Congressman to Acting Speaker: "This is why the people threw you out of power"

• believer

  

  BGFalcons82;583635 wrote:I would say that you have the "compromise" or "moderate" solutions listed. These appear fair and reasonable to a lot of Americans. They allow for some reward and there is some punishment to be paid in the form of larger confiscation of hard earned property (in these cases, money).
  
  My argument goes to the core....why are Four Loko, incandescent bulbs, Happy Meals, transfats, etc. taxed at all? What right does any government have to tell people what they can have as long as the products are relatively safe for normal consumption? I suppose the arguments from the tree-huggers is that incandescent bulbs lead to global warming yadda yadda yadda...but that is unproven. Hell, the replacement bulbs have mercury in them...a known carcinogen and poison. How are they safer than a hot wire burning in an inert gas? But I digress. Why does government have to regulate, tax, and control so much? Who gave them the power and authority? If I want to eat a Happy Meal or not carry health insurance, then I should be able to do so without some bureaucrat telling me what to do.

  Great points. This lies at the heart of my disdain for Big Government intervention, interference, control, and taxation of every aspect of our lives. I'm not opposed to reasonable government oversight and regulation, but Reagan got it right when he said, "Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves."
• I Wear Pants

  CenterBHSFan;583611 wrote:Pants, you support government bullying through taxation?

  No, I can see where taxes can and are abused but I am not generally opposed to taxes on items which are probably better off not being used a lot.
• I Wear Pants

  BGFalcons82;583635 wrote:I would say that you have the "compromise" or "moderate" solutions listed. These appear fair and reasonable to a lot of Americans. They allow for some reward and there is some punishment to be paid in the form of larger confiscation of hard earned property (in these cases, money).
  
  My argument goes to the core....why are Four Loko, incandescent bulbs, Happy Meals, transfats, etc. taxed at all? What right does any government have to tell people what they can have as long as the products are relatively safe for normal consumption? I suppose the arguments from the tree-huggers is that incandescent bulbs lead to global warming yadda yadda yadda...but that is unproven. Hell, the replacement bulbs have mercury in them...a known carcinogen and poison. How are they safer than a hot wire burning in an inert gas? But I digress. Why does government have to regulate, tax, and control so much? Who gave them the power and authority? If I want to eat a Happy Meal or not carry health insurance, then I should be able to do so without some bureaucrat telling me what to do.

  It isn't that the CFLs are safer, the argument for them is that they safe energy.
  
  But anyway, I agree completely about the happy meal. That's an example of this type of thing gone way too far. I'm not even for taxing fast food more than other food because I think that steps over the bounds as well. (Although perhaps you should have to carry health insurance to be able to eat fast food. )
  
  I think there is a balance to be had in this. There are ways to go about it reasonably without getting into the "some dude in DC telling me what to eat/buy/etc" territory.
  
  I hate unreasonable oversight, regulations, and interventions as much as anyone because they just give fuel to the people who would have no regulations at all. Neither scenario is particularly good.
• BoatShoes

  BGFalcons82;583635 wrote: Why does government have to regulate, tax, and control so much? Who gave them the power and authority? If I want to eat a Happy Meal or not carry health insurance, then I should be able to do so without some bureaucrat telling me what to do.

  
  1. The People have that power because reading the text of the Constitution as it would have been understood to reasonable Americans in 1787 grants the People that power.
  
  2. John Stuart Mill articulated the classical libertarian principle for limited government that laws are only justified in the event they prevent the harm of other free and equal individuals. In our modern and complex society we can reasonably predict the chain of causation as to how you eating too many happy meals might actually burden and harm other citizens privy to our social contract. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do. Sincerely I'm not. But, the point is that it's not so outrageous that it's completely off the table. This is a complex integrated society wherein free and equal person with different habits and proclivities must cooperate together over time. We're not survivalist farmers off in the wilderness minding our own affairs.
• BGFalcons82

  

  BoatShoes;583730 wrote:1. The People have that power because reading the text of the Constitution as it would have been understood to reasonable Americans in 1787 grants the People that power.

  
  Where? What clause or Amendment allows the federal government to tell me what to eat, what to drive, what insurance to carry (if any), what time to go to bed, how much to exercise, and how to live my life? OK, that's a bit of a rant there, but, the Constitution and Amendments were meant to limit governmental control. Hell..they were trying to rid themselves of a tyrannical government...why in God's name would they create something they hated?
  
  I know cars, planes and automobiles didn't exist in the 18th century, but there is nothing in the founding documents that gives the federal government the right to control our lives. Nothing. It isn't there...except for some convoluted twisting of the fucking "commerce clause" which seems to be the heart of Progressivism and statism. If someone were to circulate an Amendment to remove this misused clause, I'd help 100% in removing it.
  
  Contrary to what you might think, I am for government to do what they're supposed to do. I am not a pure libertarian advocating no laws. I happen to think our founders tasted tyranny, didn't like it, put their lives and their families lives on the line to defeat it, and would spin in their graves if they saw what our federal government has turned it into being. I think this group of men experienced what was wrong and endeavored to make sure it never repeated itself. We should listen to their words today.
• believer

  

  BGFalcons82;583878 wrote:Where? What clause or Amendment allows the federal government to tell me what to eat, what to drive, what insurance to carry (if any), what time to go to bed, how much to exercise, and how to live my life? OK, that's a bit of a rant there, but, the Constitution and Amendments were meant to limit governmental control. Hell..they were trying to rid themselves of a tyrannical government...why in God's name would they create something they hated?
  
  I know cars, planes and automobiles didn't exist in the 18th century, but there is nothing in the founding documents that gives the federal government the right to control our lives. Nothing. It isn't there...except for some convoluted twisting of the fucking "commerce clause" which seems to be the heart of Progressivism and statism. If someone were to circulate an Amendment to remove this misused clause, I'd help 100% in removing it.
  
  Contrary to what you might think, I am for government to do what they're supposed to do. I am not a pure libertarian advocating no laws. I happen to think our founders tasted tyranny, didn't like it, put their lives and their families lives on the line to defeat it, and would spin in their graves if they saw what our federal government has turned it into being. I think this group of men experienced what was wrong and endeavored to make sure it never repeated itself. We should listen to their words today.

  Preach it, BG, preach it brother!
• I Wear Pants

  BGFalcons82;583878 wrote:Where? What clause or Amendment allows the federal government to tell me what to eat, what to drive, what insurance to carry (if any), what time to go to bed, how much to exercise, and how to live my life? OK, that's a bit of a rant there, but, the Constitution and Amendments were meant to limit governmental control. Hell..they were trying to rid themselves of a tyrannical government...why in God's name would they create something they hated?
  
  I know cars, planes and automobiles didn't exist in the 18th century, but there is nothing in the founding documents that gives the federal government the right to control our lives. Nothing. It isn't there...except for some convoluted twisting of the fucking "commerce clause" which seems to be the heart of Progressivism and statism. If someone were to circulate an Amendment to remove this misused clause, I'd help 100% in removing it.
  
  Contrary to what you might think, I am for government to do what they're supposed to do. I am not a pure libertarian advocating no laws. I happen to think our founders tasted tyranny, didn't like it, put their lives and their families lives on the line to defeat it, and would spin in their graves if they saw what our federal government has turned it into being. I think this group of men experienced what was wrong and endeavored to make sure it never repeated itself. We should listen to their words today.

  How does the federal government tell you what to eat?
• believer

  

  I Wear Pants;583925 wrote:How does the federal government tell you what to eat?

  Good grief, Pants. Didn't you read his, " OK, that's a bit of a rant there,..." comment? It's called sarcasm to drive home the point.
  
  But technically, the Feds have their fingers in EVERYTHING including the food we eat. Just sayin'.....
• BGFalcons82

  

  I Wear Pants;583665 wrote:It isn't that the CFLs are safer, the argument for them is that they safe energy.

  
  That makes no sense then to have mercury-filled bulbs replace inert ones. We've got government programs and OSHA regs to deal with lead paint that has been encapsulated on walls for close to 35 years, but mercury is just fine and dandy to use? Do they last longer? Bullbutter...we go through them much faster than they advertise. The point is...I have lost the freedom to choose what I want to put in my home. The government has decided for me because they are soooo smart and know soooo much more than I do.
• I Wear Pants

  I did not read that. Had I read that I wouldn't have made the comment. Please refer to my earlier comment that stated I have terrible reading comprehension.
• I Wear Pants

  BGFalcons82;583946 wrote:That makes no sense then to have mercury-filled bulbs replace inert ones. We've got government programs and OSHA regs to deal with lead paint that has been encapsulated on walls for close to 35 years, but mercury is just fine and dandy to use? Do they last longer? Bullbutter...we go through them much faster than they advertise. The point is...I have lost the freedom to choose what I want to put in my home. The government has decided for me because they are soooo smart and know soooo much more than I do.

  They do last longer. And you can still use incandescents.
• BGFalcons82

  

  I Wear Pants;583925 wrote:How does the federal government tell you what to eat?

  
  Yes, believer is right, but there is also this website that proclaims a love for the government controlling our eating habits - http://www.bantransfats.com/
  
  Listen...I'm not sticking up for fatty foods and obesity. My point is that if somebody wants to eat a hamburger and fries loaded with transfats, then they should be allowed to put it in their body. If that's how people choose to live, then it should be NOBODY'S business what they do with their lives. OMG....here comes the ObamaKare argument. Uncle Sam is NOT my keeper.....I am. If I want to live my life peacefully and not harm others, then why can't I? If we can't be allowed to do so, then maybe we need a divorce to separate those that want to be free from those that want to control the free?
• believer

  

  BGFalcons82;583969 wrote:Yes, believer is right, but there is also this website that proclaims a love for the government controlling our eating habits - http://www.bantransfats.com/
  
  Listen...I'm not sticking up for fatty foods and obesity. My point is that if somebody wants to eat a hamburger and fries loaded with transfats, then they should be allowed to put it in their body. If that's how people choose to live, then it should be NOBODY'S business what they do with their lives. OMG....here comes the ObamaKare argument. Uncle Sam is NOT my keeper.....I am. If I want to live my life peacefully and not harm others, then why can't I? If we can't be allowed to do so, then maybe we need a divorce to separate those that want to be free from those that want to control the free?

  Dude...you are in the groove tonight and I'm liking it! lol
• I Wear Pants

  I agree with you there.
  
  Disgourage the consumption of that kind of food through education programs and such but banning it is pretty ridiculous.
• BGFalcons82

  

  I Wear Pants;583949 wrote:They do last longer. And you can still use incandescents.

  
  So lasting longer trumps people breaking them and releasing poisonous gas into their homes? I'm in the construction industry. I'm currently working on a project that calls for demolition of an existing building that has lead paint on the walls. Do you know that we have to pay thousands of dollars in order to abate the lead from the structure that we are planning to destroy? WTF? But it is the law and OSHA is serious about lead. Shouldn't they be just as concerned with mercury that comes in an easy-to-break thinwall glass tube? You know the answer. Yep, I can use incandescents for another year...and then they aren't going to be allowed to be sold anymore...just like Cuban cigars. Can you imagine being rung up on charges..."what was your crime?....I'm in here for buying Edison-style light bulbs" Sad.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  BGFalcons82;583346 wrote:Strong leaders have a vision, a driving will to accomplish their vision, the ability to communicate clearly, they are honest and tell the brutal truth, they are very charismatic, and they have the inate ability to create other leaders within their ranks to amplify and spread their vision. This doesn't sound like someone who walks down the middle of the road. Lugar and Hagel are good soldiers, but they're not strong leaders.
  
  Going back to my question to ptown....I agree the 60's and early 70's, from JFK's murder to the end of Nixon's regime were traumatic times. Our nation was indeed torn apart by tangible definable events. From the cold war with an enemy of freedom to racism across the land, we had to resolve very serious issues. Today's issues aren't as clearly defined as who among us clearly understands the financial industry, TARP, Quantitative Easing 1 & 2, and "stimulus"?
  
  We have the most volatile economic issues of our lifetimes right in front of us and there are 2 very clear paths to take. We either turn over all control of the economy to government that can't even run a post office, or we return to what made us great, live within our means, and let the individual prosper, not the state. We have been traveling down the government-controlled economy path for so long that it is extremely unlikely we'll ever get off of it now...so that leaves us at a crossroads between those that fear the future, love security, hate risk, and want "social justice" and those that love America for the opportunities it provides, the freedom it allows, and the right to be rewarded for risks taken. I don't see how anyone anywhere at anytime can sew us back together.

  
  I agree we need strong moderate leaders. I see them rising up, especially in my generation.
  
  I would also still say the time between the 60s and 70s were just a chaotic time, with the threat of nuclear war and the society even more torn than now. We made it through it though. During the 19th century, we made it with slavery for 80 years and kept the country together. During, the late 19th century, we survived boom and busts that were larger compared to today, and we made it. This is America, and we will be fine. The doom and gloom saying this is the worst this or that and that we have to either choose left or right is not helping. It does nothing to help solve the major issues.
  
  I also disagree that this government is taking over the economy. If you look at Wall Street and its boom, that contradicts your statements. The highest companies are booming and the staple of the government takeover, GM, is starting to return to private holders, slowly. Also, businesses like Ford are booming. How do you explain that?
  
  I agree somewhat that we need to reform how we govern, but I disagree with the extreme position of complete removal of government. In today's 21st century, government is needed in limited ways, but I would argue we need to take a practical approach on how to reduce the role of government in our lives. That reduction to me will take a generation, not overnight.
  
  Finally, again, I disagree with the doom and gloom tone and language. This is America, we lived with threat of nuclear war for 50 years and worse economic times. We will survive. It will just take pragmatic leadership that right now, neither side has. But, I've seen some smart ass people of my generation that are rising up the ranks that gives me hope.
• I Wear Pants

  They aren't illegal though. And they can still be sold if I remember correctly the bill or regulation or whatever simply said the the incandescents had to be x efficient.
  
  Are you saying we shouldn't be serious about lead?
  
  And lead paint chips are far more dangerous than the miniscule amount of mercury in CFL bulbs. And shouldn't we also be terrified of any flourescent lighting then? They work the same way.
  
  http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-compact-fluorescent-lightbulbs-dangerous
  
  You have to be a bit more careful with them than normal bulbs. But it's not like you don't have to keep kids away from broken lightbulbs anyway.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  ptown_trojans_1;584084 wrote:Also, businesses like Ford are booming. How do you explain that?

  Because the government is not in its a s s.
• BGFalcons82

  

  I Wear Pants;584088 wrote:They aren't illegal though. And they can still be sold if I remember correctly the bill or regulation or whatever simply said the the incandescents had to be x efficient.
  
  Are you saying we shouldn't be serious about lead?
  
  And lead paint chips are far more dangerous than the miniscule amount of mercury in CFL bulbs. And shouldn't we also be terrified of any flourescent lighting then? They work the same way.
  
  http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-compact-fluorescent-lightbulbs-dangerous
  
  You have to be a bit more careful with them than normal bulbs. But it's not like you don't have to keep kids away from broken lightbulbs anyway.

  
  Listen....we can go all night on bulbs. Regarding your lead question...yes, lead is a poison, however when it has been encapsulated, then it is not nearly as significant a problem. In my example, we are going to tear down a building, put the debris in trucks and haul it to the dump. There are no infants eating lead paint as we march through the structure with front end loaders and dozers. You twisted my point in that if lead is this important, shouldn't mercury be as regulated, especially when it's in a gaseous form, which is far more easily ingested than a solid lead paint that no adult will profess to dine upon. Do you know how much lead paint you need to ingest to poison yourself?
  
  My point on the bulbs is that the all-knowing all-seeing all-powerful all-controlling government has seen fit to decide what Americans should buy for their homes. This deciscion puts more Americans at risk for mercury exposure, but that's no matter. The individual is too farking stupid to decide what to put in their home, so Uncle Sam is here again to save them from themselves. This is bullshit and gets me hot....as if you couldn't tell. LOL
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  CenterBHSFan;584111 wrote:Because the government is not in its a s s.

  
  Exactly. Which means the government is not "taking over the economy". The government is not taking over Wall Street.
  Companies, at least the big ones, are thriving now, without government help.
• I Wear Pants

  BGFalcons82;584116 wrote:Listen....we can go all night on bulbs. Regarding your lead question...yes, lead is a poison, however when it has been encapsulated, then it is not nearly as significant a problem. In my example, we are going to tear down a building, put the debris in trucks and haul it to the dump. There are no infants eating lead paint as we march through the structure with front end loaders and dozers. You twisted my point in that if lead is this important, shouldn't mercury be as regulated, especially when it's in a gaseous form, which is far more easily ingested than a solid lead paint that no adult will profess to dine upon. Do you know how much lead paint you need to ingest to poison yourself?
  
  My point on the bulbs is that the all-knowing all-seeing all-powerful all-controlling government has seen fit to decide what Americans should buy for their homes. This deciscion puts more Americans at risk for mercury exposure, but that's no matter. The individual is too farking stupid to decide what to put in their home, so Uncle Sam is here again to save them from themselves. This is bullshit and gets me hot....as if you couldn't tell. LOL

  Why would this turn you on? Freak.
  
  I understand the point about the lead paint and mercury both being contaminants. I also don't think they should outright ban the production or sale of incandescents (like I said earlier). If they want to tax less efficient lighting apparatuses or not tax efficient ones I think that's a better option than saying "you shall not use x type of lightbulb".
  
  As for putting the debris in trucks and hauling it to the dump. I'd prefer if as much lead as possible doesn't end up in a dump.
• BGFalcons82

  

  ptown_trojans_1;584084 wrote:I would also still say the time between the 60s and 70s were just a chaotic time, with the threat of nuclear war and the society even more torn than now. We made it through it though. During the 19th century, we made it with slavery for 80 years and kept the country together. During, the late 19th century, we survived boom and busts that were larger compared to today, and we made it. This is America, and we will be fine. The doom and gloom saying this is the worst this or that and that we have to either choose left or right is not helping. It does nothing to help solve the major issues.

  
  My point is that the issues you describe were easily discerned. The Soviet communists were easy to spot. There was no doubt the negro race was being discriminated against and civil rights legislation was long overdue. It was easy to spot. The war in Vietnam was sort of murky, but everyone knew Americans were dying and we weren't winning...so why continue the fight? Today's issues are far more complex and harder for the average American to understand. Take a poll and see if anyone you know can define Quantitative Easing. I bet your success rate is less than 20%. My point is that our country is confronted by the culmination of decades of neglect, spending untold trillions in wealth re-distributions that did NOTHING to spur ANYTHING, and saving of unions for nefarious reasons. The enemies and problems aren't as easily discerned as they were in the time period you reference. Does anyone know the consequences when the Chinese and Middle East quit buying our debt and financing our government? I would argue we are as close as ever in our 230+ years to having the dollar turn to shit and our economy collapse on the sheer weight of debt. We are that close, but the vast majority of Americans can't understand it...so they rush shopping malls with money that may be worthless next week. These are very scary times, but the majority is asleep due to ignorance and plausible deniability.
  
  Sorry if this is doom and gloom, but the piper is at the door wanting paid and we can't ignore him any longer.
• BGFalcons82

  

  I Wear Pants;584175 wrote:As for putting the debris in trucks and hauling it to the dump. I'd prefer if as much lead as possible doesn't end up in a dump.

  
  What's the matter...you planning a pic-a-nic there?
  
  Just kiddin. It's late...I'm out. Good stuff tonight...glad you let me rant a bit. Probably doesn't mean squat in the grand scheme...but it's fun to bitch sometimes.
• I Wear Pants

  I do enjoy picnicking on landfill sights. YOU GOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT!?
• BoatShoes

  BGFalcons82;583878 wrote:Where? What clause or Amendment allows the federal government to tell me what to eat, what to drive, what insurance to carry (if any), what time to go to bed, how much to exercise, and how to live my life? OK, that's a bit of a rant there, but, the Constitution and Amendments were meant to limit governmental control. Hell..they were trying to rid themselves of a tyrannical government...why in God's name would they create something they hated?
  
  I know cars, planes and automobiles didn't exist in the 18th century, but there is nothing in the founding documents that gives the federal government the right to control our lives. Nothing. It isn't there...except for some convoluted twisting of the fucking "commerce clause" which seems to be the heart of Progressivism and statism. If someone were to circulate an Amendment to remove this misused clause, I'd help 100% in removing it.
  
  Contrary to what you might think, I am for government to do what they're supposed to do. I am not a pure libertarian advocating no laws. I happen to think our founders tasted tyranny, didn't like it, put their lives and their families lives on the line to defeat it, and would spin in their graves if they saw what our federal government has turned it into being. I think this group of men experienced what was wrong and endeavored to make sure it never repeated itself. We should listen to their words today.

  
  Ok, well, let's see if we can figure out together why the Constitution as a document intended to provide limited but albeit adequate powers to a federal government might grant the People through their elected representatives the power to exercise such powers.
  
  Where in the Constitution, specifically, does the document grant the authority to Congress to Tax citizens in order to Spend it on the creation of Nuclear Weapons? Or for that matter, say, a wall along the United States and Mexican Border.