Here's what less gov't will bring you

[Sweet Lou 4 2]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/us/13water.html?_r=1&hp


You know what, I wish we could divide communities into those that want less gov't and those that are fine with the system as it is.

THen the EPA and FDA would only have to regulate in the ccommunities that were concerned about safety, and the otehrs would have gov't out of their lives.

Let's those who want less gov't reap the rewards of less gov't. But less not cost the rest of us.

Maybe they can pay lower taxes in exchange for removing all safety and protections for them and their families. They can have less and pay less.

[ryan_98]

i would sign up for this, but the experiment would obviously fail.

[Space Ghost]

Typical liberal rhetoric. They have trouble distinguishing between blind government control, less government and no government.

There is a difference between believing the government should protect its people from enemies, diseases and other such things that hurts its people directly vs propping up failed businesses and directly interfering with businesses and individual rights.

[Ottomaton]

Typical liberal rhetoric. They have trouble distinguishing between blind government control, less government and no government.


I can appreciate this in principal, but given the significant conservative opposition to Clean Air Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Clean_Air_Act) and the Clean Water Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Water_Act) (which also has included many efforts to remove the teeth from those laws in the years since (http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/17/us/house-votes-sweeping-changes-in-clean-water-act.html)), I'm not sure whether your distinction is actually expressed functionally and in practice in the real world.

[Batman Jones]

Typical liberal rhetoric. They have trouble distinguishing between blind government control, less government and no government.

There is a difference between believing the government should protect its people from enemies, diseases and other such things that hurts its people directly vs propping up failed businesses and directly interfering with businesses and individual rights.

That must have been a typo from such an anti-health care radical.

[B-Bob]

Otto, repped.

Exactly. We have to wield the fact stick with more and more precision and intensity.

The absurd pinatas before us must not make us sloppy.

[aghast]

I can appreciate this in principal, but given the significant conservative opposition to Clean Air Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Clean_Air_Act) and the Clean Water Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Water_Act) (which also has included many efforts to remove the teeth from those laws in the years since (http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/17/us/house-votes-sweeping-changes-in-clean-water-act.html)), I'm not sure whether your distinction is actually expressed functionally and in practice in the real world.
[M]any efforts to remove the teeth from those laws in the years since?

Prescient.

From this morning's NY Times-- "Toxic Waters: Clean Water Laws Are Neglected, at a Cost to Health " (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/us/13water.html)

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/6414/13water600.jpg
Caption: "Ryan Massey, 7, shows his caps. Dentists near Charleston, W.Va., say pollutants in drinking water have damaged residents’ teeth. Nationwide, polluters have violated the Clean Water Act more than 500,000 times.

[aghast]

^^^
Reading comprehension failure, there. That's what I get for going from the bottom up, and not clicking on the initial link.

[Sweet Lou 4 2]

Typical liberal rhetoric. They have trouble distinguishing between blind government control, less government and no government.

There is a difference between believing the government should protect its people from enemies, diseases and other such things that hurts its people directly vs propping up failed businesses and directly interfering with businesses and individual rights.


Yeah, except I'm a moderate who actually leans to the right. Just label anyone who disagrees with you a liberal. You're just another robot.

[Space Ghost]

Yeah, except I'm a moderate who actually leans to the right. Just label anyone who disagrees with you a liberal. You're just another robot.
Call me whatever you like. If you agree with liberal sediment, then so be it. I don't think i've met anyone who believes we should do away with FDA, FCC, FAA and many more of the 3 letter acronyms. You're basically saying those who believe in less government are for complete anarchy.

You might be ok with your current government, but there are many of us that are tired of the self interest, special interest groups and corruption that goes on in our government. Sure, it might go on forever, but I'm not going to say that is acceptable.

[glynch]

Otto, repped.

Exactly. We have to wield the fact stick with more and more precision and intensity.

The absurd pinatas before us must not make us sloppy.

An early morning chuckle. ks

[Sweet Lou 4 2]

Call me whatever you like. If you agree with liberal sediment, then so be it. I don't think i've met anyone who believes we should do away with FDA, FCC, FAA and many more of the 3 letter acronyms. You're basically saying those who believe in less government are for complete anarchy.

You might be ok with your current government, but there are many of us that are tired of the self interest, special interest groups and corruption that goes on in our government. Sure, it might go on forever, but I'm not going to say that is acceptable.


Of course I am tired of lobbyists, corporate interests, and special interests groups controling and influencing policy. But you guys act like that started with Obama, when it's been going on for a very long time.

Where were you guys the last 8 years? Why just now?

Because it's not about that. It's not about less gov't, it's just about taking out Obama. That's what disgusts me.

[bingsha10]

Of course I am tired of lobbyists, corporate interests, and special interests groups controling and influencing policy. But you guys act like that started with Obama, when it's been going on for a very long time.

Where were you guys the last 8 years? Why just now?

Because it's not about that. It's not about less gov't, it's just about taking out Obama. That's what disgusts me.


So you were happy with the last 8 years? Those policies should continue?

I think the bailout opened a lot of people's eyes to what is actually going on between DC and Wall Street.

Ironic that most of the democrats who hate bug business voted for the bailouts and most of the republicans didn't. (yes I realize Bush was president then)

[aghast]

...If you agree with liberal sediment, then so be it. I don't think i've met anyone who believes we should do away with FDA, FCC, FAA and many more of the 3 letter acronyms. You're basically saying those who believe in less government are for complete anarchy...

Liberal sediment? Are you calling me dirt?

I'm pretty sure that the party platform of libertarians argues for exactly that, the abolition of most of government, including those agencies that are supposed to protect us (FDA, SEC, etc.)

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1G6gZuOFsaw&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1G6gZuOFsaw&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

Ron Paul, the current libertarian standard-bearer, here argues for cutting the Department of Education and Agriculture. Agriculture, as Ed Schultz here notes (god he's awful), is in some ways important to food safety. (Reagan used to argue for losing Education too. Libertarian sentiment often overlaps with the fiscal conservative wing of the Republican party.) But that's not all.

Many true blue libertarians want to lose most government agencies, arguing that their elimination would remove impediments to the free market. Bye bye to regulatory agencies; hello unrestricted capitalism.

Salon: "Ron Paul is blowing up real good" (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/02/ron_paul/)
[Ron Paul] wants America to pull out of the United Nations, NATO, the International Criminal Court, and most international trade agreements. He wants to abolish FEMA, end the federal war on drugs, get rid of the Department of Homeland Security, send the U.S. military to guard the Mexican border, stop federal prosecutions of obscenity, eliminate the IRS, end most foreign aid, overturn the Patriot Act, phase out Social Security, revoke public services for illegal immigrants, repeal No Child Left Behind, and reestablish gold and silver as legal tender.
Wikipedia's Ron Paul policy page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Lower_spending_and_smaller_government):
Paul would substantially reduce the government's role in individual lives and in the functions of foreign and domestic states; he says Republicans have lost their commitment to limited government and have become the party of big government.[72] He would eliminate many federal government agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Education,[73] the U.S. Department of Energy, the US Department of Commerce,[74] the US Department of Health and Human Services,[74] the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Emergency Management Administration, the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Internal Revenue Service,[75] calling them "unnecessary bureaucracies." Paul would severely reduce the role of the CIA...

He supports abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service, most Cabinet departments, and the Federal Reserve.[80]...

For an example of libertarian thought, here's a piece by John Stossel arguing for the effective elimination of the Food & Drug Agency, the agency which also regulates the food industry, and the safety of prescribed medications. Though he is a crazy person arguing for crazy policies, he does have a remarkable voice which perfectly conveys passive aggression. This explains his long career at ABC News, and now the Fox Business Channel.

Jewish World Review: Dismantle the FDA? (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0605/stossel060805.php3):

By John Stossel

Last week, I wrote about a federal agency that most people think is indispensable. In reality, I said, the FDA regulates us to death, literally, by forbidding even dying Americans who can't be helped by established medical treatments from trying innovative therapies.

But what's the alternative? Have no oversight? Let any company peddle every dubious medicine to an unsuspecting public? That sounds terrifying. Snake-oil sellers would sell all kinds of harmful stuff. That's why we created the FDA in the first place.

But wait a second. Snake oil sellers sell it anyway. I've done consumer reports on snake-oil sellers for years. Crooks and deluded optimists sell useless baldness remedies, breast enlargers and diet products while the FDA is supposedly in charge. The FDA rarely stopped even the obvious crooks. What it mostly stopped, or delayed, were the serious drug companies' attempts at genuine innovations.

Without an FDA, how would doctors and patients know which drugs were safe and effective?

The same way we know which computers and restaurants are good — through newspapers, magazines and word of mouth. In a free, open society, competition gets the information out, and that protects consumers better than government command and control...

Why must we give big government so much power? Couldn't FDA scrutiny be voluntary and advisory? Companies that want government blessing would go through the whole process and, after 10 or 15 years, get the FDA's seal of approval. Those of us who are cautious would take only FDA-approved drugs.

But if you had a terminal illness, you could try something that might save your life. You could try it without having to wait 15 years — without having to break your country's laws to import it illegally from Europe — without sneaking into Mexico to experiment in some dubious clinic. If I'm dying, shouldn't my government allow me the right to try whatever I want?

If FDA scrutiny were voluntary, the government agency would soon have competition. Private groups like Consumer Reports and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) might step in to compete with the FDA. The UL symbol is already on thousands of products. No government force was required. Yet even though UL certification is voluntary, its safety standards are so commonly accepted that most stores won't carry products without the UL symbol.

With such competition, the FDA might devise a ratings system ("general use," "medical guidance suggested," "patients strongly cautioned," or something like that), and drug packages would carry that information. We'd know that the government was evaluating new drugs, but government wouldn't stand between lifesaving treatments and us. Most of us, most of the time, would take the government's advice, but because it would be our choice, we could try new or risky drugs when nothing government-approved was available.

We could try a system where the FDA would review all drugs, but its approval wouldn't be needed for a drug to be sold. Private organizations might go into competition with the FDA even if its review remained mandatory. If a new drug is going to be "not yet rated" by the government for 15 years, the endorsement of an independent evaluator — even one not quite as strict as the FDA — that can deliver its opinion in three years would be valuable. Under today's FDA rule, consumers assume big government takes care of the whole issue, so we become less vigilant. The consumer is encouraged to stay asleep: Don't ask questions; just take what Big Brother approves. Yet, knowing what we know about the incompetence of government monopolies, there's little doubt that competing private groups would do the testing better, cheaper and quicker.

Any kind of FDA has its price. If all drugs have to be reviewed — even if they can be sold while under review — the cost in money and energy will keep some drugs off the market. But getting rid of the FDA's power to forbid us to try something would be a big improvement: It would mean Americans would no longer be forced to wait, and die while their government passes judgment on innovations that could save them.

[Space Ghost]

So you were happy with the last 8 years? Those policies should continue?

I think the bailout opened a lot of people's eyes to what is actually going on between DC and Wall Street.

Ironic that most of the democrats who hate bug business voted for the bailouts and most of the republicans didn't. (yes I realize Bush was president then)

This is the point exactly. All the shenanigans going on in Washington is bringing people who normally vote on party lines out of the woodwork. Bush had a low popularity opinion for a reason. Obama, touting change, is bring the same nonsense as Bush. There we're plenty protesting Bush, but now that Obama is proving no different, as promised, is facing more opposition as ever.

[Space Ghost]

Liberal sediment? Are you calling me dirt?

I'm pretty sure that the party platform of libertarians argues for exactly that, the abolition of most of government, including those agencies that are supposed to protect us (FDA, SEC, etc.)


Ron Paul, the current libertarian standard-bearer, here argues for cutting the Department of Education and Agriculture. Agriculture, as Ed Schultz here notes (god he's awful), is in some ways important to food safety. (Reagan used to argue for losing Education too. Libertarian sentiment often overlaps with the fiscal conservative wing of the Republican party.) But that's not all.

Many true blue libertarians want to lose most government agencies, arguing that their elimination would remove impediments to the free market. Bye bye to regulatory agencies; hello unrestricted capitalism.

Salon: "Ron Paul is blowing up real good" (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/02/ron_paul/)

Wikipedia's Ron Paul policy page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Lower_spending_and_smaller_government):


For an example of libertarian thought, here's a piece by John Stossel arguing for the effective elimination of the Food & Drug Agency, the agency which also regulates the food industry, and the safety of prescribed medications. Though he is a crazy person arguing for crazy policies, he does have a remarkable voice which perfectly conveys passive aggression. This explains his long career at ABC News, and now the Fox Business Channel.

Jewish World Review: Dismantle the FDA? (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0605/stossel060805.php3):

You're battling two different arguments. One argument is less government, whether is federal, government, or local. The other is the argument on the 10th amendment...which is the constitution does not give authority to the federal government to have such programs (im not trying to debate that subject, just pointing out the difference). Libertarians feel drugs should be legal, based on personal freedoms while conservatives (who are about less government) feel it should be outlawed. This is one of the primary reasons why i've backed away from typical conservative thinking. The problem with America is that most people are brainwashed into falling into their party lines.

[Sweet Lou 4 2]

This is the point exactly. All the shenanigans going on in Washington is bringing people who normally vote on party lines out of the woodwork. Bush had a low popularity opinion for a reason. Obama, touting change, is bring the same nonsense as Bush. There we're plenty protesting Bush, but now that Obama is proving no different, as promised, is facing more opposition as ever.

Dude, this is so bizarre. Because you bemoan special interests yet you carry their banner.

It's special interests that is trying to kill health care reform. Do you understand that? that it's the insurance companies and AMA and such that is pushing for these protests and lobbying republicans to oppose the public option?

because you are forgetting that Obama IS TRYING TO CHANGE the system.

The reality is, that Americans don't care enough. You need to educated yourself on what is actually going on before you make the statements you are, because you are contradicting yourself.

[Space Ghost]

Dude, this is so bizarre. Because you bemoan special interests yet you carry their banner.

It's special interests that is trying to kill health care reform. Do you understand that? that it's the insurance companies and AMA and such that is pushing for these protests and lobbying republicans to oppose the public option?

because you are forgetting that Obama IS TRYING TO CHANGE the system.

The reality is, that Americans don't care enough. You need to educated yourself on what is actually going on before you make the statements you are, because you are contradicting yourself.

Huh? Special interest groups on both sides are working the system. I suppose that makes everyone hypocritical. Yes, I want health care reform. But I do not want it in any form of a public option.

Obama is not changing anything except to give the government more control in our life.

[Sweet Lou 4 2]

Huh? Special interest groups on both sides are working the system. I suppose that makes everyone hypocritical. Yes, I want health care reform. But I do not want it in any form of a public option.

Obama is not changing anything except to give the government more control in our life.


How does providing health care to those who don't have it mean gov't control of your life?

I hate to tell this to you, but right now your medical decisions are influenced by insurance companies. The tests you take, the procedures you have - all of it is influenced by the insurance plan and your doctor. Your doctor has a lot of restraints in terms of what they can or can not do. You don't know that, do you?

The public option isn't going to replace your insurance. It's not more gov't in your life. It anything, it will put pressure on insurance companies to give you better care and offer more choice.

Are you opposed to more choice and competition?

Probably what's goign to happen is that it will be a co-op instead of a public option...just so that the wing-nuts can't claim it's another gov't program.

[Space Ghost]

How does providing health care to those who don't have it mean gov't control of your life?

I hate to tell this to you, but right now your medical decisions are influenced by insurance companies. The tests you take, the procedures you have - all of it is influenced by the insurance plan and your doctor. Your doctor has a lot of restraints in terms of what they can or can not do. You don't know that, do you?

The public option isn't going to replace your insurance. It's not more gov't in your life. It anything, it will put pressure on insurance companies to give you better care and offer more choice.

Are you opposed to more choice and competition?

Probably what's goign to happen is that it will be a co-op instead of a public option...just so that the wing-nuts can't claim it's another gov't program.

It is not so much what is being proposed, but what it will turn into. We can argue this into the dead of the night, but it will turn into an expensive and massive mess like all the other major programs. Don't tout that the program will pay for itself. The same is said about SS, but yet it barely affords to keep food on the table for the poor.

A huge problem with the current proposed solution is that its being modeled after a system that is already a failure.

[VooDooPope]

Everyone who loves their country but fears their government move to the right two steps.

Everyone who fears their country but loves their government move to the right two steps.

Damn! Right back where we started. :(

[calurker]

[url]You know what, I wish we could divide communities into those that want less gov't and those that are fine with the system as it is.

This country was set up that way, until Federalism got all shot to hell coupled with crippling federal taxes to make sure things stay that way.

[insane man]

This country was set up that way, until Federalism got all shot to hell coupled with crippling federal taxes to make sure things stay that way.

you mean until one side seceded in order to save slavery?

[Sweet Lou 4 2]

It is not so much what is being proposed, but what it will turn into. We can argue this into the dead of the night, but it will turn into an expensive and massive mess like all the other major programs. Don't tout that the program will pay for itself. The same is said about SS, but yet it barely affords to keep food on the table for the poor.

A huge problem with the current proposed solution is that its being modeled after a system that is already a failure.

You realize that the public option would charge people? It would not be free insurance like other programs?

SS has problems because they didn't anticipate the baby boom. Once the baby boom passes the program should be fine. That's a temporary issue.

I am fine with the public option being a co-op independent of the gov't, I think that would meet your requirements and still get insurance provided to those who need it.

[rhadamanthus]

What Space Ghost really wants, apparently, is the ability to continue to rely on the availability of health care without paying for it. Somehow, this seems more fiscally acceptable to him. :confused:

[Space Ghost]

What Space Ghost really wants, apparently, is the ability to continue to rely on the availability of health care without paying for it. Somehow, this seems more fiscally acceptable to him. :confused:

im not sure where you get this notion from. If i goto the doctor, i pay full price.

[rhadamanthus]

im not sure where you get this notion from. If i goto the doctor, i pay full price.

I was referring to the potential for life-threatening illnesses or major operations.

[Space Ghost]

You realize that the public option would charge people? It would not be free insurance like other programs?

SS has problems because they didn't anticipate the baby boom. Once the baby boom passes the program should be fine. That's a temporary issue.

I am fine with the public option being a co-op independent of the gov't, I think that would meet your requirements and still get insurance provided to those who need it.

On one hand, you say its going to be paid through premiums and cutting costs. I have yet to hear what these premiums will actually run. I have yet to hear how we're going to cut costs. Don't tell me we are going to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies w/out giving real numbers.

On the other hand, you say SS didn't anticipate the baby boom, and you say the problem has been resolved. Sorry, but this in not a temporary issue.

There are many foreseen and unforeseen problems with a public option. The private sector finds every reason not to treat someone. All of these people who have been screwed will flood the public option. Much like the cash for clunkers, you will have a mass flood into the public option, demanding treatment for everything.

Im for a program that can be phased out if its a catastrophe. Co-ops do seem like a much better option, but is not a solution. A totally different approach is needed. Reward those who go out of their way to maintain a healthy lifestyle and make those pay who choose to engage in unhealthy lifestyles. Let insurance be for everything else in the middle.

[rocketsjudoka]

This country was set up that way, until Federalism got all shot to hell coupled with crippling federal taxes to make sure things stay that way.

It literally did get shot to hell in the Civil War.

As far as crippling federal taxes keep in mind that the democracy has supported the tax structure we have warts and all. Its unclear whether if pre-Civil War Federalism had survived if we would be paying any less in taxes since the States would've continued setting their own taxes and the Federal programs we have now would've been paid for by the states. Its possible you would be paying much more for taxes if the pre-Civil War Federalism was still still around since the states can't run deficits.

[rocketsjudoka]

On one hand, you say its going to be paid through premiums and cutting costs. I have yet to hear what these premiums will actually run. I have yet to hear how we're going to cut costs. Don't tell me we are going to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies w/out giving real numbers.

On the other hand, you say SS didn't anticipate the baby boom, and you say the problem has been resolved. Sorry, but this in not a temporary issue.

I tend to agree with you in this regard and am skeptical if a public option can be deficit neutral. For that matter many of the savings seem rather vague. That said the experience of other countries with public options or even single payer is that health care is cheaper for them so it is possible that the savings could materialize.

There are many foreseen and unforeseen problems with a public option. The private sector finds every reason not to treat someone. All of these people who have been screwed will flood the public option. Much like the cash for clunkers, you will have a mass flood into the public option, demanding treatment for everything.

That really depends on how it is written. The problem with the idea that the private sector will find excuses to stop treating people so they will flood into the public option is that presumably the private insurerers will still want to stay in business and will find ways to do so. The analogy to Fedex and USPS is apt in this regard as Fedex not only found a way to successfully coexists with the USPS it out competes them where they go head to head in overnight delivery.

I doubt a public option will be any sort of cadillac health care system and even if it does come out pretty good there will still be supplemental insurance just as there is private supplemental medicare insurance.

Im for a program that can be phased out if its a catastrophe. Co-ops do seem like a much better option, but is not a solution. A totally different approach is needed. Reward those who go out of their way to maintain a healthy lifestyle and make those pay who choose to engage in unhealthy lifestyles. Let insurance be for everything else in the middle.

I agree that we need a system that rewards healthy lifestyles but we don't have that currently and keeping the status quo isn't benefittng ayone. I don't know what other approach is needed than what is currently being debated and given the complexity of the issue I'm not sure there is one.

[Sweet Lou 4 2]

On one hand, you say its going to be paid through premiums and cutting costs. I have yet to hear what these premiums will actually run. I have yet to hear how we're going to cut costs. Don't tell me we are going to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies w/out giving real numbers.

On the other hand, you say SS didn't anticipate the baby boom, and you say the problem has been resolved. Sorry, but this in not a temporary issue.

There are many foreseen and unforeseen problems with a public option. The private sector finds every reason not to treat someone. All of these people who have been screwed will flood the public option. Much like the cash for clunkers, you will have a mass flood into the public option, demanding treatment for everything.

Im for a program that can be phased out if its a catastrophe. Co-ops do seem like a much better option, but is not a solution. A totally different approach is needed. Reward those who go out of their way to maintain a healthy lifestyle and make those pay who choose to engage in unhealthy lifestyles. Let insurance be for everything else in the middle.

I don't necessarily disagree with you on your points here. But let's be realistic...if you got cancer, do you think you can pay out of pocket for all of it? It might run you $80k to treat that. Your insurance is going to weasel out of it as best as it can.

I am not a proponent of a big gov't slush fund. SS isn't a bad program, it was badly managed. Not paying attention to the baby boomers aging was foolish, but I hate to tell you, when they are gone, SS will be solvent because you will have the children of the baby boomers (who are many) paying for a much smaller aging population (us). The baby boomers and increased life expectancy are the things hitting SS hard right now. That's why SS minimum age should have been increased in my opinion.

I know there is no perfect solution. And I do think rewarding people for living healthier lifestyles is a good idea. But on the other hand...I wonder, why on earth do we need to reward people to be healthy? Isn't a healthier longer life the best reward? I mean, I quit smoking years ago, stopped eating fried food, go the gym, lost weight...do I want a reward for it? Eh....the reward is already there. But I do think it would be great to tax sugary drinks, fast food, and heavily processed food with a sin tax to help pay for health care costs that these things incur. Same with Cigarettes and alcohol. I consumer booze, and I don't mind paying a 3% tax if I know that money goes into medical care that covers the increased drain.

Some would say this hits the poor the hardest. it does. But they benefit the most from the gov't, so I think it's alright. Eating healthy...being healthy, is not easy for poor people by the way. Healthy foods and lifestyle is more accessible to the wealthy.

But I support the Obama plan because it's the right course. Not providing health care to the poor is just dumb. Beyond the immorality of it and the fact that most conservatives - who are Christian - are suppose to take care of the poor (I never understood why me, as a not a religious person seems to care more about the poor then these right wing nuts who claim to be close to Jesus)...but beyond that...the poor are goign to go into hospitals and get treatment anyway. They are increasing our costs anyway. Not to mention not getting treatment makes them carrier for diseases - everything from HIV to swine flu - and make them a public health threat.

YOu have to do something. Starting over is just going to kill the whole thing. There's no starting over. If Dems and Repubs can get this through, it's game over until another decade or so when the next Democrat gets elected and tries to do it, when health care has become an even more dire problem.

Do you treat the wound with the less perfect treatment - that may not be the best cure, it may not even work perfectly...or do you just let the wound fester and the infection spread? Things have gotten a lot worse since Clinton tried to cure the wound that is the health care problem in America. Can we wait another decade? I don't think so. It's time to do something.

[conquistador#11]

you can't have less gov't without having an armed conflict. Every great patriot needs an armed conflict.

Vietnam, nicaragua, sponsoring terrorism in el salvador, saving face in panama, Iraq, Iraq the sequel. It's not a coincidence.

[Red Chocolate]

Lots of success and lots of fail in here. This republic was founded on smaller government, and less federal interference. The idea was basically to give people freedom and avoid having corruption at the top levels.

What Ron Paul advocates is MUCH less spending, MUCH less waste, and much more freedom. A free society is not necessarily a safer society (at least until people learn how to participate in one), but it is more in line with what this country was intended to be.

What we have now are excessive laws, regulations, military, taxes, and wasteful spending. Even if you live in a more 'free' state, the feds can always come in and shut you down for doing something they don't like, even though you have the right to do it if the state you're in deems it acceptable.

Moving away from a federal system allows for a more capitalistic society as well. If people are fed up with the laws of their state, they can always move to a different state. When we are all under the microscope of a completely federal system, our republic gradually crumbles.

BTW lol at the FDA. What a corrupt institution that needs to go, same with the DEA and drug laws. We have the right to decide what we put into our bodies. It is only when we commit a crime that we are breaking the law (physical injury to others or destruction of personal property), not before.

[FranchiseBlade]

Lots of success and lots of fail in here. This republic was founded on smaller government, and less federal interference. The idea was basically to give people freedom and avoid having corruption at the top levels.

What Ron Paul advocates is MUCH less spending, MUCH less waste, and much more freedom. A free society is not necessarily a safer society (at least until people learn how to participate in one), but it is more in line with what this country was intended to be.

What we have now are excessive laws, regulations, military, taxes, and wasteful spending. Even if you live in a more 'free' state, the feds can always come in and shut you down for doing something they don't like, even though you have the right to do it if the state you're in deems it acceptable.

Moving away from a federal system allows for a more capitalistic society as well. If people are fed up with the laws of their state, they can always move to a different state. When we are all under the microscope of a completely federal system, our republic gradually crumbles.

BTW lol at the FDA. What a corrupt institution that needs to go, same with the DEA and drug laws. We have the right to decide what we put into our bodies. It is only when we commit a crime that we are breaking the law (physical injury to others or destruction of personal property), not before.
Yes that pesky FDA. We need to allow giant pharmaceutical companies that have already mislabeled medicine, and pushed it for ailments it's not right for. Just look at Pfizer's recent settlement which isn't their first.

If only we could return to the good old days of the robber baron period where there weren't the govt. regulations, and people had the freedom to be slum lords, force workers to work 90 + hours a week for low wages in dangerous conditions, and having children doing some of that work. They could put out unsafe products and nobody could call them on it. Those were the days.

[pirc1]

I was referring to the potential for life-threatening illnesses or major operations.

He is so rich that he can pay for hundreds of thousands in case like cancer, heart attack, etc. That is the reason he does not have health insurance.

[Refman]

Reward those who go out of their way to maintain a healthy lifestyle and make those pay who choose to engage in unhealthy lifestyles. Let insurance be for everything else in the middle.
This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard in my life.

A good number of people that engage in "unhealthy" lifestyles do so because they can afford it. Look around you. Generally, unhealthy foods are much less expensive than healthy foods. So now you want to give tax credits to those with means and you want to tax those who can afford it the least.

Not surprising coming from the same poster who in another thread indicated that you get diabetes because you can't put down the fork.

Do some research before you spout this crap.

[Phillyrocket]

BTW lol at the FDA. What a corrupt institution that needs to go, same with the DEA and drug laws. We have the right to decide what we put into our bodies. It is only when we commit a crime that we are breaking the law (physical injury to others or destruction of personal property), not before.

Brillant... let's get rid of the FDA! what was that peanut butter company that was shut down a few months ago after it's tainted products killed people all over the US? Oh here it is:

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE5090HM20090111

Funny how people go crazy over terrorism or H1N1 but tainted food and E.coli? Eh who cares, no need for red tape making our food safe when it might impede capitalism.

[Rashmon]

Lots of success and lots of fail in here. This republic was founded on smaller government, and less federal interference. The idea was basically to give people freedom and avoid having corruption at the top levels.

What Ron Paul advocates is MUCH less spending, MUCH less waste, and much more freedom. A free society is not necessarily a safer society (at least until people learn how to participate in one), but it is more in line with what this country was intended to be.

What we have now are excessive laws, regulations, military, taxes, and wasteful spending. Even if you live in a more 'free' state, the feds can always come in and shut you down for doing something they don't like, even though you have the right to do it if the state you're in deems it acceptable.

Moving away from a federal system allows for a more capitalistic society as well. If people are fed up with the laws of their state, they can always move to a different state. When we are all under the microscope of a completely federal system, our republic gradually crumbles.

BTW lol at the FDA. What a corrupt institution that needs to go, same with the DEA and drug laws. We have the right to decide what we put into our bodies. It is only when we commit a crime that we are breaking the law (physical injury to others or destruction of personal property), not before.

You seem to have a fundamental lack of understanding for the basic functions and necessity of government entities in the realm of protecting the public trust and well-being.

The fatal flaw and hubris of the libertarian mindset is that the shallow "individual freedoms" that attract many will be offset by the onset of corporate authoritarianism unfettered.

There may not be any laws restricting you from whatever you want, but you will only be "free" to do the bidding of your corporate overlords.

My favorite anarchist says it well:

"Now, the Libertarian Party, is a *capitalist* party. It's in favor of what *I* would regard a *particular form* of authoritarian control. Namely, the kind that comes through private ownership and control, which is an *extremely* rigid system of domination -- people have to... people can survive, by renting themselves to it, and basically in no other way... I do disagree with them *very* sharply, and I think that they are not..understanding the *fundamental* doctrine, that you should be free from domination and control, including the control of the manager and the owner."
Noam Chomsky

[Deckard]

You seem to have a fundamental lack of understanding for the basic functions and necessity of government entities in the realm of protecting the public trust and well-being.

The fatal flaw and hubris of the libertarian mindset is that the shallow "individual freedoms" that attract many will be offset by the onset of corporate authoritarianism unfettered.

There may not be any laws restricting you from whatever you want, but you will only be "free" to do the bidding of your corporate overlords.

My favorite anarchist says it well:

"Now, the Libertarian Party, is a *capitalist* party. It's in favor of what *I* would regard a *particular form* of authoritarian control. Namely, the kind that comes through private ownership and control, which is an *extremely* rigid system of domination -- people have to... people can survive, by renting themselves to it, and basically in no other way... I do disagree with them *very* sharply, and I think that they are not..understanding the *fundamental* doctrine, that you should be free from domination and control, including the control of the manager and the owner."
Noam Chomsky
Groovy quote!

[Space Ghost]

This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard in my life.

A good number of people that engage in "unhealthy" lifestyles do so because they can afford it. Look around you. Generally, unhealthy foods are much less expensive than healthy foods. So now you want to give tax credits to those with means and you want to tax those who can afford it the least.

Not surprising coming from the same poster who in another thread indicated that you get diabetes because you can't put down the fork.

Do some research before you spout this crap.

Thats a complete load of crap that you have apparently bought into. There is a difference between buying organic, eating decent, and gorging on whatever taste great. It might be quite a bit more expensive to buy the healthiest food, but you can certainly put together a much healthier meal than eating at fast food 3x a day. Last i've heard, exercise is free too.

So yes, someone who has the willpower to maintain a healthier lifestyle certainly deserves more tax breaks, regardless of their income level.
Further, I never implied we should tax "sin foods".

[Sweet Lou 4 2]

Thats a complete load of crap that you have apparently bought into. There is a difference between buying organic, eating decent, and gorging on whatever taste great. It might be quite a bit more expensive to buy the healthiest food, but you can certainly put together a much healthier meal than eating at fast food 3x a day. Last i've heard, exercise is free too.

So yes, someone who has the willpower to maintain a healthier lifestyle certainly deserves more tax breaks, regardless of their income level.
Further, I never implied we should tax "sin foods".

What's wrong with taxing sin foods?

If you really want to affect change, taxes on products can do a lot. NYC increased taxes on cigarettes and people quit smoking.

It works.

At the very least, it will help provide money to cover their health insurance. Imagine that...

[Red Chocolate]

What's wrong with taxing sin foods?

If you really want to affect change, taxes on products can do a lot. NYC increased taxes on cigarettes and people quit smoking.

It works.

At the very least, it will help provide money to cover their health insurance. Imagine that...

It's wrong because people get addicted to 'junk' foods, nicotine, and alcohol. That is no coincidence. By taxing it you basically take more money out of the pockets of poor, less intelligent people, and hand it to the corporations. A parent who is addicted to these products will end up having less money on their children in many cases. NYC is a fine city, but most of its inhabitants are functional zombies when it comes to understanding what rights they're entitled to in life. I don't like it when people fart around me, would it be ok to tax/fine people who fart in public?

And to the people blasting me for my thoughts on the FDA, I don't like them because they feel like they have the power to infringe upon all of our personal right to decide and choose what goes into our bodies. There are plenty of alternative treatments for disease that are outlawed in the United States. Plenty of terminally ill people end up having to go to Latin and South America to find treatments that are outlawed here. Blatant fascism.

Of course, the FDA does do some good things, but the bad certainly outweighs the good, IMO.

[Red Chocolate]

Yes that pesky FDA. We need to allow giant pharmaceutical companies that have already mislabeled medicine, and pushed it for ailments it's not right for. Just look at Pfizer's recent settlement which isn't their first.

If only we could return to the good old days of the robber baron period where there weren't the govt. regulations, and people had the freedom to be slum lords, force workers to work 90 + hours a week for low wages in dangerous conditions, and having children doing some of that work. They could put out unsafe products and nobody could call them on it. Those were the days.

Interesting. Good thing the FDA is here or else people would still be working 15 hours a day in 100 degree warehouses...?

In a truly capitalistic society, word of mouth and independent study are far more valuable than strict government regulations. With or without the FDA, it's not so easy for someone to run around selling snake oil in a market with numerous competitors for long without being exposed, this is not the Wild Wild West. Like I said before, a free society is not necessarily the safest society, but I'll happily sacrifice a little bit of security for true freedom.

My medicine cabinet is stocked with tons of items, none of which are FDA approved, so maybe I should wonder why I never get sick. The absurdity of it all is that an FDA approved toothpaste says "Call poison control if swallowed", while a non-FDA approved one says nothing of the sort. I wonder if I'm living in the twilight zone.

A couple of doctors I'm familiar with who specialize in natural medicine have received death threats and have been threatened by the FDA numerous times, mainly for their alternative treatments to Big Pharma, and for suggesting natural ways to fight off H1N1. God forbid people understood nutrition whatsoever, or these guys would be out of hundreds of billions of dollars.

[rocket3forlife2]

So you were happy with the last 8 years? Those policies should continue?

I think the bailout opened a lot of people's eyes to what is actually going on between DC and Wall Street.

Ironic that most of the democrats who hate bug business voted for the bailouts and most of the republicans didn't. (yes I realize Bush was president then)

Complete B.S most of those poster and the chants I do have nothing to do with the Bail out and all about Obama being a Muslim, terrorist, communist,Antichrist,African ect. The people I know who like Obama still like him and the people I know that hated Obama really hate him now. Everyone has put on there jerseys and were back to strong partisanship.

[Rashmon]

Interesting. Good thing the FDA is here or else people would still be working 15 hours a day in 100 degree warehouses...?

In a truly capitalistic society, word of mouth and independent study are far more valuable than strict government regulations. With or without the FDA, it's not so easy for someone to run around selling snake oil in a market with numerous competitors for long without being exposed, this is not the Wild Wild West. Like I said before, a free society is not necessarily the safest society, but I'll happily sacrifice a little bit of security for true freedom.

My medicine cabinet is stocked with tons of items, none of which are FDA approved, so maybe I should wonder why I never get sick. The absurdity of it all is that an FDA approved toothpaste says "Call poison control if swallowed", while a non-FDA approved one says nothing of the sort. I wonder if I'm living in the twilight zone.

A couple of doctors I'm familiar with who specialize in natural medicine have received death threats and have been threatened by the FDA numerous times, mainly for their alternative treatments to Big Pharma, and for suggesting natural ways to fight off H1N1. God forbid people understood nutrition whatsoever, or these guys would be out of hundreds of billions of dollars.

You are so right.

There has not been a reported case of naturally occurring paralytic polio in the USA since 1969 ever since I began carrying my magic healing marble in my pocket.

Coincidence? I think you and I can both say, "I think not."

[rhadamanthus]

Interesting. Good thing the FDA is here or else people would still be working 15 hours a day in 100 degree warehouses...?

In a truly capitalistic society, word of mouth and independent study are far more valuable than strict government regulations. With or without the FDA, it's not so easy for someone to run around selling snake oil in a market with numerous competitors for long without being exposed, this is not the Wild Wild West. Like I said before, a free society is not necessarily the safest society, but I'll happily sacrifice a little bit of security for true freedom.

My medicine cabinet is stocked with tons of items, none of which are FDA approved, so maybe I should wonder why I never get sick. The absurdity of it all is that an FDA approved toothpaste says "Call poison control if swallowed", while a non-FDA approved one says nothing of the sort. I wonder if I'm living in the twilight zone.

A couple of doctors I'm familiar with who specialize in natural medicine have received death threats and have been threatened by the FDA numerous times, mainly for their alternative treatments to Big Pharma, and for suggesting natural ways to fight off H1N1. God forbid people understood nutrition whatsoever, or these guys would be out of hundreds of billions of dollars.

Holy lord this post is full of dumb.

[insane man]

Interesting. Good thing the FDA is here or else people would still be working 15 hours a day in 100 degree warehouses...?

without government regulations, people would be working 15 hours a day in 100 degree warehouse. are you really arguing that?

franchise wasn't saying FDA created that. but labor laws were laws, after all, and promulgated by congress since states weren't doing anything about it.

[Red Chocolate]

without government regulations, people would be working 15 hours a day in 100 degree warehouse. are you really arguing that?

franchise wasn't saying FDA created that. but labor laws were laws, after all, and promulgated by congress since states weren't doing anything about it.

Methinks the free market would trump any regulation laws. It's not like anything more than the small minority of people were working under such conditions back then. I never said that ALL regulations are inherently evil, just mostly unnecessary and wasteful.

[Ottomaton]

Methinks the free market would trump any regulation laws. It's not like anything more than the small minority of people were working under such conditions back then. I never said that ALL regulations are inherently evil, just mostly unnecessary and wasteful.

In the 1850's the average work day was about 12 hours a day. In 1900 the average was just short of 10 per day.

Extended workdays of 12-15 hours a day, 6 days a week weren't at all uncommon, especially for grunt work like working in mills or foundries. To have anything like a short 8 hour day would be the uncommon thing. The only thing that ended the practice was legislation prompted by agitation by labor unions.

[pirc1]

In the 1850's the average work day was about 12 hours a day. In 1900 the average was just short of 10 per day.

Extended workdays of 12-15 hours a day, 6 days a week weren't at all uncommon, especially for grunt work like working in mills or foundries. To have anything like a short 8 hour day would be the uncommon thing. The only thing that ended the practice was legislation prompted by agitation by labor unions.

How quickly people forget history, it is amazing.

[GladiatoRowdy]

How quickly people forget history, it is amazing.

Not really, some people don't learn the history in the first place.

[Refman]

So yes, someone who has the willpower to maintain a healthier lifestyle certainly deserves more tax breaks, regardless of their income level.
Further, I never implied we should tax "sin foods".
Let us assume that all of the other crap you have spouted is true. A HUGE assumption, but just for fun.

How in the hell do you expect to administer such a thing? Do you want the IRS privy to your medical files? No thanks.

Besides...there are other ways to fund this than to have some piece of **** regressive tax.

If you live a healthier lifestyle than the guy across town, good for you. I, for one, applaud that. There are better ways to encourage such a thing than under the penalty of enhanced taxation.

[Phillyrocket]

Methinks the free market would trump any regulation laws. It's not like anything more than the small minority of people were working under such conditions back then. I never said that ALL regulations are inherently evil, just mostly unnecessary and wasteful.

Then you think incorrectly. It was a monumental struggle in this country to break the power of monopolies and trusts that forced people to work for pennies in terrible conditions. By the way this was the MAJORITY of people in this country that worked like that. How many white collar jobs do you think there were 100-150 years ago? We were a manufacturing nation bacnk then and that's what people did; they worked in factories, coal mines, etc. This wasn't even that long ago. Go read The Jungle or Grapes of Wrath or Honest Graft.

Where do people get the notion that the "free market" will solve everything? That big business is safer than big government? Deregulation has proved time and time again to do nothing but create unfettered greed. Business will push to get away with as much as it can whether that is dumping toxic waste in the local river, paying 5 cents an hour, usury, whatever, only when people began to complain and forced the government to step in did business concede and do now what we take for granted every day.

[Sweet Lou 4 2]

It's wrong because people get addicted to 'junk' foods, nicotine, and alcohol. That is no coincidence. By taxing it you basically take more money out of the pockets of poor, less intelligent people, and hand it to the corporations. A parent who is addicted to these products will end up having less money on their children in many cases. NYC is a fine city, but most of its inhabitants are functional zombies when it comes to understanding what rights they're entitled to in life. I don't like it when people fart around me, would it be ok to tax/fine people who fart in public?

And to the people blasting me for my thoughts on the FDA, I don't like them because they feel like they have the power to infringe upon all of our personal right to decide and choose what goes into our bodies. There are plenty of alternative treatments for disease that are outlawed in the United States. Plenty of terminally ill people end up having to go to Latin and South America to find treatments that are outlawed here. Blatant fascism.

Of course, the FDA does do some good things, but the bad certainly outweighs the good, IMO.

Ok, well, people who eat junk food, smoke, and drink excessively are a drain on our health system right? You agree there?

You say reward healthy people by giving them discounts, but the problem with that kind of logic is that you will take out money from a system that needs money. You are actually punishing the poor because they have less ability to live healthy - by your own admission! They are "Addicted" to junk food.

Your own logic says that rewarding healthy people will actually more quickly bankrupt the system.

If you tax something, it cuts consumption of it. Higher price = less consumption. When the price of cigarettes went up in NYC from $3/pak to over $8 a pack, a lot of people, including myself, said it was unfair and terrible. Guess what, smoking rates in NYC plummetted and the average life expectancy has increased 18 months in NYC making it once of the best places to live if you want to live a long life. Increadible right???

Oh, and taxes don't go to corporations.

Taxing sodas and sin foods would of course be protested BY THE CORPORATIONS. In reality, it is them that this kind of thing won't evey happen. But if you wanted to make the health system solvent, cover every American, and improve the life expectancy of the average American (in other words, make us actually claim to have a standard of living on par with Europe) - that's exactly what you would do.

[CometsWin]

Thats a complete load of crap that you have apparently bought into. There is a difference between buying organic, eating decent, and gorging on whatever taste great. It might be quite a bit more expensive to buy the healthiest food, but you can certainly put together a much healthier meal than eating at fast food 3x a day. Last i've heard, exercise is free too.

So yes, someone who has the willpower to maintain a healthier lifestyle certainly deserves more tax breaks, regardless of their income level.
Further, I never implied we should tax "sin foods".


So you believe Americans are so much more obese now than in the past because their willpower just ain't what it used to be? Seriously?

[Space Ghost]

Let us assume that all of the other crap you have spouted is true. A HUGE assumption, but just for fun.

How in the hell do you expect to administer such a thing? Do you want the IRS privy to your medical files? No thanks.

Besides...there are other ways to fund this than to have some piece of **** regressive tax.

If you live a healthier lifestyle than the guy across town, good for you. I, for one, applaud that. There are better ways to encourage such a thing than under the penalty of enhanced taxation.

Once again Refman, I am not suggesting a sin tax. Lets cut the "who lives a healthier lifestyle" and simply suggest that a very healthy person shouldn't have to subsidize the unhealthly. Life insurance is already setup this way, so don't bother with any discriminatory "its genetics" examples. If you are a high risk, you pay more. If you are low risk, you pay less. That is the very basis of insurance, but of course, health care is really not about insurance.

I also agree that the government has no business having my medical records. That is one of the primary reasons why I am against a public option.

[pirc1]

Once again Refman, I am not suggesting a sin tax. Lets cut the "who lives a healthier lifestyle" and simply suggest that a very healthy person shouldn't have to subsidize the unhealthly. Life insurance is already setup this way, so don't bother with any discriminatory "its genetics" examples. If you are a high risk, you pay more. If you are low risk, you pay less. That is the very basis of insurance, but of course, health care is really not about insurance.

I also agree that the government has no business having my medical records. That is one of the primary reasons why I am against a public option.

So obviously we should do genetic testing to chrage higher price for people with genetic disorders. Maybe we should exclude them from insurance totally. How about force them to not have any kids, that should be better for the future right?

[Agent94]

In the 1850's the average work day was about 12 hours a day. In 1900 the average was just short of 10 per day.
Extended workdays of 12-15 hours a day, 6 days a week weren't at all uncommon, especially for grunt work like working in mills or foundries. To have anything like a short 8 hour day would be the uncommon thing. The only thing that ended the practice was legislation prompted by agitation by labor unions.

And the industrial revolution had nothing to do with shorter work days.

[Agent94]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/us/13water.html?_r=1&hp


You know what, I wish we could divide communities into those that want less gov't and those that are fine with the system as it is.

THen the EPA and FDA would only have to regulate in the ccommunities that were concerned about safety, and the otehrs would have gov't out of their lives.

Let's those who want less gov't reap the rewards of less gov't. But less not cost the rest of us.

Maybe they can pay lower taxes in exchange for removing all safety and protections for them and their families. They can have less and pay less.

It looks like the EPA did a great job of protecting the water supply - not. And it would be great if we could have some communities with less government and some communities with more government. Then we could pick and choose which communities to live in. Unfortunately we all have to live in a federal nanny state.

[rimrocker]

And the industrial revolution had nothing to do with shorter work days.

Correct.

[rimrocker]

It looks like the EPA did a great job of protecting the water supply - not. And it would be great if we could have some communities with less government and some communities with more government. Then we could pick and choose which communities to live in. Unfortunately we all have to live in a federal nanny state.

We have that now. It's why nobody moves to Mississippi.

[weslinder]

A bit of trivia: the origin of the 40-hour workweek: Henry Ford (http://www.worklessparty.org/timework/ford.htm)
Read his logic. It's a really interesting perspective.

[Ottomaton]

A bit of trivia: the origin of the 40-hour workweek: Henry Ford (http://www.worklessparty.org/timework/ford.htm)
Read his logic. It's a really interesting perspective.

Actually it was "invented" more than 100 years before by socialists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Owen). US workers were pressing for it in the 1860's.

[Agent94]

And the industrial revolution had nothing to do with shorter work days.
Correct.


So you are enjoying your job posting at clutch fans because of government intervention, not because technology has increased the yield of a farm from producing enough to feed 4 people in the 1850 to 78 people in 1980.

Extrapolate this to all industry and you can see why the average worker does no physical labor. Technology is what got people out of coal mines and steel mills.

[Ottomaton]

So you are enjoying your job posting at clutch fans because of government intervention, not because technology has increased the yield of a farm

The simple fact is that all laws limiting work hours were passed after strikes and publicity campaigns by labor unions. The mythical idea of some benign force of the invisible hand doesn't stand a close analysis of the facts. Technology may have enabled the capitalists to stomach the hit that they took. But the actual changes happened because of unions and labor-sympathetic press.

[ghettocheeze]

Question to OP.

Everything you cited, all the horrible stuff done to our water, didn't that occur despite of the existence of the EPA and the Clean Water Act? Where is the correlation between less government and polluted water supply? Your evidence as in the article states to the contrary that even with the presence of federal regulatory agencies, our water supply was contaminated with god knows what. In essence, isn't that a direct FAILURE of big government? How can it be that anything that works reasonably well with or without federal intervention in this country is automatically credited to our big government but even a massive failure right under their nose is treated with indifference?

Its always the same ploy, when those in power fail they demand more power.

[Agent94]

The simple fact is that all laws limiting work hours were passed after strikes and publicity campaigns by labor unions.

What difference does that make. My point is very few people work back breaking jobs anymore. Its because of technology, not due to labor laws. We just don't need a lot of man hours working farms or steel mills now. You could limit the work week to 3 days and we could still produce enough food to feed the country.

The labor laws were a product of a time when much more human labor was needed in production.

[FranchiseBlade]

What difference does that make. My point is very few people work back breaking jobs anymore. Its because of technology, not due to labor laws. We just don't need a lot of man hours working farms or steel mills now. You could limit the work week to 3 days and we could still produce enough food to feed the country.

The labor laws were a product of a time when much more human labor was needed in production.
Not all jobs are purely tech based, and there is also a percentage of tech based jobs that still only limit the hours because of the laws.

[Ottomaton]

What difference does that make. My point is very few people work back breaking jobs anymore. Its because of technology, not due to labor laws.

No, it is because of labor laws. I know of shady employers who still try to get their employees to commit to 60-80 hour work weeks without any overtime. They operate on the fringes precisely because of labor laws. People do get fined and arrested all the time for violating labor laws, even in this age of plenty.

Your arguments prove that people can work fewer hours, not that they would in the real world with real employers who like to work the staff long hours.

[ghettocheeze]

No, it is because of labor laws. I know of shady employers who still try to get their employees to commit to 60-80 hour work weeks without any overtime. They operate on the fringes precisely because of labor laws. People do get fined and arrested all the time for violating labor laws, even in this age of plenty.

Your arguments prove that people can work fewer hours, not that they would in the real world with real employers who like to work the staff long hours.

BTW I am one of these shady employers and guess what in order to avoid paying over time, I just hire another part time employee. So a 60 hour work requirement is spit into 40 hours FT and 20 hours PT. All legal thanks to our laws. Now the disadvantage is to the employee working 40 hours a relatively comfortable job at a desk, that one could easily perform for 60 hours without any loss of productivity. Considering the recession and financial situation of many employees, what would they rather have, more hours at the same rate or no money while having to watch someone else get paid for work that they could easily perform?

That is the reality of labor laws especially jobs that involve very little specialized skills. Our government and its labor laws have indirectly set the floor (minimum wage) and cap (wage * 40 hours) on a worker's earning potential. This affect the largest group of workers in the country yet we still argue why people don't make enough money?