The Nanny State Strikes Again

Fox News ^ | 12/26/03 | William A. Niskanen

[Byron_the_Aussie]

Sorry to see the thread's turning into a Bot-fest, amigo.

[Byron_the_Aussie]

..has spending gone down even a little? Is there even any kind of serious effort to get it under control? Have the swarms of federal officers who regulate every aspect of our economic affairs been reined in at all?...

You expect President Bush to make a start on that?? You're so UNAPPEASABLE, Inquest.

[maryz]

This copy of the Constitution must be out of date. Does anyone have the current version, the one the government is using?

Good one! As I saw on FR a few years ago, "The Bill of Rights (void where prohibited)."

[Byron_the_Aussie]

..we were sold on the "smaller, less intrusive government" arguments in 94. We backed the party, even after that promise went out the window. We grudgingly went along as the appropriations bills got higher and higher, believing that if the GOP got control of congress AND the White House that things would finally pan out. And what did we get...? The biggest expansion of entitlements and descretionary spending since LBJ!...

...and now, on Free Republic, of all places, you're told to lie back and enjoy it. Yes, this Administration spends money like a drunken sailor at Subic, yes, President Bush has barely made a start on conservative agendas, but if you complain, you must be an UNAPPEASABLE DEAN SUPPORTER. Must be, there couldn't be any other reason.

[maryz]

seatbelts do reduce medical costs for ALL of us when there is an accident. There is no denying that fact.

Not necessarily. Fatalities are cheaper than many serious injuries. (My mechanic said, about 10 years ago, that insurers loved the Honda Civic because serious accidents were almost always fatal, i.e., cheaper than 30, 40, 50 years of care for severe disability.)

[Byron_the_Aussie]

...I am sorry to lose a vote for what I think is a good President...

Meg, no conservative could give anything but thanks that President Bush is in the White House. I certainly haven't forgotten how close the election was, and I shudder to think where we'd be now with President Gore. And I'm very grateful to him for things like a no on Kyoto and his leadership against Islamic terror. But in other areas he has fallen very short and criticism is more than justified. Websites like FR should be a conservative burr under his saddle and a lightning rod of supporter dissent whenever this President lets principle drift. It is simply inadequate of you and your friends to accuse disappointed posters of being closet Dean supporters, or whatever. The key for 2004 is to ensure that our team doesn't stay home on polling day, like they did with his father.

[Peach]

Actually, I was not boasting about my benefits, but rather trying to explain that although we have benefits, I did not want to see those without them go without medical attention. I assume you are in the health care business. If so your compensation is a direct result of your employer handing a bill he cannot collect to a third party who can pay for his own bill and the bill of the freeloader.

Ummm, you couldn't be more wrong. I worked in investment banking. And your last sentence not only makes no sense, but still sounds like a bitter, big company hater to me.

[sopwith]

"If you don't support Bush, who do you think you are going to get as next president, probably Dean. Do you consider him preferable to President Bush? "

I for one am sick of this argument. If you don't vote for the liberal Republican , you'll get a liberal Dem.
A new party is needed and SOON.

[NMC EXP]

Conversely, safety belt nonuse results in significant economic costs to society. The needless deaths and injuries from safety belt nonuse account for an estimated $26 billion in economic costs to society annually.16 The cost goes beyond the lost lives of unbuckled drivers and passengers: We all pay - in higher taxes and higher health care and insurance costs.

"Estimated"

Or fabricated?

But thats not the point. Here we have a classic example of:

"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers."
-- Thomas Pynchon

Yeah, people get hurt because they don't wear seatbelts.

However, thats not my problem.

And its none of the governments damn business.

Except for those who don't give a rip about the Constitution.

And for those who are at heart collectivists (economic costs to society).

Regards

J.R.

[NMC EXP]

...although we have benefits, I did not want to see those without them go without medical attention..

You call me a "big company hater".

If you want the needy to have medical care become a Mother Teresa and donate all you have to provide it.

If you support the govt taking whats mine to provide medical care to others, you are a socialist.

Regards

J.R.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"The author is chairman of the Cato Institute"

Thanks.

My response was based on a visceral reaction to his article.

Thanks for supplying me with actual data to base it on.

[Peach]

No, I'm a Christian. But you stick with denying the poor medical care and calling me a socialist because I don't want to see dead and dying people in the street.

[NMC EXP]

No, I'm a Christian

Thats nice.

Jesus of Nazareth taught that we as individuals should help the poor. And that is right an proper.

You can do that without asking the govt to steal from me.

As long as you support this theft, you are a socialist.

Regards

J.R.

[WhiteGuy]

Democrats are not the enemy.

Politicians are the enemy.

Government is the enemy.

[inquest]

It's OK, I'm talking to my analyst about it right now.

[wita]

As a long time member of the Constitution Party, and one who did not vote for Mr Bush the first time he recently ran for President, I can tell you from my point of view that it would border on treason, NOT to vote for him this time around, and I am still a member of the Constitution Party.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Yeah, people get hurt because they don't wear seatbelts."

"However, thats not my problem."

"And its none of the governments damn(ed) business."

So then, here's a very realistic, theoretical situation.

Some guy runs a stop sign and plows into your car, you of course, being the constitutionalist that you are, are not wearing a seatbelt.

You get badly hurt, leaving you permanently disabled, and your car is destroyed.

Now, the individual who plowed into you, is also a devout and hard-core Constitutionalist, and not only was he not wearing a seatbelt, he also did not have insurance coverage because, people getting hurt because they were not wearing seatbelts is not his damned problem, and the government has no business requiring insurance coverage.

Your insurance is cancelled, and they refuse youm medical coverage because your failure to wear a seatbelt.

Whose courts would you appeal to in order to get money from the guy that hurt you?

After all, it's none of the government's business if you get hurt for wearing a seatbelt, so the impact falls on you, and your family should shoulder the financial burden stemming from someone else's actions.

Mind you, I don't want to shoulder my portion of the costs deriving from your accident either.

I don't want to pay for the law enforcement present at the accident, I don't want to shoulder the cost of any emergency medical attention you may have required on site, and I certainly I don't want to shoulder the cost of litigating the aftermath either.

You see, I am a constitutionalist, and your accident is not my problem.

[inquest]

Actually there's less of a reason to vote for him now. The election's not likely to be as close as it was in 2000.

[bvw]

His own throne sits over what he flushes out in his turgid posts.

[bvw]

Smart for the whip eh? And handcuffs too, I'd gather.

You may be but others are not. Not for all the viagra and martinis in the world.