|
On July 14 2009 07:47 redtooth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2009 07:43 Aegraen wrote:
Is anyone else tired of all the 'czars' and bureaucrats that are unelected that soak up our money and show nothing but waste? Can we unite and get rid of the IRS, EPA, Department of ______ Fill in the Blank, etc. lol. let's get rid of the department of defence. and kill the irc cuz forget taxes, the government doesn't need citizens' moneys to fund the nation. they can just keep printing new ones.
DoD is a Constitutionally authorized legitimate function of the US Government.
Heard of the Fair Tax? There is absolutely no need for the IRS and its 75,000 pages of idiocrocy.
|
How does not having a Surgeon General improve the situation, then? While I am one for small government and against the ideas that Obama are pursuing with healthcare, I really don't see the point of eliminating the Surgeon General. While the position doesn't seem to have much power over anything, as it is we are suffering from an extremely stratified environment for the healthcare industry, with each region varying widely in terms of practices and costs incurred. While it would be foolish to try to create a single standard for the whole nation to adhere to, not having even a bit of restriction is simply harmful toward the growth of the medical field. The government has an excellent position to leverage here through the NIH and other departments in being one of the (or the single largest, I need to check my figures) source of grants. Instead of simply saying to cut down government services, to have a stronger coordination and then work off the overlap seems to be much more logical to be. The post of a Surgeon General, in such a scenario, could then be an adviser role or a proxy for the executive to better control the field.
|
On July 14 2009 07:39 broz0rs wrote:...but imo an overweight person can deliver the message that being overweight isn't a bad thing...
Dude, being overweight is a bad thing. If you think that we shouldn't strive to be as healthy as possible, that's another discussion.
|
The thing is- people want things to be taken care of. For some reason the US public enjoys the idea of cradle to grave care, and obama is going to be giving it to them. Obama is 'helping them' when in reality he is only helping the minority or people in the US. The majority and going to be faced with crushing taxes- and now my generation and the next and the next are going to have to pay off all of the 'stimulus package'
What i find to be so wrong is this: When you are in dept (as america is) you should not spend more, instead you need to cut back and start saving. Obama is going in the complete opposite direction.
|
United States20666 Posts
On July 14 2009 07:55 Durak wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2009 07:39 broz0rs wrote:...but imo an overweight person can deliver the message that being overweight isn't a bad thing... Dude, being overweight is a bad thing. If you think that we shouldn't strive to be as healthy as possible, that's another discussion.
That is my point exactly. While I don't expect the general population to adhere to modelling or competitive athletic standards, I also don't think America's growing acceptance of obesity is acceptable.
There is a reason it is called 'overweight'. A person with this attribute is 'over' a healthy weight. Massive public propaganda encouraging inner beauty and 'real' beauty (whatever the fuck that means) ignores the social, health, and monetary costs of fatness. Not only is a fat person harming their own health, their increased medical costs (empirically proven) harm the rest of society.
So having an overweight person take the pulpit on general health is mildly disturbing at best.
|
On July 14 2009 07:39 broz0rs wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2009 07:17 Last Romantic wrote:
And honestly? An overweight person is to dictate to a morbidly obese nation on how to take care of itself?
I searched Google images after reading this comment. She's a little chub, but not that overweight. The problem with the obesity issue isn't necessarily about weight, but it's about perception that people have against fat people. I don't see why we need a skinny person to carry this message. Obviously, I don't know her position is on obesity, but imo an overweight person can deliver the message that being overweight isn't a bad thing, but very unhealthy if a person becomes obese. There's going to be a long line that's going to make fun of her when she addresses the obesity issue, but if she can overcome this she'll be a great surgeon general. No small task of course.
I'm pretty sure being overweight at all is a bad thing, not just if you're morbidly obese.
|
but america is full of double standards LR.
why did this one catch your eye????
it's for sure not the worst thing Washington has done.....
|
On July 14 2009 07:45 Misrah wrote:
hmm if we could rid ourselves of all government run programs life would be so much better. it has been shown time and time again that private enterprise can run things better than the government. Why does america want a social health care program so badly? there is simply no merit to it.
100% Correct. I mean, look at the American auto industry. The government left them completely alone for all those years and look how great they are doing... 
|
And in any case, she isn't just overweight. She is goddamn fat, and easily in the medical category of obese (which isn't hard to reach, it's just that America's perception of obesity has radically shifted).
What a fucking terrible choice of a surgeon general.
|
On July 14 2009 07:56 Misrah wrote:
The thing is- people want things to be taken care of. For some reason the US public enjoys the idea of cradle to grave care, and obama is going to be giving it to them. Obama is 'helping them' when in reality he is only helping the minority or people in the US. The majority and going to be faced with crushing taxes- and now my generation and the next and the next are going to have to pay off all of the 'stimulus package'
What i find to be so wrong is this: When you are in dept (as america is) you should not spend more, instead you need to cut back and start saving. Obama is going in the complete opposite direction.
When you are in debt, you want to be in a condition where you can reduce debt. That we are in the equivalent of the situation where our income cannot pay our utilities simply means that one way or another we must invest and increase our ability to earn again. A country doesn't quite have the ability to go onto the pavement.
EDIT - About her obesity, since we really only have eye-figuring, we can only guess. She 'could' be large boned and have a fine BMI (I don't believe that myself). But honestly, what does it matter? We hardly even look at the Surgeon General as it is, her track record is much more important than personal charisma.
|
On July 14 2009 08:07 Grommit wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2009 07:45 Misrah wrote:
hmm if we could rid ourselves of all government run programs life would be so much better. it has been shown time and time again that private enterprise can run things better than the government. Why does america want a social health care program so badly? there is simply no merit to it. 100% Correct. I mean, look at the American auto industry. The government left them completely alone for all those years and look how great they are doing...
Have you never heard of CAFE standards? There are countless other intrusions into the industry by the Government.
Looks like those Right to Work states like Alabama *cough* Honda *cough* are doing just fine thank you.
|
On July 14 2009 08:07 Grommit wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2009 07:45 Misrah wrote:
hmm if we could rid ourselves of all government run programs life would be so much better. it has been shown time and time again that private enterprise can run things better than the government. Why does america want a social health care program so badly? there is simply no merit to it. 100% Correct. I mean, look at the American auto industry. The government left them completely alone for all those years and look how great they are doing...
what the hell are you talking about
the government has had its dick thrust deep into the exhaust pipe that is the car industry. When too much exhaust began to come out, the government felt the solution was to thrust the dick deeper in hopes that by jamming the shaft in deep enough less shit would flow out of the exhaust pipe.
shit i have a headache and cant be polite
gahhhhhhhhh
|
United States20666 Posts
CAFE is why I think GM is going to fail [again]. It encourages them to produce crappy cars that will not sell while also forcing them to invest millions in unnecessary remodelings to their most profitable cars (big showy Caddys, GMC trucks, stuff like that).
|
On July 14 2009 08:07 Grommit wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2009 07:45 Misrah wrote:
hmm if we could rid ourselves of all government run programs life would be so much better. it has been shown time and time again that private enterprise can run things better than the government. Why does america want a social health care program so badly? there is simply no merit to it. 100% Correct. I mean, look at the American auto industry. The government left them completely alone for all those years and look how great they are doing...
LOL if you run your company like an idiot you deserve to fail. When gas prices keep going up- why would you keep making gass guzzling machines?
|
On July 14 2009 08:13 Last Romantic wrote:
CAFE is why I think GM is going to fail [again]. It encourages them to produce crappy cars that will not sell while also forcing them to invest millions in unnecessary remodelings to their most profitable cars (big showy Caddys, GMC trucks, stuff like that).
That and the UAW won't budge one iota, so they'll go down with the sinking ship. Couple that with a large portion of Americans that will refuse to ever buy a product from any company that received government funds, when they should have failed.
Man, if you could only imagine the US Government putting bad money after bad money into the Steam Engine and Railroad systems in the 1800s. Sure would be awesome!
|
On July 14 2009 08:16 Misrah wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2009 08:07 Grommit wrote:On July 14 2009 07:45 Misrah wrote:
hmm if we could rid ourselves of all government run programs life would be so much better. it has been shown time and time again that private enterprise can run things better than the government. Why does america want a social health care program so badly? there is simply no merit to it. 100% Correct. I mean, look at the American auto industry. The government left them completely alone for all those years and look how great they are doing... LOL if you run your company like an idiot you deserve to fail. When gas prices keep going up- why would you keep making gass guzzling machines?
I would edit your response as the previous poster obviously has no idea how much the Government was involved prior to the huge 'fiasco'. I could write a 30 page pamphlet detailing the intricacies of the ram-fucking the Auto-industry received at the hands of the Government especially by California.
|
|
|
On July 14 2009 08:13 Last Romantic wrote:
CAFE is why I think GM is going to fail [again]. It encourages them to produce crappy cars that will not sell while also forcing them to invest millions in unnecessary remodelings to their most profitable cars (big showy Caddys, GMC trucks, stuff like that).
You could actually argue that the CAFE standards were the government's way of trying to get the American auto industry back on track. The CAFE standards aimed to help improve fuel economy, which was actually a very good idea considering the tension between America and the oil-producing nations of the world today. Asian made cars such as Honda, Hyundai, etc. adapted to the market and were very successful. These companies are subject to the same penalties if their cars are sold in the United States, yet they don't pay any, while American companies pay huge sums in penalty fees. Now you're telling me that it's the government's fault that these companies couldn't adapt to the changing market and political landscape?
You really think the Escalade and similar cars that are profitable now are going to be the American cars of the future? If you honestly think that, then you are right and the CAFE standards are out of place. The fact is, oil isn't going to be around forever, and America is not the country that controls it's production. In that sense, CAFE is encouraging companies to think ahead and develop alternative energy or higher-mileage cars so America won't be stuck paying the OPEC nations 6 dollars a gallon for our 10-MPG Hummers in 10 years
Edit: I'm not saying that all government run programs and ideas are wonderful..in fact..most of them aren't...I was just trying to make a point that sometimes private industry can be just as stupid...kind of de-railed the thread =\
|
On July 14 2009 08:33 Grommit wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2009 08:13 Last Romantic wrote:
CAFE is why I think GM is going to fail [again]. It encourages them to produce crappy cars that will not sell while also forcing them to invest millions in unnecessary remodelings to their most profitable cars (big showy Caddys, GMC trucks, stuff like that). You could actually argue that the CAFE standards were the government's way of trying to get the American auto industry back on track. The CAFE standards aimed to help improve fuel economy, which was actually a very good idea considering the tension between America and the oil-producing nations of the world today. Asian made cars such as Honda, Hyundai, etc. adapted to the market and were very successful. These companies are subject to the same penalties if their cars are sold in the United States, yet they don't pay any, while American companies pay huge sums in penalty fees. Now you're telling me that it's the government's fault that these companies couldn't adapt to the changing market and political landscape? You really think the Escalade and similar cars that are profitable now are going to be the American cars of the future? If you honestly think that, then you are right and the CAFE standards are out of place. The fact is, oil isn't going to be around forever, and America is not the country that controls it's production. In that sense, CAFE is encouraging companies to think ahead and develop alternative energy or higher-mileage cars so America won't be stuck paying the OPEC nations 6 dollars a gallon for our 10-MPG Hummers in 10 years Edit: I'm not saying that all government run programs and ideas are wonderful..in fact..most of them aren't...I was just trying to make a point that sometimes private industry can be just as stupid...kind of de-railed the thread =\
Increasing costs to produce cars mandated by a bloated government overstepping it's constitutional bounds, coupled with shitty cars = failed business. What happens? They don't let it fail! So, more of our money is thrown down the toilet and flushed away, and worse yet, 9 months into FY09 we're 1.1Trillion in the hole and expected to climb higher, and for FY10 expected to be even higher than 09.
You know what you let happen to a business with a bad business model? You let them fail. Leaner, smarter, more financial capable businesses will popup in their place.
Not only that, in order to comply with CAFE standards the car makers were forced to use lighterweight materials which in turn caused increased fatalities that otherwise would not have occurred. Oh yes, lovely government at work.
Asian made cars are more successful because they are better built, PERIOD.
|
On July 14 2009 08:42 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2009 08:33 Grommit wrote:On July 14 2009 08:13 Last Romantic wrote:
CAFE is why I think GM is going to fail [again]. It encourages them to produce crappy cars that will not sell while also forcing them to invest millions in unnecessary remodelings to their most profitable cars (big showy Caddys, GMC trucks, stuff like that). You could actually argue that the CAFE standards were the government's way of trying to get the American auto industry back on track. The CAFE standards aimed to help improve fuel economy, which was actually a very good idea considering the tension between America and the oil-producing nations of the world today. Asian made cars such as Honda, Hyundai, etc. adapted to the market and were very successful. These companies are subject to the same penalties if their cars are sold in the United States, yet they don't pay any, while American companies pay huge sums in penalty fees. Now you're telling me that it's the government's fault that these companies couldn't adapt to the changing market and political landscape? You really think the Escalade and similar cars that are profitable now are going to be the American cars of the future? If you honestly think that, then you are right and the CAFE standards are out of place. The fact is, oil isn't going to be around forever, and America is not the country that controls it's production. In that sense, CAFE is encouraging companies to think ahead and develop alternative energy or higher-mileage cars so America won't be stuck paying the OPEC nations 6 dollars a gallon for our 10-MPG Hummers in 10 years Edit: I'm not saying that all government run programs and ideas are wonderful..in fact..most of them aren't...I was just trying to make a point that sometimes private industry can be just as stupid...kind of de-railed the thread =\ Increasing costs to produce cars mandated by a bloated government overstepping it's constitutional bounds, coupled with shitty cars = failed business. What happens? They don't let it fail! So, more of our money is thrown down the toilet and flushed away, and worse yet, 9 months into FY09 we're 1.1Trillion in the hole and expected to climb higher, and for FY10 expected to be even higher than 09. You know what you let happen to a business with a bad business model? You let them fail. Leaner, smarter, more financial capable businesses will popup in their place. Not only that, in order to comply with CAFE standards the car makers were forced to use lighterweight materials which in turn caused increased fatalities that otherwise would not have occurred. Oh yes, lovely government at work. Asian made cars are more successful because they are better built, PERIOD.
As of last year, there were more than 239,000 American's employed by Detroit's "Big 3." Letting them go bankrupt and letting 239,000 people get laid off isn't necessarily a good idea either.
I think we may just have to agree to disagree on this one 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
