Comments on: Take a Train to Tax Cut Town

By: Chad

Chad — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:17:48 +0000

Thank you for clarifying.

I'm interested in this "flourescent protein". Is there any component of mercury? That could be a stumbling block. I could also point out Nobel Prize winners (Al Gore is just one example) that are completely out of their minds, convincing people that they have proven science when the debate is far from over. But I'll digress.

As an aside, I wanted your comment before I added this, contained in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution:
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; "

This is merely the right of patent, but it has been twisted in such a way that many think it is the duty of government to fund and solve scientific problems. We could go on for a long time, but I thought you might like to read this.

By: Govt Isn't All Bad

Govt Isn't All Bad — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 07:29:05 +0000

Harmful and ineffective products are approved by the FDA for any number of reasons. One is not enough data, another is data actually being withheld by companies who would prefer to not lose a cash cow. Given the immense cost of developing a new drug, that's understandable, but the cost could be thousands of lives (as in the case of a drug like Vioxx). The FDA has its successes as well as its failures. What organization doesn't? It would be better to institute reforms to make the FDA a better organization. Besides, what is the alternative to a government run program like the FDA? Private companies policing themselves? No thank you. Their records are much worse, especially if you count the supplement and homeopathic industries.

By: Govt Isn't All Bad

Govt Isn't All Bad — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 07:21:25 +0000

I'm not speaking only of scientists employed by the government, but scientists at universities and private institutions funded by the government as well through grants. One only needs to look through the history of Nobel Prize winners to see people who have made significant contributions to biomedical research, often working on problems that had no forseeable marketable products. For example, the 2008 prize in Chemistry was given for the discovery of a fluorescent protein that enables scientists to "light up" cells. The only marketable products are made for scientists to use in research, but the actual discovery itself facilitated many other forms of research that have led to greater understanding of pretty much any disease you want to name. It was a huge advance. A publicly funded scientist has no boards or shareholders to appease when trying out radical ideas. Without the constant push for profit, they are free to perform research private corporations can not. That's not to say private companies serve no purpose, as both are needed. The point is that a well funded public science program is essential for scientific progress and for America to retain it's technical edge in the world.

By: Chad

Chad — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:32:58 +0000

Final part (could I write any more?):
Plus, they like to change their story (recommendation) at just the right time. I'll give you an example. Mercury is toxic when inhaled, ingested, or absorbed through the skin at even a small level. This has been known for years. The effects are especially harmful for pregnant women. Now, the federal government has been priming to pass this cap and trade nonsense for quite a while. One piece of that legislation is to effectively outlaw old incandescent light bulbs. Therefore, CFL's (compact flourescents) will practically be "mandated". Forget about the government overreach here. Do you know that technically, the amount of mercury in that CFL is toxic? If you drop one on the ground and it breaks, under the "old" FDA guidelines, you practically would have been required to hire a hazmat crew to come and clean up the broken bulb. Now, conveniently, the FDA has increased the level of "acceptable" mercury content ingestable. Is that just a coincidence? Maybe. But personally, I'm going to err on the side of skepticism and believe that it is a little too convenient.

By: Chad

Chad — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:32:30 +0000

Part 2:
Here's the bad. The FDA, which is run by the wonderful government, is intended to be a line of defense for those products which you have labeled ineffective or harmful. While I agree that there are many harmful and ineffective products out there, why on earth would they be approved by the FDA? They are supposed to have the resources in place in order to perform due diligence so that ineffective and harmful drugs / food products do not make it to the market. Have they failed? Miserably. Numerous times.

Continued. . .

By: Chad

Chad — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:29:50 +0000

There is good and bad with everything. Nobody is really saying government is "all bad". They certainly have a role lin things like prosecuting force and fraud. But I think all of the authors / contributors on this site want the government to stick only to it's role as outlined in the Constitution.

Please give us your examples of "huge breakthroughs" that were carried out by government. Do you speak of programs such as NASA? To what end does this serve? We were racing with Russia on our space programs 5 decades ago. And for what? Did it serve the "greater good"? Or does it strike you as a classic example of proving who has a bigger. . . ego?
Continued. . .

By: Govt Isn't All Bad

Govt Isn't All Bad — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 02:04:51 +0000

Leaving every element of our society to the private sector is a bad idea. Some elements, sure, but not all. Scientific research for example, is a pretty bad one to leave up to private business as evidenced by the numerous delayed reports on ineffective drugs or harmful side effects. Besides, the history of science is full of examples of basic research with no foreseeable link to a marketable product leading eventually to huge breakthroughs.

By: Chad

Chad — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:03:18 +0000

AHA, I knew that must have been it.

By: D Taylor

D Taylor — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:59:23 +0000

I believe what was meant was:

As we all know, cutting taxes and eliminating public programs does create a net increase in jobs due to profit-taking in the private sector. All elements of our society should be left to private enterprise, profit is the only means for good defense, schools, roads, rails, and health care.

The author simply erred in the use of negatives…

By: Chad

Chad — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:39:36 +0000

Last Part
3. Roads. Toll roads seem to work just fine. You may complain about paying a toll to use a road, but it is only because the cost is in front of you. The real cost of "public" roads is still being burdened on you. The difference is you cannot see the cost of it, because it is hidden from you either through taxation or inflation, or both. In only 1 instance has a toll road been in worse repair than some public roads. Save that, all other toll roads I've been on (and that's a lot – all across the US) have been in much better condition than the best public roads, even the new ones.
4. Rails. I just gave you the best example of government fraud, abuse, and corruption. If you cannot see the difference between the efficiencies of AMTRAK compared to the UPRR or BNSF, I have no idea how I can convince you.
5. Health Care. Okay, are you some liberal blogger who just wanted to drag me out for a grudge match? Have you read nothing else on this site? I'm not even going to touch this one because if you don't know that you're wrong on this, you will never be a fan of liberty or freedom.

By: Chad

Chad — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:38:04 +0000

Continued. . .
2. Schools. Proof is in the pudding. It still amazes me that people defend public schools, unless they are shilling for a teacher's union, or something else. I know personally public school employees (including principals) that KNOW our public school system is an outright failure. They crave to have the opportunity to go work for a Charter or Montessori. Charter, Montessori, and other private schools are a landslide success in comparison to public schools. Not only do the children turn out better test scores, they are more focused, more idependent, and most importantly, they can make decisions for themselves! All too often to we hear anecdotal stories about how public schools are now indoctrinating our kids into believing that global warming is fact, with absolutely NO scrutinization. Regardless of your position on global warming, the fact is that there is a huge amount of dissenting evidence against it, including restatements of data / opinion / facts from scientists who formerly claimed to have "believed" in it.

By: Chad

Chad — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:36:58 +0000

Wow, I disagree with that entirely. In fact, I think it is the furthest left side comment I've read on this site. Stating, "as we all know" assumes that there is some inherent truth in socialization in "some" programs.
1. Defense. Most of our "defense" is contracted out to private companies while the money simply passes through government hands. This process is ripe with fraud and abuse.

Apparently, I need to break this up a bit. . .