The FDA's Ill-Conceived Proposal to Ban Trans Fats

[rambone]

You cannot honestly tell me that you feel there is not a single federally-funded program, not mentioned by the Constitution, that is of some benefit.

This is where you have to take a step back and decide if you want the government to have limits or not. The constitution is supposed to be the framework of government, the limits on power.

If it can decide to do things on its own, outside the constitution, without approval of the people's representatives, and without approval of the states, then we have a lawless government.

You might happen to like a certain program, and you might feel like it is beneficial. But will you feel the same way about the next program? And the next one after that? By the time the FDA is banning things you like there will be no room to point to the constitution because the government has already been breaking it for so long.

That's why anything the government tries to do, outside the constitution, should be opposed. Good program, bad program, whatever... it doesn't matter. They are all dangerous because they establish that the government can do whatever it wants -- without your consent.

This is what I was pointing out earlier. Nobody elected the FDA. They are unaffected by your opinions. They can just ban whatever they please... no new law necessary. Maybe you don't like trans-fats, but don't you see the danger in an unaccountable agency with so much power?

 

[jamil]

See, I KNEW we would turn you.

Purple implied, of course.

You cannot honestly tell me that you feel there is not a single federally-funded program, not mentioned by the Constitution, that is of some benefit.

I don't know that I would get rid of the VA but I would certainly want to see its scope change. If there were a truly entitled group it would be soldiers who sacrifice.

But I'd certainly get rid of the rest you mentioned. Federal Crop Insurance? Really? You think that's such a vital function that private enterprise couldn't fill?

What about AFA? It's a perfect example of what ram is talking about, how our leaders circumvent the the intent of the constitution to do what they want. The crooks in congress had to use deception and cheap parlor tricks to force the AFA through. The administration had to lie to us to gain the political capital to get away with it. A government powerful enough to ram a law through without congress really knowing what's in it, is a government we truly need to fear. If you don't see that, you've got your head burred too far in government sand.

 

[Pooty22]

Of some benefit... To whom?

Can we get rid of FBI CIA and NSA as well?
Probably don't need anything that starts with department either. While we are at it can we just go back to being a confederacy.

Large centralized federal governments didn't work out so well for the people of the 20th century.

Anything that starts with department? Good idea! Starting with the DoD!

 

[traderdan]

How much "common sense' regulation will you accept..We have the technology to identify birth defects that afflict babies still in the womb.If allowed to be born,will they not be a drain on our medical resources? Would you vote to mandate abortion? Seniors who have outlived their usefulness in our society...they are only a drain on our society. Really..a ban on sugary drinks,made with high fructose corn syrup would probably do more to improve the overall health of the nation than this little transfats ban..How far do you want your government to go,to protect you from yourself?? Unprotected casual sex is pretty dangerous,they say...How far Pooty,should we go with these regulations? AIDS is a problem..Buggery MUST be outlawed!!

 

[Pooty22]

Purple implied, of course.


I don't know that I would get rid of the VA but I would certainly want to see its scope change. If there were a truly entitled group it would be soldiers who sacrifice.

But I'd certainly get rid of the rest you mentioned. Federal Crop Insurance? Really? You think that's such a vital function that private enterprise couldn't fill?

What about AFA? It's a perfect example of what ram is talking about, how our leaders circumvent the the intent of the constitution to do what they want. The crooks in congress had to use deception and cheap parlor tricks to force the AFA through. The administration had to lie to us to gain the political capital to get away with it. A government powerful enough to ram a law through without congress really knowing what's in it, is a government we truly need to fear. If you don't see that, you've got your head burred too far in government sand.

Hey there's no VA in the constitution so it has to go. I mean, look at all the ways they spend money without approval from the representatives.

No, I think private enterprise could provide a better product than Federal Crop Insurance, just like they provide affordable health insurance to everyone. Private crop insurance would be much more expensive, which means farmers take less risk and grow fewer acres, which means lower yields, which Mexicans higher prices and reduced food supply.

Which AFA are we talking about? The Air Force Association? The American Family Association? The Association of Flight Attendants?

 

[jamil]

Hey there's no VA in the constitution so it has to go. I mean, look at all the ways they spend money without approval from the representatives.

No, I think private enterprise could provide a better product than Federal Crop Insurance, just like they provide affordable health insurance to everyone. Private crop insurance would be much more expensive, which means farmers take less risk and grow fewer acres, which means lower yields, which Mexicans higher prices and reduced food supply.

Which AFA are we talking about? The Air Force Association? The American Family Association? The Association of Flight Attendants?

I think you're saying I'm saying more than I'm saying.

I didn't say I wanted to keep the VA as the behemoth excrement that it currently is. Having to say this seems tautological, but anyway, the logical conclusion of providing for the common defense, a clear constitutional feature, is compensating veterans who lose something while in such service.

Early AM, takes awhile to work the dyslexia out. I meant ACA but I suspect you knew that. So did you have something to say about that?

 

[Pooty22]

I think you're saying I'm saying more than I'm saying.

I didn't say I wanted to keep the VA as the behemoth excrement that it currently is. Having to say this seems tautological, but anyway, the logical conclusion of providing for the common defense, a clear constitutional feature, is compensating veterans who lose something while in such service.

Early AM, takes awhile to work the dyslexia out. I meant ACA but I suspect you knew that. So did you have something to say about that?

Sure why not? You say the Constitution was circumvented to force the ACA through. How so? It was introduced to Congress, debated, amended, voted on, passed by both houses, signed by the President, then deemed Constitutional by SCOTUS. How is that in any way circumventing the Constitution?

 

[Trooper]

We are getting off track for this thread. If we want to deal with agencies, their constitutional place and so forth then we need a new thread.

 

[Pooty22]

We are getting off track for this thread. If we want to deal with agencies, their constitutional place and so forth then we need a new thread.

I agree. Somehow, as usual, this discussion has drifted toward the ACA. Surprise surprise.

 

[jamil]

Sure why not? You say the Constitution was circumvented to force the ACA through. How so? It was introduced to Congress, debated, amended, voted on, passed by both houses, signed by the President, then deemed Constitutional by SCOTUS. How is that in any way circumventing the Constitution?

That's a (I suspect purposed) facile summary of events. Care to fill in the actual details of how it was actually passed? Care to detail the surprising constitutional gymnastics the SCOTUS used "deem" it constitutional? If you care to take that on, it should be done in a different thread so as not to wonder too far from the topic.

We are getting off track for this thread. If we want to deal with agencies, their constitutional place and so forth then we need a new thread.

This thread IS about agencies and their constitutional places as a specific example. Citing other examples seems a fair support of that, but I agree that getting into the details of such examples is moving away from the topic. But, that's not an uncommon thing with forums.

 

[Smokepole]

If you've ever read The Jungle you'd understand why the government felt it necessary to hold food processors accountable for what goes into our food.

I'm sure there was a time when people thought they should be able to make the choice as to whether or not they could have lead paint and asbestos insulation in their homes and businesses, but banning those products has made everyone better off.

Except maybe those that died in the World Trade Center collapse on 9/11,

In 1971, New York City banned the use of asbestos in spray fireproofing. At that time, asbestos insulating material had only been sprayed up to the 64[SUP]th[/SUP] floor of the World Trade Center towers.

Had asbestos been used on the whole thing, the buildings might still be standing and a lot less than 3000 people would be dead. They certainly would have had a better chance. Just saying.

For me, if the Gubmint HAS to get involved it should be to require INFORMATION that allows the consumer to make an INFORMED decision when it comes time to buy. NOT COERCE the manufacturer to follow the Gubmint's whims and instructions. How many times has science been wrong in their infinite wisdom about the safety or value of something and then we find out later that they were wrong. Many times not even close. Too many to count. Through information and informed demand the number of products that include transfats these days is about 1 percent of what was available 10 years ago. That is the proper role of Government in this.

 

[Smokepole]

Oh, and please show me where the Government derives it's authority to mess around with this kind of coercion. HINT: you can't 'cause it ain't there.

 

[Trooper]

Oh, and please show me where the Government derives it's authority to mess around with this kind of coercion. HINT: you can't 'cause it ain't there.

That is why the left wants to modify the Constitution, especially Section 8

 

[Pooty22]

Except maybe those that died in the World Trade Center collapse on 9/11,


Had asbestos been used on the whole thing, the buildings might still be standing and a lot less than 3000 people would be dead. They certainly would have had a better chance. Just saying.

For me, if the Gubmint HAS to get involved it should be to require INFORMATION that allows the consumer to make an INFORMED decision when it comes time to buy. NOT COERCE the manufacturer to follow the Gubmint's whims and instructions. How many times has science been wrong in their infinite wisdom about the safety or value of something and then we find out later that they were wrong. Many times not even close. Too many to count. Through information and informed demand the number of products that include transfats these days is about 1 percent of what was available 10 years ago. That is the proper role of Government in this.

So let me get this straight. You think that the people that worked in the WTC would rather have been exposed to asbestos so they might be safer in the event of an attack that was literally unprecedented in the history of the world? That's your justification for why the government shouldn't have the power to ban things? That is literally the dumbest thing I've heard on this forum aside from the "No Plane" theory.

 

[longbarrel]

So let me get this straight. You think that the people that worked in the WTC would rather have been exposed to asbestos so they might be safer in the event of an attack that was literally unprecedented in the history of the world? That's your justification for why the government shouldn't have the power to ban things? That is literally the dumbest thing I've heard on this forum aside from the "No Plane" theory.

There were no planes? First I've heard of it.

 

[poptab]

Anything that starts with department? Good idea! Starting with the DoD!

I was thinking of starting with the department of interior but the dod works for me. A little ambitious though.

 

[SaintsNSinners]

can we ban bacon yet? its a killer...

 

[Pooty22]

There were no planes? First I've heard of it.

There's a conspiracy theory of there that says there were no planes that hit the towers. There was a thread about it not too long ago.

 

[1775usmarine]

Just wait till Obamacare doesn't get the young they need to suck dry at the expense of the old and those who have major problems. Insurance companies will raises prices and finally the government will step in and make health care like the military. All doctors will recieve the same training regardless if there is a better way or not, or who is smart or not. This is a small step towards that policy.

 

[traderdan]

Just wait till Obamacare doesn't get the young they need to suck dry at the expense of the old and those who have major problems. Insurance companies will raises prices and finally the government will step in and make health care like the military. All doctors will recieve the same training regardless if there is a better way or not, or who is smart or not. This is a small step towards that policy.

I agree with you sir...I believe that all of this is about breaking the back of the "evil" insurance companies that operate in a capitalistic market..And we get what we deserve..everybody wants to sue everybody,medicines are up at costs that are out of reach of the average Joe..Doctors must carry horrendously expensive insurance...YADA,Yada..Uncle Barak is gonna fix it all.