Skip to comments.
The Nanny State Strikes Again
Fox News ^
| 12/26/03
| William A. Niskanen
Posted on 12/27/2003 3:13:33 PM PST by jimkress
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:38:13 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, who must have little else to do, has recently urged state governments to pass "primary" seat-belt laws, which allow police to stop and cite motorists solely for failing to wear a seat belt.
And the Bush administration has proposed a $400 million incentive to reward state governments that pass such laws.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: cato; nannystate; nutjobs; seatbeltlaws
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380, 381-400, 401-420 ... 541-553 next last
To: Luis Gonzalez
Come on, quit posting crap and address the issue. Getting frustrated Louis?
I'll tell you my actual solution and it will probably cause you to pop a vein.
Because I was so fed up and disgusted by people like you and nanny statists in the govt stealing from me and giving it to others here is what I did:
I walked away from a good job with a Fortune 100 corporation and started my own little business and restructured my finances. My income is so low that I do not pay income tax any more.
THat is my real solution Louis. I am personally doing my part to starve the beast.
Regards
J.R.
381
posted on
12/28/2003 9:11:22 AM PST
by
NMC EXP
(Choose one: [a] party [b] principle.)
To: inquest
I am asking for solutions to a real problem, not for you or anyone to demagogue the issue.
People have a real-time problem.
What is the solution?
382
posted on
12/28/2003 9:11:28 AM PST
by
Luis Gonzalez
(The Gift Is To See The Trout.)
To: NMC EXP
I'm not getting frustrated at all.
I am however, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you have no solutions to any real problems, and that you have no clue as to what it would take to govern this country.
It's easy to engage in bitch fests, it's difficult to solve things.
I don't care about how you solved YOUR problem Congressman, your job is to solve your constituent's problems.
So far, you've done nothing.
383
posted on
12/28/2003 9:16:03 AM PST
by
Luis Gonzalez
(The Gift Is To See The Trout.)
To: NMC EXP
Actually, you have suggested a solution of sorts.
You suggested taking away any form of assistance, and let them starve to death, or die from lack of medication.
How will you do come re-election time?
384
posted on
12/28/2003 9:18:17 AM PST
by
Luis Gonzalez
(The Gift Is To See The Trout.)
To: NMC EXP
"Darwin defined the solution."Darwin's theory of survival of the wealthiest?
Where did he publish that?
385
posted on
12/28/2003 9:21:52 AM PST
by
Luis Gonzalez
(The Gift Is To See The Trout.)
To: Luis Gonzalez
it's difficult to solve things. Only if you make the issue more complicated than it really is.
I was an engineer in my previous life.
Engineering and science demand objectivity.
Your "problems" and "solutions" are based on emotion.
Guess you're not a scientist or engineer.
Regards
J.R.
386
posted on
12/28/2003 9:23:16 AM PST
by
NMC EXP
(Choose one: [a] party [b] principle.)
To: NMC EXP
So far, you have "engineered" your way out of actually offering up any solutions.
Tomorrow, millions of Americans will wake up and have a choice to make: food, or medicine. The issue being the high cost of prescription medicines.
There's the non-emotion based problem.
What is your solution?
387
posted on
12/28/2003 9:25:55 AM PST
by
Luis Gonzalez
(The Gift Is To See The Trout.)
To: Luis Gonzalez
I have told you my solutions based on your scenario and based on my reality.
What about them don't you understand?
Regards
J.R.
388
posted on
12/28/2003 9:29:48 AM PST
by
NMC EXP
(Choose one: [a] party [b] principle.)
To: Luis Gonzalez
("Demagogue"?)
Like I insinuated (not very effectively, I gather), this is a state issue, not a federal issue. So whatever solution you have in mind - cradle-to-grave social welfare, or whatever - can be handled at the state level just fine. If the feds have any extra money hanging around, they can help the process by cutting taxes.
Beyond that, there's no "solution" to the problem of poverty, any more than there's a solution to the problem of human evil.
389
posted on
12/28/2003 9:35:15 AM PST
by
inquest
(The only problem with partisanship is that it leads to bipartisanship)
To: Luis Gonzalez
What is your solution? When I fill out my form 1040 in a couple of months the line called "TAXABLE INCOME" will say $0.00.
Regards
J.R.
390
posted on
12/28/2003 9:41:37 AM PST
by
NMC EXP
(Choose one: [a] party [b] principle.)
To: FairOpinion
"It was a mistake, in retrospect, but Bush was doing it as a good will gesture to the Dems, who of course bit his outstretched hand. " That's what happens when you try to feed starving coyotes by hand. As a Texan, I thought he knew better. He dropped the ball on CFR and let Estrada slide. Let's hope he snaps out of his anesthesia before he loses an arm over the AWB sunset.
To: Luis Gonzalez; azhenfud
Show me how the Feds have usurped the State's right to regulate transportation by urging the enactment, and incentivizing of this potentially money (and life) saving legislation.Presently? Or in the past 20 years? The national government usurped the right of the respective states under the leadership of DOT Transportation Secretary Elizabeth Dole when the first seat belt law was forced upon 2/3rds of the states
392
posted on
12/28/2003 9:54:09 AM PST
by
billbears
(Deo Vindice)
To: FairOpinion
After 9/11 Mineta should have been HISTORY.
To: jimkress; Howlin; azhenfud; Constitution Day
Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, who must have little else to do, has recently urged state governments to pass "primary" seat-belt laws, which allow police to stop and cite motorists solely for failing to wear a seat belt.Could someone tell me what it is about seat belts and DOT Secretarys serving under Republican Presidents? Funny how history repeats itself. Giddy gave us not only seatbelts, but airbags, third brake lights, and maintained national speed limit laws. God knows what this knucklehead has in store for us
394
posted on
12/28/2003 9:56:33 AM PST
by
billbears
(Deo Vindice)
To: Luis Gonzalez
"These people need a solution now, so your solution must exist right now because as a member of the U.S. Congress, you have the Constitutional duty to "provide for...the general welfare" of the United States, and by extent, its citizens." Provide?????? My copy says 'promote.' Provide, which requires funding (taxation) was for the common defense -- not welfare. If the plan was to re-distribute wealth through taxation (socialism), they would have used the same word, 'provide,' don't you think?
To: Byron_the_Aussie
Are you an American citizen?
396
posted on
12/28/2003 10:15:53 AM PST
by
MEG33
(We Got Him!)
To: FairOpinion
How special. You posted that to me.
Now, please HONESTLY tell me:
1. Has NON-anti-terrorist spending gone up or down under Bush?
2. Has the SIZE of government increased or decreased under Bush?
3. Would you have been so complacent as to be happy with a burgeoning FedGov under, say, Prez AGore or HilLIARy? Or would you be screaming from the rooftops as you did under Billy BentPecker?
4. Just exactly HOW has Bush made ANY strides toward reducing FedGov to its Constitutional limits? ANY progress whatsoever? Where has FedGov actually SHRUNK under Bush?
No, your cutesy little article is so full of male bovine excrement as to be utterly laughable. The SOLE difference between your Pubbies and the Rats these days is the SPEED with which we are headed toward socialist nirvana. That's it and that's all. It's the "Ordered Liberty" that I have heard so much about, with FedGov FedGoons giving the orders and NEITHER half of the ruling party changing course from that direction by so much as one degree off heading. And you and yours have YET to point out any MEANINGFUL differences. I'd say you lose, but the sad fact is that the Country and the Constitution BOTH lose along with you.
397
posted on
12/28/2003 10:39:56 AM PST
by
dcwusmc
("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for hims)
To: MEG33
Where in the Constitution for the United States is FedGov given authority over such things? Especially when committed OUTSIDE a legitimate Federal Reservation, such as D.C. or a military installation? Constitutionally, FedGov ONLY has jurisdiction over counterfeiting, treason and piracy. That'sit and that's all. The rest is an illegal and unconscionable usurpation of power by FedGov.
398
posted on
12/28/2003 10:51:30 AM PST
by
dcwusmc
("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for hims)
To: Luis Gonzalez
It means taken by force... at gunpoint. Yes, that does equate to theft, doesn't it? You're pretty astute today. The IRS is one of the groups of FedGoons authorized to carry weapons. Some even carry shotguns as "customer relations" tools. Pretty cool, huh?
399
posted on
12/28/2003 10:55:17 AM PST
by
dcwusmc
("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for hims)
To: dcwusmc
What would you say was the best year for the US acting as you think it should according to the Constitution?
400
posted on
12/28/2003 10:55:27 AM PST
by
MEG33
(We Got Him!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380, 381-400, 401-420 ... 541-553 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson