is backed up by the FTC document. The editor looked at the food guidelines and listed out the foods that could not be advertised using the FTC guidelines and said that using those guidelines would cause frosted flakes and oatmeal to be banned from advertising.
Again, the subject is nanny state. The editorial and the FTC's own document stands. Don't be sad when you're wrong - be happy! You've been educated.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 12:16 PM
Lumbr, I remember how something else started, the flight attendants complaining about smoking in a oversized cigar tube with no fresh air.
The saving in jet fuel when very cold outside air is not heated to refresh the cabin got the airlines on board. First it was no smoking on shorter flights. Then all of a sudden it became fact that second hand smoke was the cause of every known woe of the human race. Ever notice how ever disease fighting research foundation looking for funds says their disease is the leading cause of death?
Next we will start hearing about poor food choices that "the dumb can't get along without us people" are making is a leading cause of every woe in society.
When it's done the only people who can afford to eat what they want will be John Kerry types.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 1:05 PM
Rick, Ever heard the story of a major battle started with a flatuation? The Romans soldiers ate a lot of beans you know.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 1:18 PM
It's a good thing, Spaniard, since it took 6 months to read all that garbage.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 1:27 PM
Lumbr, I remember how something else started, the flight attendants complaining about smoking in a oversized cigar tube with no fresh air.
The saving in jet fuel when very cold outside air is not heated to refresh the cabin got the airlines on board. First it was no smoking on shorter flights. Then all of a sudden it became fact that second hand smoke was the cause of every known woe of the human race. Ever notice how ever disease fighting research foundation looking for funds says their disease is the leading cause of death?
Next we will start hearing about poor food choices that "the dumb can't get along without us people" are making is a leading cause of every woe in society.
When it's done the only people who can afford to eat what they want will be John Kerry types.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 1:05 PM
i remember reading a speak out comment about a person complaining about men who have their hands in their pockets. I don't equate that with laws about hands in their pockets.
Its called slipperly slope arguments. It's sloppy, and lazy and not at all factual.
Had the poster mentioned "could lead to..." "might end up with".
However he did not say that. Instead, he only read an inaccurate editorial and mentioned that these were already laws.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 1:27 PM
Lumbrg - all the posts and not a single comment about where the editorial was inaccurate! Where was it inaccurate?
The original post I made said "more examples of a nanny state culture". Where did I say "laws"?
You are grasping for straws. Someone throw him a life jacket! He's drowning!
DISCLAIMER: throwing you a life jacket or stating you're drowning is not "name calling". Just thought I'd throw that in before you post.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 2:38 PM
Dug,
the very first paragrahp...
Tony the Tiger, some NASCAR drivers and cookie-selling Girl Scouts will be out of a job unless grocery manufacturers agree to reinvent a vast array of their products to satisfy the Obama administration's food police.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 2:57 PM
lumbrg - did you read these lines in the editorial?
"The "Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children, Preliminary Proposed Nutrition Principles to Guide Industry Self-Regulation Efforts" says it is voluntary, but industry officials say the intent is clear: Do it, or else."
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Jun 29, 2011, at 10:13 AM
Dug,
Again, its opinon and not fact. You seem to be confusing those two.
First off, there is nothing there that will allow any type of action. Maybe in the future something is proposed.
Let me break it down for you. These are voluntary suggestions. That is all they are. You are jumping the gun (as did the original writer) and calling them mandated and required laws. There is a huge difference. Maybe if somethign was actually proposed, you can raise the flag.
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Wed, Jun 29, 2011, at 12:12 PM
More nanny state for you.
"Feds say some areas near Granite City, IL don't offer enough healthy foods"
"Feds say healthy foods sparse in Belleville, IL"
"Study: Not enough healthy options in Collinsville, Caseyville, IL"
Of course these are just "recommendations". Is this an actual proposal lumbrg or what is this? Just alarmist reports from the St. Louis area? Please provide your expertise on this. What, exactly, is "healthy" food?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Jul 1, 2011, at 9:10 AM
Healthy food is a well fed fat hog.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Jul 1, 2011, at 9:14 AM
Unhealthy food as opposed to healthy food is what is consumed in the White House but is forbidden fare for the rest of us.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Jul 1, 2011, at 9:48 AM
Oh - and don't forget that the air you exhale is now a pollutant. When we "post" on threads like this are we being "green" - instead of talking about it face to face and emitting dangerous CO2 when we exhale?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Jul 1, 2011, at 11:13 AM
Well Dug.... if it is for the common good, I will just quit breathing!
Tee, Hee, Hee.... bet that will please a few of the posters on here anyway.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Jul 1, 2011, at 11:16 AM
Careful Rick.... you are coming close to Blasphemy.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Jul 1, 2011, at 3:57 PM
No Theorist, you do not yet know who I will vote for... but you do know who I will vote against.
So far as who you will vote for, I would be very surprised if it were not the Democrat running, which by all odds would be the current empty suit, but you will justify it with a lot of fancy words and phony reasons.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Jul 1, 2011, at 7:09 PM
Wheels, Next comes the speech about how I don't vote for a party candidate, "I vote for the person!". All my liberal friends told me that as justification for voting for Obama. A couple have hinted that they made a mistake but I have changed the subject to spare them. :)
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Jul 1, 2011, at 7:51 PM
Old John,
You are too kind. I have a nephew who I intend making it an issue of come the family reunion this time. In as much as I had to suffer his nonsense about Obama at the reunion prior to the election I think it is fair. ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺
Yes, when you embarass these liberals their cover is they are an Independant like Theorist.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Jul 1, 2011, at 8:13 PM
A vote for a dem or a rep, is a vote for the status quo.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Fri, Jul 1, 2011, at 8:41 PM
DTower,
I cannot disagree. Got any ideas of what we should do? That doesn't gurarantee the current empty suit stays in office that is.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Jul 1, 2011, at 8:46 PM
Bend over and grab our ankles.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Fri, Jul 1, 2011, at 9:29 PM
Another story regarding point #1 I posted to start this topic - story appeared today across the country:
"Advertisers and food and beverage industry officials called the government's new guidelines for advertising directed toward children a reckless maneuver in light of today's fragile economy.
The FTC released a set of guidelines in April. On Friday, industry officials pushed back, saying the guidelines would eliminate virtually all advertising now directed toward kids under age 18. Only 12 of the 100 most consumed foods in the U.S. would meet the FTC's criteria.
If advertising takes as big a hit as industry officials expect, 74,000 jobs could be lost this year, said Mike Raimondi, vice president of IHS Global Insight, an economic forecasting company. Between 2011 and 2015, moreover, the cumulative lost sales in the food and beverage supply chain would amount to $152 billion, Raimondi said."
I know, it's just the "sky is falling", right? Nothing here to worry about.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sat, Jul 9, 2011, at 6:12 PM
Eliminate all the candy, cereal, and soft drink advertising? How will Cartoon Network and all the other kids programming survive?
-- Posted by Robert* on Sat, Jul 9, 2011, at 7:33 PM
Farm Bureau's magazine had a story of FTC being cited as authority for requiring farmers to obtain DOT registration for anything over 10,000 lbs. Hauling grain that has the potenial of being sold across state lines will also require a CDL.
A pick up truck pulling a cattle trailer will also be subject since the cargo may end up as finished product in other states. Also included in this rational is hay and feed for animals that may be interstate commerce.
If a farmer rents the land, any hauling of product, seed or fertilizer will be considered so for hire and require the same regulations as long haul trucking.
Some Missouri state legislators have began introducing bills to counter.
Maybe this isn't an example of the nanny state but the bully state just as bad.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Jul 9, 2011, at 9:06 PM
Centralized planning is creeping up on us. If the people do not wake up and take a stand now for individual liberty it may soon be too late.
"The natural order of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground."
Thomas Jefferson
"A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything that you have....."
Gerald R. Ford
It seems to me that both major parties are willing to grow government in order to profit their individual supporters, at the cost of the nation as a whole and individual liberty. To change that trend requires an alert and educated electorate and a revolution against the status quo by the same. This country is on the road to economic ruin and gaining speed by the day. Willingness to give up individual liberty in return for promise of protection by the state provides the impetus.
Those who depend upon the federal government for their well-being will eventually find themselves in the same situation as the people of New Orleans waiting on the overpasses for rescue.
-- Posted by Robert* on Sun, Jul 10, 2011, at 6:37 AM
It's a shame that government has to step in to tell parents what to feed and not feed their kids. But considering the rising number of fat American kids that feast on fried crap through much of their childhood and add more burden to our health care system, the parents have obviously failed.
Sorry moms and dads, but you had your chance.
-- Posted by moemoney on Sun, Jul 10, 2011, at 5:46 PM
Does that mean no more M&M's on the hoods of Nascar?
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Jul 10, 2011, at 6:26 PM
It's Reagan's fault, the jelly beans you know.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Jul 10, 2011, at 6:40 PM
moemoney
We had the fried stuff but were not allowed to set in front of a screen alone in our rooms. We went to a place called outdoors. We played ball, rode bikes, and explored. My mom didn't set me in front of the TV to keep me out of her hair either.
Most of these parents want to blame someone else when they are the ones that are responsible for the obese fat little piggy's they raised. Not McDonald's or some other junk food company that was around when I was young.
This is just more of people letting the gov take care of them. They will be picking out your shoes next.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Jul 10, 2011, at 7:16 PM
Rick
The Obamas are Marxist. The don't understand the concept of privacy. Unless it is theirs.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Jul 10, 2011, at 8:56 PM
I'll give you my fried chicken, when you take it from my cold dead hands!
-- Posted by Joe Dirte on Mon, Jul 11, 2011, at 10:23 AM
it is in no way the Government's business what people put on their dinner table to eat ...this is blatant intrusion of personal rights and freedoms..
-- Posted by Rick** on Sun, Jul 10, 2011, at 8:25 PM
Nobody is telling you what you can and cannot put on the dinner table.
however, it makes suggestions on what is good and not good.
How is making suggestions an intrution?
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Mon, Jul 11, 2011, at 11:42 AM
When mothers are not permitted to bake cookies for sale at a school 'bake sale' would this not be considered intrusion of the government? This has already occurred, lumbrgfktr.
-- Posted by Robert* on Mon, Jul 11, 2011, at 3:16 PM
And at church/school fish frys you used to be able to make dessert and bring it. You can't do that anymore in many cities/counties.
Every year more and more controls are placed on what we can / can't do and eat.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Jul 11, 2011, at 3:26 PM
lumbrgfktr
when WalMart , Schnucks , and other major food commerce react to the new Government Nutrion Programs , they decide what a person purchases for food that they put on their tables .
it's already begun in America's public School systems ...the Government has decided what your child will eat , not what the parents want their children to eat or they can afford .
so much for ethnic foods , no?
-- Posted by Rick** on Mon, Jul 11, 2011, at 1:45 PM
Where exactly is your argument going? So now Walmart can't choose what foods to sell? Is that a stretch.
And shools have mandated what your child can eat for years. Nobody complained when President Regan made them eat ketchup for a vegetable, so why are things different today?
And nobody is forcing anybody's kid to eat anything. Pack your own child's lunch if you are that upset they are served carrots instead of fries.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Mon, Jul 11, 2011, at 3:56 PM
"Nobody complained when President Regan made them eat ketchup for a vegetable, so why are things different today?"
Au Contraire! I recall a major uproar when President Reagan classified ketchup as a vegetable. He didn't "make them eat ketchup as a vegetable", he merely stated that ketchup on their hamburgers qualified as such. Even so, there was quite a stink about it. Your mention of it here indicates that it was controversial enough to still leave an impression.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 11, 2011, at 4:00 PM
When mothers are not permitted to bake cookies for sale at a school 'bake sale' would this not be considered intrusion of the government? This has already occurred, lumbrgfktr.
-- Posted by stnmsn8 on Mon, Jul 11, 2011, at 3:16 PM
I have not idea. I would need more information vs. a generalized statement. But probably not. For one thing, it is unreleated with the discussion here, and 2) what is the exact reasoning of that particular school board/t. Maybe it was a particular teacher, who is not an advocate for the school or "government".
If you can't sell cookies, what on earth were they selling at a bake sale?
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Mon, Jul 11, 2011, at 4:00 PM
Au Contraire! I recall a major uproar when President Reagan classified ketchup as a vegetable. He didn't "make them eat ketchup as a vegetable", he merely stated that ketchup on their hamburgers qualified as such. Even so, there was quite a stink about it. Your mention of it here indicates that it was controversial enough to still leave an impression.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 11, 2011, at 4:00 PM
That is my point. That was a statement by the president, vs. a new guidelines by the Depart of Ag.
Seriously, people on this board are mad because the Depart of Ag releases an updated food guide for what is healthy, but are ok when a president says ketchup is a vegetable.
Are people really that blind that the R or D in front of a name makes up for common sense?
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Mon, Jul 11, 2011, at 4:08 PM
Some of you people are hilarious. I would like to know what's contained in the food I buy. Without any govt involvement, we wouldn't know any contents. Thanks to LBJ, I can now see what's in my food.
-- Posted by howdydoody on Mon, Jul 11, 2011, at 5:20 PM
Rick,
I could point out that Walmart, Shnucks and other major food brands probably made the CHOICE to change, but what is the use? But please, do point out to me how they were forced to make these changes.
Georgia Packed Lunch searches???????? Please provide a link for that.
I am also for personal freedom. I have yet to read a single fact in this thread that denies a personal freedom.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Mon, Jul 11, 2011, at 5:35 PM
In 1980 I had to hire a safety man for the LTL business. It was a slack job and the guy mainly followed drivers around policing them. With all the free time on his hands he began to make safety checkoff list which was OK to a point.
The next thing I know the drivers are doing about 1.5 hours of paperwork a day because the safety guy we didn't need was setting around thinking up new rules.
I finally told STL we no longer afford him and he was gone. I emptied 3-four draw filing cabinets he had filled in 6 months with useless paper.
That is what government people do. Come up with new rules at our cost to justify their jobs.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Jul 11, 2011, at 6:12 PM
And nobody is forcing anybody's kid to eat anything. Pack your own child's lunch if you are that upset they are served carrots instead of fries.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Mon, Jul 11, 2011, at 3:56 PM
Lumber,
I furnished the information last week and will do so again for your benefit.
My sister, living in Savannah Georgia told me several weeks ago that she was irritated that her 3 1/2 year old Grandson was having his lunch, that was packed by his mother and brought from home, inspected by the preschool diatician for how healthy the lunch was and the kid/mother was being graded on the food being brought to school.
Last week in a conversation, about Thursday I believe, she told me there are changes for the upcoming year. Since her grandson was too young to move on he will still be in the same preschool and this year there will be a peanut free environment and the lunches being brought to school will be checked for nutrition and if found to be lacking will be pitched out and the school will feed the child. No doubt a bill will be sent home with the 3 1/2 year old.
MeLange tells me this is because of government regulation to obtain federal funding. This I already was pretty sure of.
A side note, the Food Natzi that is going to do the evaluation of the lunch pails is in the range of 5' high and nearly as wide. Is she the government's idea of healthy eating.... or what happens if you don't eat healthy?
The idea of using federal funds to whip a state entity into line is not new. I believe pulling highway funds has been the high handed method the masters in Washington have used for a long time to whip a State into line.
Enough of this crap is enough already!
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Jul 11, 2011, at 6:28 PM
When My child was in school the band wanted new uniforms. Grandmas baked bread and cookies, moms set up stands and organized pot luck dinners and fathers had chili nights and pancake mornings at local churches. Many business's gave generously and were recognized with free publicity in the local paper. We raised over $100,000 in a month to get the job done.
A while back in my home town I visited a grocery and there were moms huddling over teenage children at the checkout taking hold of the patrons purchases to carry them out for tips as way to raise funds for a senior trip. NO THANKS I say as I suffer the brow.
I don't know if you can relate this to the nutrician police policies, but I'm figuring a lot of folks today are too lazy and too go along with government to object to any restrictions that trade pride in accomplishment for food saftey and nutritional standards of government say so.
What's next, they gonna have rules for cooking road kill?
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 12:12 AM
Rick, You will need to obtain and maintain a road kill license and keep and up to date log of the "bacon" you have brought home in the past week to get a transport tag to carrie it home. The road kill license requires a two day course on safe road kill cooking and handling along with a background check. A waiting period may be required per MDC compliant to state and federal regulations.
Otherwise, first come first served.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 12:43 AM
Have_Wheels_Will_Travel,
Lots of things wrong witht the story. First, its third hand, and second, its a preschool and not a public school, third its and isolated incident. Hardly "schools in Georgia".
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 8:18 AM
lumbrgfktr
...but again , what's the use ?
-- Posted by Rick** on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 12:21 AM
I know. How dare I hold people to be factual instead of agreeing with the usual BS.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 8:21 AM
Plenty of facts listed - you just ignore them.
So "what's the use" in posting them for you? You won't recognize them when presented - the usual BS.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 8:31 AM
-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 8:31 AM
Obviously you are confused by what is a fact and what is an opinion. So I agree, what is the use have trying to have an actual conversation with such people.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 8:43 AM
Lumberfktr,
Sorry about not providing URL to prove my point; this is an ongoing situation which I though everyone was aware of. (by the way, you could have googled
"homemade cookies outlawed at school bake sale"
as I did. I enjoy demonstrating that I am citing facts not just giving personal opinions but at times it does get a bit frustrating when it appears I am doing all the research for those who disagree with me.
If Jimmy Carter were dead he would roll over in his grave!
-- Posted by Robert* on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 8:51 AM
Posted above:
Fact - you can no longer bring baked goods from home to supply fund raisers like a "fish fry" in St. Louis County.
Fact - you cannot bring baked goods (like cupcakes) to school for your childs birthday. It's banned.
Fact - schools are rifling through kids lunches at school to see if they meet their nutrition standards. They throw them away if they don't.
Fact - On 6/23 post you say "There are no guidelines". AP article from a week ago (posted above) "The FTC released a set of guidelines in April".
Obviously you are confused by facts and your opinion. Not the same.
As a "south park republican/conservative democrat" I think I know who is doing your thinking.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 9:03 AM
-- Posted by stnmsn8 on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 8:51 AM
This is a prime example. You seemed confused. We are discussing national government mandated requirements.
First off, half the links you posted didn't work.
Second, you posted many links to individual school board/city decisions. Those are up to the individual communities to regulate, not a national mandate. Posting a link to what a community is does not support what we are disscussing. Its an unrealted fact. Seriously, did any of the links you provided talk about a federally mandated nutrtional requirements? No. So how does it support what we are discussing?
Now, do you want to change the debate from the obama's food guidelines to the NYC decision to ban bake sales, that is fine. But don't try to say the obama administration is banning bake sales.
So since you posted the links, lets discuss the ban on school hour bake sales. I would be opposed to them, not from a nutrtional standpoint, but because of a liability standpoint. I don't think bake sales cause kids to get fat. I can see the vending being an issue.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 12:05 PM
-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 9:03 AM
Dug, you are going to have to do some explaining.
What are you talking about bans in St. Louis County firsh frys? Again, I have no idea what you are talking about and vague comment means nothing.
Can't bring cupcakes to a birthday party? Why not. What federal rule stopps a person?
Schools are rifling through lunches and throwing them away? I have yet to read one link about it. Sorry if I am not like you and beleive anything somebody mentions on the internet.
As far as "guidelines" go, sorry for the confusion. Yes "guidelines" were released. However, I was speaking about "guidelines" in a sense you used them in your opening post. i.e. guidelines that must be followed like you used in your opening statement. guidelines meaning bans and must be stricklty followed.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 12:21 PM
Again, lumbrg. Again. "Nanny STATE" is not some place your parents took you to after school. Nanny STATE doesn't always imply federal - you completely made that up on your own.
I know first hand from an announcement at a church I was visiting on a Sunday in St. Louis when the pastor announced that parishoners were not allowed to bake goods for the Fish Fry as desserts because the county said it violated their NEW rules. First time that was ever imposed.
School my kids went to banned any bringing of cakes or cupcakes or anything sweet to the kids birthday party. It was a new ban. Not a federal rule, but a "nanny state" attitude.
Apparently you trust no one but the government. When I talk to people or see people explain something on the internet that I have come to know (follow up on their previous statements) I tend to trust them. Trust and verify. I don't believe everything I read on the internet - case in point, I don't believe you.
Many times guidelines MUST be followed to be accepted by a government body. You can ignore guidelines but you will be kept from funds, participating in programs, et al.
Finally, do you understand what "Nanny STATE" means? STATE is a metaphor for gov't - fed, state, county, city. Get it? So stnmsn8 is correct. One of the links I posted initially dealt with the STATE of Washington and the requirement to wear a life jacket.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 12:33 PM
was a local paper's article reporting on a King County ordinance. Discussion since then has been on federal guidelines and also on actions taken by local entities in reaction to same ordinances.
Second. You are correct; some of my links did not work. I apologize. If I were perfect I would have taken the time after posting to try all of them out. I did not. Score one for you.............you DO seem to be keeping score.
You could also have taken my suggestion, done a little searching yourself, and found similar articles. You did not, apparently because you are more interested in proving yourself right than in continuing the discussion; considering another person's point of view.
Third. Many local decisions are made in fear of the possibility of lawsuits brought by activists who would use/expand national mandates for their own purposes. School administrators often prefer to avoid legal challenges brought by activists. Thus, for example, they do not allow homemade cookies at bake sales. Idealogues win; individual liberty loses.
By the way, I took the time to look back over the discussion. You have made by my count 20 postings or more taking various posters to task, giving your opinion, belittling our sources, but you have never cited a source for any of your opinions. That is the easy way out but it demonstrates to me the time and thought you have taken in your postings.
-- Posted by Robert* on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 12:55 PM
-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 12:33 PM
Dug, please explain to me your liberal Nanny State. School mandated uniforms, Is that also part of the "liberal nanny state"? What about drug mandatory testing of welfar recipients? You seem to group things you simply disagree with into the term that you accuse me of not understanding. And none of it has to do with your first post, which was innacurate.
Second hand church annoucement. Great source of information. I need some more. Is it the church rules? County health department?
I do and do not trust the government. If the FDA sends out a new food pyramid, I don't whine and complain about it. If the government sets out some suggestions to help curb childhood obesity, I applaud it. I don't overreact.
You don't beleive everything on the internet. Well link at your very first link...hook. line. sinker.
Forcing parents to use car seats for babies. My god, what a terrible Nanny State we line in.
Also, do we live in Washington? But yet you use it as an example. I mean, 1 coutnry, 50 states, thousands of coutnies, thousan more muncipalities. Do you really have to resort to the lowest level to find examples of a nanny state?
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 1:39 PM
-- Posted by Rick** on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 12:48 PM
You are a posters who swallow up everything that you want to believe, then try and labels that don't follow blindly.
I am a pessimist by nature and generally mistrusting.
It's funny. This whole thread is about the OP misinterpretation of federal guidelines. Yet you overlook that fact and then actually think I accept everything I read.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 1:44 PM
Grandma... I mean Lumber
Everything is fine. The country is in great shape. We have no debt. We are fee to do as we please and anywhere we please. Go back inside and take a nap, the government won't let Rick and Grandpa tear our wall down.
Oops...... That isn't Rick and grandpa chipping on the wall, it's Obama and Congress.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 2:10 PM
-- Posted by stnmsn8 on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 12:55 PM
Again. I don't have to provide links because I am not trying to prove anything.
As far as the life vests, I haven't even mentioned that, so not sure why you mentioned it.
All my posts have been how wrong he was in the first part. You may find such blatent innacuracies accaptable, I don't.
This is not a point of view situation. Had he said this COULD lead to advertising bans, then I can't make a point. However, he clearly stated and falsly stated that the new guidelines included advertising bans. So he was factually wrong.
Now your third point makes sense. I also agree with the fact that most schools try and avoid leagal challanges. I also think we are in a runaway litigation society. But again, we are getting away from the original debate.
The fact that The FTC, FDA and USDA (Obama Administration)have not institutaed any advertising bans, as was misstted. You posting links about NYC school system banning vending and bake sales (though worthy of discussion), does not support that original claim. ITs a Chewbacca defense.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 2:11 PM
this is about applauding childhood obesity now ?
what about the hordes of skinny , hungry , children who go to bed every nite without supper ?
car seats too ? the rules that change yearly ??
nah , what's the use...you see the rock wall , not the slow chipping away until it's gone and you'll say WOW , what's happened ?
-- Posted by Rick** on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 1:48 PM
Childhood obesity has led to the new guidelines.
Car seats? You mean that isn't a Liberal Nanny State? What is the distiction?
Keep posting the wall anology all you want, still doesn't make me wrong.
In fact, post all the anologies and links you want. Still doesn change the fact that the OP was wrong.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 2:15 PM
Grandma... I mean Lumber
Everything is fine. The country is in great shape. We have no debt. We are fee to do as we please and anywhere we please. Go back inside and take a nap, the government won't let Rick and Grandpa tear our wall down.
Oops...... That isn't Rick and grandpa chipping on the wall, it's Obama and Congress.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 2:10 PM
Another straw man tactic.
So you realize I am right, you have to make this about national debt?
Seriously wheels, what does the national debt have to do with discussion?
Chewbacca was a wookie...
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 2:17 PM
i'll need links of verification on this accusation otherwise i'll just consider the post another one of your useless contributions to the Thread .
since you claim to know what i believe , what am i believing right this moment ???
-- Posted by Rick** on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 1:53 PM
Are you serious witht his? You make claims about what I beleive and come back with this?
Well, from this article I gueass you beleive what ever Dug posts.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 2:19 PM
Lumbrg says "This whole thread is about the OP misinterpretation of federal guidelines."
Really? Please explain these:
"There are no guidelines" - wrong.
"You presented no fact to back up your claim" - wrong. I posted the link to the federal web site.
"But still doesn't change the fact that Dug was 100% wrong" - wrong. They are guidelines, they are backed up by FTC docs, WA state does now require lifejackets - 100% wrong? Your delusional.
"I guess name calling is ok for you and Rick" - wrong. You've never yet shown where I called you a name. It isn't there.
"We are discussing national government mandated requirements." - wrong. You are. "We" are discussing Nanny-state issues.
"Second hand church annoucement" - wrong. Reread the post. When I hear it, it is first hand.
"I have yet to read a single fact in this thread that denies a personal freedom." Really? Lifejackets in WA state? Incandescent bulbs gone in 2012? FTC guidelines to limit advertising?
"If the FDA sends out a new food pyramid, I don't whine and complain about it. If the government sets out some suggestions to help curb childhood obesity, I applaud it. I don't overreact." Nice spin move. Throw out something that no one has said or agrees with to make a point? Talk about a straw man.
Since you are a score keeper on "right vs. wrong" looks like you've gotten yourself into a bad position. Look at all the wrong statements you made.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 2:39 PM
i guess i best be stocking my up freezer now , no ?
-- Posted by Rick** on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 1:27 PM
Careful Rick, you have to remeber there are possesion limits enforced by MDC on any game animals you have in your freezer, regardless whether they were killed by you or hit by a semi. If it is a deer, turkey, bobcat or otter it must be checked by a MDC warden and may be awarded to you at his descretion. If it is a domesticated animal you scrape off the road ie; cat, dog, pig, I do not know what laws pertain, so check with your local authorities:)
-- Posted by Joe Dirte on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 2:56 PM
-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 2:39 PM
Dug,
There you go again misreadign things.
As I said, there are guidelines, but nothing that HAS to be followed. How is that wrong?
The link you posted backed up my claim, and did not mention mandatory advertising restrictions as you falsly claimed.
You tried to insult me a couple of different times.
"Second hand church annoucement" - So when you hear it second hand, it automaticly becomes first hand because you heard it first hand? That is just too funny to dispute.
"life jackets" And like I said before, I didn't bother reading after your first comment due to how poorly you worded the first argument.
You brought up the fda and Obama administration, not me.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 3:02 PM
I don't give a **** if you are a conservative, a liberal, a libertarian, or a plain old know nothing! Please explain why the processors and manufacturers of food should not label their products' added ingredients and their percentages?
Folks, we are eating Processed foods and quite possibly some genetically altered.
Its not a matter of politics but the quality of the food we all eat.
-- Posted by voyager on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 3:16 PM
Lumbrgfktr,
The title on this thread "Liberal Nanny State Continues".
-- Posted by Robert* on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 3:37 PM
voyager - I agree 100% - they should label their products added ingredients and their percentages.
lumbrg - a direct quote from you "There are no guidelines". Once you were proved wrong on that you started looking for problems everywhere else.
I insulted you? Please repost the direct quotes. You won't find them. Now your going from "name calling" down to "insulting"? Find it.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 3:47 PM
Another straw man tactic.
So you realize I am right, you have to make this about national debt?
Seriously wheels, what does the national debt have to do with discussion?
Lumber,
No, i do not think you are right, I think you are leftist overall. Nor do I think you are correct. Nothing could be further from my mind. Since you seem to be stuck on the premise that government is not invasive in our lives I was just telling you.... sit back and enjoy everything is fine for you if that is the way you think. Not fine with most of us on here though it appears.
You do not want to take what I said as fact, so be it. Third party yes, from my sister, and I believe her. We are not in a court trial here
The debt has nothing to do with this thread particularly but is a huge part of the overall downfall of our country.
I will give you one more example of overkill by government regulation.
I was in the public bathroom of the nursing home I visited today and posted on the wall by the sink was a set of instructions on washing your hands. Directions 1 thru 9 were detailed instructions on the act of washing your hands. Directions 10 thru 20 were on recognizing when your hands needed washing.
Wonder how much the committee that made that list were paid. My Mommy taught me how to wash my little pinkies by the time I was 3 years old and pretty much explained when they needed washing. Seventy years have passed since then and I have not forgotten how or when.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 7:28 PM
-- Posted by stnmsn8 on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 3:37 PM
And it has to be proved by make incorrect information?
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Wed, Jul 13, 2011, at 4:54 PM
lumbrgfktr
where are the links to back your allegations that you KNOW WHAT I BELIEVE ????...yeah , that's what i thought..
naturally , you are correct and the rest of the posters on this Thread are dead wrong stupid...it's the only logical explaination..
sorry , i'm out of time for incorrigable posters .
-- Posted by Rick** on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 3:42 PM
What a weak comeback.
Please, if you can't handle it, don't dish it out.
You claim to know what I bleive, but rebuttle with this kind of crap?
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Wed, Jul 13, 2011, at 4:55 PM
lumbrg - a direct quote from you "There are no guidelines". Once you were proved wrong on that you started looking for problems everywhere else.
I insulted you? Please repost the direct quotes. You won't find them. Now your going from "name calling" down to "insulting"? Find it.
-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 3:47 PM
I never said you insulted me. I said you tried to insult me.
Again, when referring to "guidlines" i was using it in the context you did. meaning "must be followed" not suggestions.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Wed, Jul 13, 2011, at 4:57 PM
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 7:28 PM
Wrong. 100% wrong. I do think governemnt is to intrusive. Which is why I often agree, or at least respec Shapley the most on here. Shapely can actually make an argument.
In this case, Dug was completley wrong int he opening post. However knowbody will admit because they either want to beleive it, or see it as an attack on the Obama administration.
How does saying non-existant bans promote a liberan nanny state?
I also agree with the National Debt being a big problem. But again, it isn't related. So mentionining it, even Obama's hand in it, does not support Dug's argument.
Now your argument about the hand washing sign is probably a good exampel. My problem is telling what is and what isn't a "liberal Nanny State". Technicly car seat laws are a "liberal nanny State" law. But becasue most of the people on this board agree with it doesn't make it a liberal nanny State?
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Wed, Jul 13, 2011, at 5:11 PM
There's just too much regulating going on and many people are simply tired of it, especially when it becomes silly sounding.
On the other hand, maybe a plethoria of regulations are necessary for some people not intelligent enough to think and reason for themselves.
Question--- Why do we seem to have the most stupid people writing the regulations?
Answer---what would we do with HARVARD GRADUATES?
-- Posted by voyager on Wed, Jul 13, 2011, at 5:34 PM
Lumber,
There are plenty of Nanny State examples out there.
The situation usually starts with a liberal agenda, such as saying, just because a person does not have the power to pay, we pay. This could be healthcare or a host of other situations. So we pass a bill saying just because you cannot pay your doctor bill, we all pay.
Next logical step, you ride a motorcycle without a helmet and scramble your brains in the process because you do not want to wear a helmet, now we should logically have the right to make you wear a helmet because it might save us all money on keeping you from scrambling your brain in an accident.
I do not own or ride a motorcycle. I do not care who does and I do not care if or not they wear a helmet. If they do not see the need to wear a helmet without the nanny government forcing it on them, why should people like me worry about it when they scramble their brains. And why should we have to pay for it either.
I am sick and tired of the government having to tell us what we have to do to protect our silly arses. If we cannot be trained to figure that out for ourselves we may be just too dumb to exist. And maybe, just maybe the herd is in need of thinning anyway. As I have stated before, I am not after the sick, the lame, the mentally challenged. I am talking about the functioning stupid.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Jul 13, 2011, at 5:42 PM
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Jul 13, 2011, at 5:42 PM
Good post. I agree with it.
Plenty of examples of Liberal nanny State? Probably so. But Dug's original point isn't one of them. Which has been my point.
Also, people want to blame "liberals", but all politicians are guilty. For instance, i don't consider our local politicians "liberal", but yet they make "liberal nanny state laws".
o simply calling it liberal while towing a political line that supports actually adds to the problem. So if a conservative passes a ridiculous law, its ok because we will still blame it on "liberals". Who cares if the supreme court eminant domain laws were passed by republican appointed judges? We can just blame it on the liberals?
I am on the fence on bike helmet laws. i agree they shoule have the right to scramble their brains, but I don'w want to pay for theme to be a vegatable for the rest of their lives. So i see the argument either way. The perfect ending for me would be to say that they don't have to wear a helmet and are responsible for any medical care they need.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Thu, Jul 14, 2011, at 11:57 AM
Lumber,
First, of all who said there were any real conservatives left in this country? These nanny laws were passed by the liberals, both Republican and Democrat.
You cannot fix stupid, and they have been trying it for years. They have screwed up our country. We need some personal responsibility for one's own actions brought back to this country. And for Christ's sake people need to quit trying to show a comparison to Bush.... he was no true conservative, he was a liberal light hiding under a moderate label.
And yes I know I am getting off subject.
"Who cares if the supreme court eminant domain laws were passed by republican appointed judges"
These clowns are not supposed to pass laws. They are only supposed to rule on the legality of laws passed by congress and signed by the president. Ideology should stop at the Supreme Courts door and they should rule on the validity of the law, nothing more nothing less. That would be my opinion at least. Presidents have been stacking the deck here far too long.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Jul 14, 2011, at 12:11 PM
lumbrg - you can twist and lie all you want. My original post is exactly 3 examples of a liberal nanny-state. You've been proven wrong a number of times here and you're grasping for straws to restore your pride.
Sorry bud. You can't dig out of this hole.
So eminent domain is a nanny-state law? I seriously don't think you have a clue what nanny state means. There is actually a wiki entry for it. Try it out - read slowly.
Yes - helmet laws and seatbel laws are nanny-state. You might be starting to get it. And Have_Wheels nailed it perfectly. There are liberal democrats and republicans. I can't help it that Obama is now president and his administration is doing a lot of nanny-state stuff.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jul 14, 2011, at 10:49 PM
Stupid is as stupid does, has or will. Can't help thinking if we abolished all liberal laws at one time, how long would it be before we'd hears smebody yelling "There oughta be a law!" concerning something or other.
-- Posted by voyager on Fri, Jul 15, 2011, at 5:09 AM
Keep away from children..this bag is not a toy
And who came up with the idea for your new lawn mower engine to die if you try to back up with the blades engaged?
Why do public buildings require door closers that take excessive force to open and can knock grandma over if she's not out of the way? [I'm told it's a fire code]
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Jul 15, 2011, at 11:19 AM
Old John,
My lawn mower is broke.... sounds like I better fix it rather than buy a new one.
Rick,
I ain't skeered!
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Jul 15, 2011, at 11:57 AM
I wish you all well, I'm not paying for the online and ofen misspelled Missourian. Good Luck All. I can get my news from somewhere else.
-- Posted by interested_citizen on Fri, Jul 15, 2011, at 3:48 PM
Wheels may know something about this: [I may be all wrong] A few years back I helped replace a roof air unit on a rig. The new one had a different kind of freon but I suspected that wasn't why it didn't cool like the old one. Seemed the thermostat would cycle the compressor off just as it was about to get really cool.
At the time I was well aquainted and did some business with an expert HVAC guy that told me government had required the new units to be set to run more enery efficient.
After seeking his advice, I found a semi-tamperproof adjustment screw on the thermostat and problem was solved.
Now how many suits and how much time and money was involved in making this regulation that ultimately causes manufacturers to install two roof units when rigs previously had one?
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Jul 15, 2011, at 6:19 PM
I had a old timer tell me about 15 years ago that we would see the day that when you left your City you reside in you would have to go through a check point and when you return you would do the same. At that time I didn't believe the old man but today I believe the old fellow is going to be right on his assessment. I never seen the like of local, State and Federal government regulations like we have had the past three years.
-- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Fri, Jul 15, 2011, at 6:23 PM
Swamp, I made that prediction tounge in cheek about the same time but regarding state lines.
There will come a time when we can't have any chance of illegal commerce crossing state lines.
It may be agricultural threats of pests or a whole array of things to be monintored.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Jul 15, 2011, at 7:11 PM
Old John,
Re, your thermostat adjustment. You could have changed the differential on the thermostat, that is the cut-on and cut-off points.... or you may have changed the actual setting of the thermostat, where when you have it set for 75 degrees say, it is now actually going down to 70 degrees before turning off.
Most of the changes the government had a hand in had to do with how much heating or cooling could be attained on a given amount of energy. Years ago we spoke of EER or energy efficiency ratios, then it became SEER or Seasonal energy efficiency ratios. Basically it was how many BTU's of cooling effect did you get for each watt of electricity used. Somertimes manufacturers actually added time delays to keep the fan running on an air conditioner for a given length of time after the compressor was cycled off. Idea was to blow the last bit of refrigerated air out of the duct system before the fan was stopped. On furnaces they delivered more air per btu of output to get maximum heat transfer from the furnace heat excanger surface and improve their ratings. And this caused complaints from customers of the new furnace not blowing as hot as the old one and that the new one created drafts. And they were correct in both cases, but the efficency was better.
Refrigerants were changed because of cfc's and theoretically destroying the ozone layer. And the value in that is still debatable in my mind. But it did do one thing for consumers.... it raised their prices for both equipment and service, which left some hot under the collar.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Jul 15, 2011, at 9:40 PM
I wish you all well, I'm not paying for the online and ofen misspelled Missourian. Good Luck All. I can get my news from somewhere else.
-- Posted by interested_citizen on Fri, Jul 15, 2011, at 3:48 PM
Bye.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, Jul 15, 2011, at 9:48 PM
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Jul 15, 2011, at 10:01 PM
Swampeast and Old John,
There may be a solution to the checkpoints; learn Spanish and get a good tan. You will be allowed to bypass those same checkpoints!
-- Posted by Robert* on Fri, Jul 15, 2011, at 10:56 PM
Regret, I think that link was posted before, however it seems to have more relevance now.
Stnmsn8, How about a towel on my head or a turbine?
If it comes to a revolt against the central government control, would states reaction be such to enact border check points?
Makes a good subject for a science fiction movie, at least.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Jul 15, 2011, at 11:28 PM
Wheels, Not counting the replacement of the furnace, the first time I ever called for outside help to fix something at home was when a John Deere carrying a distracted operater bumped my AC condenser with enough force to cause a leak.
I was convinced to have the complete system replaced and my electric bill was reduced enough to pay for the thing in two and half years and for the first time the house stayed cool the way it should.
So I'm not sure if government nanny state had to do with that or not.
Kinda like the light bulb debate. I like the new light bulbs but don't like the idea of government telling me what I can have.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Jul 15, 2011, at 11:53 PM
Old John,
Yes the government had something to do with the higher efficiency of your new air conditioner. The higher efficiencies were mandated.
Usually though the savings are not that dramatic that you would save enough to pay for it in such a short time. Sometimes the replacement is put in correctly whereas the original never was. That has a lot to do with the overall efficiency and overall comfort level of the installation.
Same thing applies to most purchases. One of the things I remembered best from building my last home. I wanted a stone fireplace and some stone work on the outside of the home and since it was going to be expensive I wanted a good job. I was recomended to use a stone contractor and when I asked him for an estimate, I asked to see some of his work before signing his contract. He told me to go look at a subdivision where he had the contract for all of the homes, and I still remember his words. Make sure you look at the subdivision on the right side of the street going south, there is another one on the left and the contractor doing that work had some rocks so he piled them up. I looked, I signed the contract and I was never more happy with a decision on a contractor.
Has nothing to do with your air conditioner other than the overall satisfaction from a quality contractor is not always because his work was the lowest initial cost.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Jul 16, 2011, at 12:43 AM
Old John,
A side note. I am sure had the government caused the proper instructions to have been issued with the John Deere and had mandated a collision avoidance system to have been installed on it to begin with you could have still been using your original air conditioner. ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Jul 16, 2011, at 12:48 AM
With that.......good night!
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Jul 16, 2011, at 12:49 AM
Insulting? Shame? How so?
-- Posted by voyager on Sat, Jul 16, 2011, at 7:46 AM
Theorist - a record!!! Two posts close together. Usually you make a one-post hit and then hide for weeks.
Where is the word ignorant in any post? Nowhere. You liberals continually make up stuff that isn't there. My lines were direct cut and pastes from lumbrgs. If you would have read the posts above you would see that it "doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out." Please don't be insulted by your own post.
I'll look for your response to this around August.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sat, Jul 16, 2011, at 9:02 AM
And I suppose the slam is supposed to be Dug and maybe some of the other posters do not work???
Better work on your insulting and offensive tactics yourself Theorist before you start trying to "EDUCATE" others on offensive. What arrogance.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Jul 16, 2011, at 11:14 AM
Rick,
What do you want to bet he had a Tee Time or two this weekend.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Jul 16, 2011, at 12:45 PM
Theorist, Congradulations, you still have a job. A lot of people don't and won't due to the policies and political philosophy of your Obama and Company.
-- Posted by voyager on Sat, Jul 16, 2011, at 2:37 PM
Theorist, I believe you told me a while back you were working three jobs.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Jul 16, 2011, at 3:07 PM
Theorist - quick question. A serious question - I like to learn from others.
You have a job. You're a liberal. Do you really feel like paying more taxes? Our debt is around $XX,XXX per person (or something like that). Does it bother you or do you believe it's not really that significant yet. I just want to understand exactly how liberals feel about increasing the debt limit, raising taxes, cutting spending. Is there something we could agree on? How do YOU think we should approach this problem? Or is it even a problem?
I know that's not what this thread is about. Sorry.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sat, Jul 16, 2011, at 7:44 PM
I still have trouble understanding all the great budget years under the Clinton administration - proclamations of balanced budgets and surpluses and such. Previously posed the question about the windfall of the Internet boom during that time and the subsequent bust at the end, and then present this trend of national debt for consideration - once again shamelessly cut-n-pasted from http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm4
FYenddate_DollarAmount
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38
One quick-n-dirty approach I've come up with - a 10% change across the board - the 35% tax bracket goes to 38.5%, the 10% bracket goes to 11%, all bracket thresholds moved up by 10%. That's the revenue part - all those paying in suffer equally, percentage-wise, with consideration for the lower income earners.
In a warped sense of balance - all unearned benefits decrease by 10% - Medicaid, welfare, food stamps (or whatever that nifty card is referred to as now), earned income credits, etc. That's the expense part - all those receiving suffer equally, percentage-wise.
Perhaps not feasible, and certainly just winging it - but the national debt was increased last year at a rate of $4,000 per person, and in the words of that wise philosopher, Forrest Gump, "I ain't seen a nickel of that money". :-)
-- Posted by fxpwt on Sat, Jul 16, 2011, at 8:30 PM
I still have trouble understanding all the great budget years under the Clinton administration
-- Posted by fxpwt on Sat, Jul 16, 2011, at 8:30 PM
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sat, Jul 16, 2011, at 9:31 PM
Most of what was "great" in the Clinton years is the result of constant liberal rhetoric, so much so that if you want to have a conversation with a liberal, you have to let him think it true. After a while the "consensus" [remember that arguement?]is that the rhetoric is accepted and thus true.
Cinton never did anything or supported anything good for the economy. He was forced to see the political advantage of going along with the republicans and taking credit for it himself.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Jul 16, 2011, at 11:56 PM
Same way as Obama will but he still has left a mess in his wake.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Jul 17, 2011, at 12:24 AM
Correction Regret. Don't you mean disaster in his wake?
-- Posted by voyager on Sun, Jul 17, 2011, at 7:42 AM
Theorist, do you think the Obama Administration's use of funds is misuse?
-- Posted by voyager on Sun, Jul 17, 2011, at 9:34 AM
"Quick answer...1. I am not a liberal."
"That being said, I work multiple jobs to take care of my family and pay what I owe."
-- Posted by Theorist on Sun, Jul 17, 2011, at 7:53 AM
Theorist,
You are not a liberal and the Pope is not a Catholic!
Don't you feel badly about taking more than one job when so many have none? As you once asked me.... is that "Need" or is that "Greed"?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Jul 17, 2011, at 10:40 AM
Theorist,
Referring to point 2 in your posting:
President Obama has stated that he cannot guarantee social security checks will be sent out without extending the debt ceiling.
Social security is not part of the general fund and that the Social Security trustees (made up of Secretary of Treasury, Secretary of Labor, and Secretary of Health and Human Services) has stated that the social security trust fund has the assets to cover social security benefits until the year 2035.
Would it not be misuse of funds if the President, Secretary of Treasury, or anyone else used these funds to pay anything other than social security benefits?
Would the threat not to pay social security benefits for the month of August not qualify as scare tactics?
-- Posted by Robert* on Sun, Jul 17, 2011, at 10:52 AM
Precisely stnmsn8! Should Obama be so improvident to withhold the checks, he might as well kiss re-election goodbye. He would do well to remember the number of people drawing Social Security. They are voters, and they WILL vote!
-- Posted by voyager on Sun, Jul 17, 2011, at 11:30 AM
OMG Wheels, Don' tell me the Pope has gone Anglican!
-- Posted by voyager on Sun, Jul 17, 2011, at 11:37 AM
Voyager,
Beginning to look that way.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Jul 17, 2011, at 11:40 AM
How many on here are willing to forgo their checks this month to help the economy? I don't think it is a scare tactic, but an attempt to grab the reins on a run away horse.
-- Posted by Theorist on Sun, Jul 17, 2011, at 1:39 PM
Do you really believe they will not get their checks?
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Jul 17, 2011, at 2:16 PM
"How many on here are willing to forgo their checks this month to help the economy?"
Not so long as King Obama and his household are spending like drunken sailers. I know, I know.... I shouldn't give sailers a bad name.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Jul 17, 2011, at 2:32 PM
Theorist,
The state of social security is a matter of public record. The social security trustees, appointed by the President, are the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services. They are required to make a yearly report on the soundness of the Social Security program.
According to this year's report, social security is financially sound until 2036. In other words, the money is there in the 'lock box' to pay benefits.
I will repeat the questions;
1. Would it not be a misuse of funds if President Obama, Treasury Secretary Geithner, or anyone else approved the use of these funds to pay anything besides Social Security? After all Social Security funds are not a part of the general fund.
2. Would not the implied threat to withhold payment of Social Security benefits count as scare tactics intended to cause the uninformed to support the President in this debt ceiling discussion?
Don't try to duck the question by changing the subject!
-- Posted by Robert* on Sun, Jul 17, 2011, at 3:59 PM
Is the phrase "Death Panels" a scare tactic?
-- Posted by howdydoody on Sun, Jul 17, 2011, at 5:21 PM
Howdy
There will be death panels.
What do you think the Independent Payment Advisory Board is? Here ya go......
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Jul 17, 2011, at 6:50 PM
Now that you brought it up Howdy... I don't think as a senor that I will like the "Death Panels".
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Jul 17, 2011, at 7:17 PM
Theorist - thanks for the response. You did answer my questions. A couple more?
"I am a United States Citizen who votes for the person I feel is best suited for the position" - do you believe that Barack Obama is best suited for the position? Again, sincerely - just asking. You didn't really state that, just curious if you still believe that.
Re: taxes and spending. Should NPR and public television be funded by taxpayers? I think absolutely not. What do you think?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Jul 17, 2011, at 7:18 PM
Wheels, this is a strange world indeed! Social Security beneficiaries not getting their monthly stipend. Theorist having to work 3 jobs just to make ends meet. And just thinking of the Pope becoming the Archbishop of Canterbury! The earth is shaking under my feet. Who'da thunk it?
-- Posted by voyager on Sun, Jul 17, 2011, at 10:50 PM
...Barack Obama is best suited for the position?
I voted for Reagan partly because of his suit. His were taylor made with wider lapels in the same fashion as James Cagney's. He and Nancy, I thought always made a fine looking couple as did both Bush 1st couples. Of course John and Jackie set the standard for best suited. :)
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Jul 17, 2011, at 11:01 PM
Voyager,
As Ann Landers would say.... we need to seek counseling!
Me... maybe especially so, I am having mental conflicts over, "Need","Greed" and "Pure Intentions". Seems the "pure" thing for one is not the same as it is for others.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Jul 17, 2011, at 11:06 PM
Old John,
Right now I would settle for someone in Arkansas Serge..... so long as he was a leader with common sense.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Jul 17, 2011, at 11:08 PM
Wheels, I worked tonight and for some reason felt better than usual, so I made a point to do my job and do a little extra to help others do theirs.
Great feeling! And like you theorist has me confused as to if that was need, greed or pure! ;) :)
I heard someone say "Well a lot of things aren't my job, but sometimes they wouldn't get done if I didn't do them".
It was a rare good day at work.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Jul 17, 2011, at 11:29 PM
Old John,
You always feel better when you do something you do not have to do. At least I think so.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Jul 18, 2011, at 12:42 AM
Wheels, I've Learned the things you never forget are the things you didn't have to do and shouldn't have done.
What's an Arkansas Serge?
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Jul 18, 2011, at 12:53 AM
Why Old John, you have probably worn them. Bibb Overalls... as in a Blue Serge Suit.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Jul 18, 2011, at 12:57 AM
stnmsn8
Social Security funds are a part of the general fund, and have always been so. See 'Helvering v. Davis' (1937), in which the Supreme Court ruled:
"The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way"
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 18, 2011, at 8:41 AM
OK, y'all, Suit yourself!
-- Posted by voyager on Mon, Jul 18, 2011, at 8:42 AM
Social Security is the biggest Ponzi Scheme ever devised in this country. Makes old Bernie M. look like a rank amateur.
Remember all of the lock box political rhetoric when George W. Bush and Al Gore were running for President? Were these two candidates really knowledgable on the subject, or did they allow themselves to be duped by the preceding generations of thieves in Washington like most Americans did?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Jul 18, 2011, at 10:29 AM
Wheels,
I think a lot of politicians go to Washington thinking that Social Security can be put in a 'lock box'. I don't think they're lying about it, I just think they don't know better. After all, they've heard the same lies as we have all their lives, too.
When you think about it, however, what sensed does it make to lock the money away? When you put money in the bank, they don't put it in the safe and leave it there, and then pay you interest for letting them keep it in their safe. They'd go broke in a hurry if they did. They take the money they're paying you a pittance for lending them and they lend it to other people, with the intent of earning more in interest on it than they have to pay you in turn. That's how they survive.
By the same token, what is the point of 'locking up' Social Security funds? They're government dollars, if the government just needed the paper money, they could print it as needed and not waste valuable vault space storing it. Nor can they afford to take the monies recieved over the years and pay out the levels disbursed if they had to rely only what was paid in before. The money has to be 'invested' in order for it to 'grow'.
Now, the government can't go buying trillions of dollars of stocks and bonds. That would put them as the controlling interest in many corporations, unduly influence competition, and stifle private enterprise. Instead, they are supposed to 'invest' the monies in promoting the general welfare in a manner that promotes GDP growth. By doing so, GDP growth leads to more tax revenue and, therefore, a greater ability to repay those funds as they are needed.
The problem, as I see it, is that we've lost an understanding of what promotes general welfare, and what hampers it. We've begun to pay out so much of our 'investment' in individual welfare and restrictive legislation that our infrastructure is crumbling, industry is being hamstrung, and GDP growth is failing to keep up with the growth in demands for entitlement spending.
While I believe the Republicans have a better grip on what promotes industry and, therefore, GDP growth than the Democrats, I think even they do not fully grasp the economics of governmental investment and spending. It is unfortunate that those in charge of the checquebook do not comprehend how that tool is supposed to be used. Mr. Boehner understands it much better than did Ms. Pelosi, but even he does not exhibit a thorough understanding of the tool he's entrusted to employ.
Our toolshed is inefficient and unorganized. We have good tools, but they are not being employed or, where they are, they are not being employed properly. We need to straighten up the toolshed and put the tools to proper use. The Democrats, however, think we just need to buy more tools.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 18, 2011, at 10:48 AM
Shapley,
I do not disagree with your explanation. Maybe these dumbarses we send to Washington need to pass a civics test along with maybe one in basic finance before their name is allowed on the ballot.
Too much money spent on Social Programs with little regard to the "General Welfare" of the country as a whole in my opinion.
Starting at the top, you cannot elect someone to the position of President of the United States with the lack of qualifications posessed by the current office holder and not expect consequences. I am sick and tired of politicians like Obama and Clinton, who cannot and could not make a decision until the political winds are/were tested for their personal political well being rather than that of the nation.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Jul 18, 2011, at 11:11 AM
While there is no question that President Clinton was influenced by the polls, and tried hard to influence the polls, I think that he had a good understanding of economics as well as politics.
I've noted before that he cut taxes on the wealthy (both with the repeal of the disastrous 'Luxury Tax' in 1993 and with the passage of the 1997 tax relief bill, which preceded the 'historic surpluses'. Even so, he used his political acumen to keep the focus on the tax cuts rather than the increases, which kept the liberal base happy.
I do not believe that President Obama has such either the economic nor the political acumen to achieve such results. He is trying the opposite of President Clinton - trying to pretend to cooperate with conservatives (lip service to spending cuts) while pressing for liberal objectives (tax increases). I do not see him as being capable of working with the Republicans prvately, even as he excoriates them publicly, in the Clintonian manner. Methinks he has taken the wrong lesson from the Clinton presidency, if he took any lesson from it at all.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 18, 2011, at 11:30 AM
I think it was Johnson that combined SS into the general fund as far as counting the monies the government held. That was to allow numbers that supported his spening on two wars, Poverty and Vietnam. Spending big money on poverty is as effective as spending big money on education, but no lesson has been learned there.
The "lock Box" rhetoric, if I remember correctly, came about during the same thing we here now - democrats threatening old folks with loss of SS if they voted republican.
I lost my respect for Emerson when she started mouthing about the "Lock Box".
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Jul 18, 2011, at 11:45 AM
Old John,
No, President Johnson is often blamed for it, but all he did was report it accurately. As I noted above, the Supreme Court acknowledged in 1937 that the funds went into the general fund and ruled, because of that, the programme was constitutional. If the 'lock box' actually existed, the programme would not have met their criteria for constitutionality (i.e., an extension of the general taxation powers of the federal government).
President Johnson created Medicare and Medicaid, and included them as extensions of the Social Security programme. This is the reason he is often blamed for destroying the 'lock box', even though the reality is such a box never really existed.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 18, 2011, at 11:56 AM
Shapley, Thanks for pointing that out. I think I was mixing the hot air recollections with the facts.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Jul 18, 2011, at 12:01 PM
Theorist,
If President George W. Bush were following the polls, he would have vacated the war in Iraq and never implemented the 'surge' which turned the war around. Harry Reid's statement that 'the war is lost' would have been true. President Bush showed leadership in bucking the polls and standing his ground.
President George H.W. Bush, on the other hand, followed the polls and raised taxes, despite his pledge not to do so. As a result, he became a one-term President.
President Reagan, like President Clinton, had the character required to have the polls follow him.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 18, 2011, at 12:27 PM
Theorist,
None quite so transparent as thee!
I do not look upon Bush as being a poll watcher. I watched Bush the 2nd being interviewed a number of times and it appeared to me that he cared little what people thought. He did what he thought was the right thing, many times going against popular opinion. I do not agree with a lot of what he did, especially in his 2nd term... and he spent entirely too much money, but he was not a poll watcher obviously.
Clinton, did watch the polls and SH obviously has a higher opinion of him than I do. He was a career politician and I do not hold a high opinion of the same. Obama is powerless to make a decision without being backed into a corner where he has no alternative.
Anything past Clinton is far too fuzzy for me to comment on. I was entirely consumed with my own business and it's related problems.
As far as polling the people and totally following their wishes... doesn't work well, they are not as informed for making decisions as our top leaders are.... or at least should be. That is why we need strong leaders, not the milktoast variety we have now. If you think the general populace is so well informed that they know the right decision to make on all subjects, just take a look at our last presidential election and look what this "informed" public gave us.
To directly refute your contention that Obama was better prepared to be president than McCain, that is laughable. The man never did anything of any consequence until what he considers was his coronation. I did not like McCain in either of the last two elections, but he was the best of the worst. We need a seasoned leader and we got a wimp.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Jul 18, 2011, at 1:15 PM
Theorist,
Just ran aross this comic that pretty much sums up the election process.
This could have been Moe and Curley
Curley: Shouldn't voters have to pass an intelligence test?
Moe: You don't have to be intelligent to vote.
Curley: What if there are more stupid people than intelligent people?
Moe: Then the Democrat wins!
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Jul 18, 2011, at 1:48 PM
Wow wheels...you really think you are smart don't you? You know what they say about people who have big egos don't you? They are compensating....just sayin....
-- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Jul 18, 2011, at 3:15 PM
Nope... not at all Theorist. Is that the best comeback you have? When you have no argument you instead attack the person. How very small of you. Sad isn't it?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Jul 18, 2011, at 3:57 PM
Temper, Temper Theorist.... I didn't call anybody anything. I told you it was a comic that I had just seen. I could not post the graffic. Just thought it was funny. But hey.... if the shoe fits, go ahead and wear it.
It sounds more like I am the one that hit the nerve. Tee Hee! ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Jul 18, 2011, at 5:09 PM
The one good thing about a train is it has to follow the tracks. Otherwise, run off the tracks and wreck.
-- Posted by voyager on Tue, Jul 19, 2011, at 8:36 AM
Everyone seems to get perverse pleasure from wrecks (for example NASCAR). We seem to have a cat bird seat for this one.
-- Posted by Robert* on Tue, Jul 19, 2011, at 8:56 AM
Clinton success was that he was more closely aligned with the population, which I think you get with southern democrats.
Fiscaly conservative and beleifs more aligned with the general population.
What gets the dems in trouble is they ignore Clinton's success and keep going overboard with their candidates.
What gets alot of repubs in trouble is that they try say they are fiscally conservative, but then show otherwise. They aslo say they are about limited government intrution, but then expand governments roll.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Wed, Jul 20, 2011, at 10:34 AM
Menu
In the news today are three more examples of the nanny state culture we have today.
1) The FTC, FDA and USDA (Obama Administration) all teamed up with new food guidelines that must be adhered to. If you don't comply then you can't advertise anywhere that a child may see your ad - NASCAR, billboards, commercials, restaurant menus, etc. Included in the list are oatmeal, Frosted Flakes, fruit juice, milk, girl scout cookies and 1000's of other foods that don't meet their fat/sugar guidelines. All in the name of childhood obesity. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44343
2) New anti-smoking pics will now be put on cigarette packs to deter smoking. I'm sure they'll do an excellent job of stopping people (heavy sarcasm). People have ALWAYS known that smoking is not good for your lungs yet we all know people that have smoked and lived to 90.
3) King county in WA state (Seattle) just passed an ordinance requiring everyone to wear a life vest when swimming on a river - no exceptions for skill/age/anything. http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/King-Co-requires-life-vests-for-swimmers-...
Just to protest I think I'll float down Current River this weekend in an inner tube with no jacket munching on Frosted Flakes while I smoke a cigarette. When will they stop?
Replies (183)