Blow Me Bloomberg

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

There should not be any of this, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION IN THE REAL WORLD FOR GIVERNMENTG INGTERVENTION OF THIS TYPE: That is what differentiates a free society from the rest and the dangers to our nation are far greater than the savings First and formoesg: We are told that the government is our SERVANT. When the servant starts telling the MASTERS what they must and must not do, and enforce it at the point of a (usually concealed gun; that is, by force)., that is a slave rebellion and good cause for the masters to bring out the whips and chains and show who is boss. The health dangers of smoking are vastly overstated and do not stand up to scientific scrutiny For instance. the first rule of Toxicology is "dosage determines response" For the 40+ years that the anti-smoking zealots have been setting the agenda there have not been produced any dosage--response curves. And if you think that is all I have. I can assure there is more Go get a copy of "Thank You for smoking" in the July 4 issue (either 1994, 1995 or 1995) FORBES or a copy of "Butt Out" from a late 1990's issue of The PHEONIX.. And there is still more. One cute thing about this is that this is a regressive tax on the poor, but I do not hear that from the Establishment. Besides which when Government starts using punitive measures against the populace for intulging in a legal commodity. it is time for the worm to turn and administer a good, nasty bite. This is not the age of the Divine Right of Kings. If the people tolerate one instance of this, the statists will be emboldened and how long will it be before they take from you what you like and who will come to your aid?

If you think the Establsihment is so great at science follow the history of Sodium Cyclamate. The kicker is , as I learend in Reasearch Methods calss in 1973. The results that were used to ban the stuff in c1970 never replicated, which means that before the ban was put in The follow up to check for accuracy was not even done: What kind of science is that? Hint; they are probably still waiting for the mother ship to arrive

If what you say is true about light bulbs then why did the bulbstapo get in the act. and by what kind of law can a person be forced to use items with hazardous materials in them that can be unleashed by ordinary use? Unless you think nobody will ever drop one of these things

It takes a level of faith commencerate with membership in a mind-control cult to believe it when you hear "I'm from the Government and I'm here to help"

[Diapered Jason]

Christine, if you want to debate the unhealthiness of cigarettes, I need only point out one very certain fact. The cigarettes contain a chemical called naphthalene (similar to benzene, but with two rings), which is derived from the tar. It is carcinogenic meaning it will bind to the end of your DNA strand and cause cancer if your response system does not destroy it, which it usually does. I can reproduce this chemical reaction myself in the lab. That is why cigarettes cause lung cancer eventually. Not to mention, an excessive amount of smoke has always been known to cause lung damage. And yes, Christine, you can overdose on nicotine, but it is very difficult because of the delivery system, which is smoke inhalation (injection would be much easier to overdose on). The tax is fair in my opinion, because it is not really about the government telling you what you should and should not do. It is about making up for the extra cost of health care and loss of productivity conferred by the unhealthy habit, which is over $100 billion dollars a year. That is the way I see it, sort of like a toll for crossing a bridge. Why should everyone have to pay for the bridge when it is the people who use the bridge that should pay for it. To put the cost into perspective, obesity costs over $500 billion dollars a year, which is interesting. Without debating how true the numbers are, we can see the government is not consistent, but I am. I think a tax on unhealthy foods that are well known to cause obesity is fair as well. As I say though, I do not want to ban anything unless the cost of legalization exceeds a certain price, such as with heroin.

If what you say is true about light bulbs then why did the bulbstapo get in the act. and by what kind of law can a person be forced to use items with hazardous materials in them that can be unleashed by ordinary use? Unless you think nobody will ever drop one of these things

I don't know or I don't remember. Maybe they just wanted to fool the public into thinking they cared about the environment when they really don't or satisfy some extreme liberals who often want us to stop doing things that hurt the environment, but provide no alternative or the only alternative is one that hurts the environment even more (For example, extreme liberals are against dams for hydroelectricity). Also, I would not be too worried about the mercury even if you do drop and break them as it is just a small amount of vapor, 3-5 mg (The same cannot be said for the Chinese workers who built them, but they were exposed to much more over the course of months). If you are, then I recommend buying the new high brightness LED lights that are coming out. They are expensive, but the cost will go down fast and they will probably last longer then you or me.

It takes a level of faith commencerate with membership in a mind-control cult to believe it when you hear "I'm from the Government and I'm here to help"

The irony with that statement is there is a party out there now who says the same thing as you in that statement and they did one hell of a bang-up job (sarcasm), except I think they actually want to dumb down government rather then make it more efficient. I guess it is a self-fulfilling prophecy, perhaps one they intended to fulfill.

I think government can be improved, but you have to be careful who you vote for. For instance, in this presidential election vote neither Democrat or Republican, as they both seem to be doing one hell of a bang-up job (more sarcasm). The issue I see in both parties is how the politicians get campaign money. When a donor donates money, 97% of the time from what I have heard very recently, the donor is getting something back from the politician. It seems both parties have their rich buddies who they serve instead of the public. Vote for the candidates that don't do this and you get a better government or at least someone who genuinely wants to make the government work better. This candidate will probably not be one you hear about.

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

Your firstr mistake is "it is carcinogenic..." it is carcinogenic in certain dosages and as I said, in 40 years, I have never seen dosage response curves. What you can say is that there is some doseage at which it becomes carcinogenic. Until you can tell me what that dosage is, and then do the same for all the claimed "dangerous chemicals", you have no case. Now they have had two generations to do that. Now there was a talk show out of Boston run by David Brudnoy who was a journalist and taugth the subject. He would routinely crush advanced medical students who would make the same claims. He would bring out data from journals that theydid not challenge so they must have been legit. He also made the claim that, on average, the lifespan of smokers is 99% as long as non-smokers, which at the time, Life Expectancy was in the 77.5 year range so we are talking about a difference of less than a year. and nobody took him up on it. Carcinogenity, like any form of toxicity is relative to dose. They are finding out that certain levels of anti-oxidants are carcinogenic. Beyond that, another factor in carcinogeneisis is the genetic robustness of the organism, which is why they always ask after family history. So you have grossly oversimplified. I have had cancer so I made it my busienss to understand what is going on and the cancer I had has no fully known cause. If you believe all that you hear about UV, I would have died from skin cancer a decade ago. I burned pretty well 5 times between the time I was 5 and 19, peeling a couple of times and I was always out in the sun and we did not have SPF anything. Here is a good one: In 2002 I went for an cncological exam and was pretty dark and the oncologist said "You look healthy"

As to my statement about the level of faith required to believe a claim by a beureaucrat. Anyone who has all their marbles and who has lived in the real world for ten years, seen beureaucrats in action and paid attention. Look up the meaning of "Experientia Docit". In plain English You are wrong. I am not going to disrespect your intelligence, it just needs to be taken for a spin in the real world. The is the quickest way to find out how vastly much you do not know. Like Dylan said: Look out Kid, they keep it all hid. I am no slouch but by the time I was 21, I felt like a dummy. For 4 years every day was a WTF moment

There is one thing thagt blows all the fance talk away, and it was not me who said it. so look it up GYF (Google is Your Fr8iend) "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" THAT is why I support the Wall of Seapration of Economy and State and Midicine and State, as in and for the same reason as the separation of Church and State. There can be no compromiseing, temporising or negotiation on this. For the same reasons as religious freedom is an absolute, All freedoms are absolutes, unless you wish to live the Thirty Years War all over again. Read the Bill of Particulars in the Declaration of Independence: "He hat sent men to harrass us...." Honest men do not seek power over others. and those who do are not doing it "for your own good". Oh yes and 1+1 ALWAYS equals 2

[lilJester]

yup.... remember... george burns died of lung cancer when he was 50....wait........no he didn't maybe it was groucho marx? wait... no.... hmmmm...

different people have different reactions. what kills 100, 1 can still survive. our bodies, our right to choose what we do to them.

[Diapered Jason]

Interesting. I found it.

http://www.dtsc.ca.g...ene_Handout.pdf

According to the article, the dosage required to be at risk might be as low as 0.000034 ug/m3. That is a real small amount. Now, you can find how much is in cigarettes, but I am willing to bet it is higher than that miniscule amount I cited. Also, I will explain that statistic you mentioned. Smoking can potentially hurt you in the short run, but it usually mostly hurts you in the long run. So, if you plan to live past your 50s and 60s, you better not smoke; however, a number of other problems not related to smoking usually strike you at the time. With my family, we usually live long healthy lives (80s and 90s) and to my knowledge, none have died by cancer on my father's side. On my mother's side, they are already dead, but they were all smokers. They did not make it past their 60s. I think it is difficult to dissuade anybody that smoking will not affect your health, but good luck.

Now Christine, you probably don't know as much as I don't know, because what I am talking about with the tax has never really been implemented before here to my knowledge. I am not sure it would work, because it is hard to predict the economic ramifications as well as several other factors. Again, it can also easily be implemented incorrectly as seen with the candy tax I mentioned before. I am just saying its fair, and I gave my reasoning. Also, I am not a fan of laissez faire politics and supply-side economics. I have seen that implemented many times and it did not work many times. I have seen better results with policy based on Keynesian economics, but it does not always work as well. And we can argue that all day as it has yet to be settled.

[redneck diaper boy]

Interesting. I found it.

http://www.dtsc.ca.g...ene_Handout.pdf

According to the article, the dosage required to be at risk might be as low as 0.000034 ug/m3. That is a real small amount. Now, you can find how much is in cigarettes, but I am willing to bet it is higher than that miniscule amount I cited. Also, I will explain that statistic you mentioned. Smoking can potentially hurt you in the short run, but it usually mostly hurts you in the long run. So, if you plan to live past your 50s and 60s, you better not smoke; however, a number of other problems not related to smoking usually strike you at the time. With my family, we usually live long healthy lives (80s and 90s) and to my knowledge, none have died by cancer on my father's side. On my mother's side, they are already dead, but they were all smokers. They did not make it past their 60s. I think it is difficult to dissuade anybody that smoking will not affect your health, but good luck.

Now Christine, you probably don't know as much as I don't know, because what I am talking about with the tax has never really been implemented before here to my knowledge. I am not sure it would work, because it is hard to predict the economic ramifications as well as several other factors. Again, it can also easily be implemented incorrectly as seen with the candy tax I mentioned before. I am just saying its fair, and I gave my reasoning. Also, I am not a fan of laissez faire politics and supply-side economics. I have seen that implemented many times and it did not work many times. I have seen better results with policy based on Keynesian economics, but it does not always work as well. And we can argue that all day as it has yet to be settled.

What the paper really says is to stay away from those toxic moth balls! You know, the ones that grandma kept her wool blankets in a cedar chest therein?

[BoTox]

I think that contains a number of inaccuracies. For instance, farmers who live in the "fly-over" country you speak of reap the welfare of government more than any other group of people. The farmers are compensated by the government for loss of profit, even if it is due to price fluctuation if you can believe that. On top of that, they are subsidized by the government. So, I think your statement you made about "not being dependent on the government for every little thing under the sun" is contarded and laughable at best. Often, it is the people who are most critical of government spending that are the ones who get the most money from some kind of tax credit, welfare, subsidy, whatever. I wonder if it is true with you. Also, if you had done your research as I see you clearly haven't, you would know it is an efficiency standard, not a wattage standard. The only reason they are related is because the 100 watt incandescent bulbs are "foreseen" to be too inefficient to meet standards, but you can still improve the efficiency and sell a 100 watt incandescent light bulb. That said, this is a different subject.

Again, your psuedo-facts are based on something you know nothing about. I grew up on a farm. Farmers do not get paid for low crop yield or failed crops unless they have crop insurance. Also, farmers are the hardest working Americans you will ever meet. They are subsidized to grow what Washington wants but they do not have to grow what the government wants if they reject the subsidy. If Washington wants to call the tune, they have to pay the piper. American farmers literally feed the world. Our country gives away the excess food our country does not use. This is a point of national security. If we do not control our own food supplies, we are at the mercy of those that due.

As for the light bulb, then why must the government get involved? The free market will kill off the 100wat light bulb as sure as the buggy whip and steam engine were killed off by internal combustion and cars. Anything the government touches is usually unnecessarily burdened.

I'm just really sick of the whole something-for-nothing-someone-else-pays-for-it mentality. I pay enough in federal taxes alone currently to keep a family of 4 above the poverty level. If I get 5% of that back for having a mortgage, you are saying I'm getting welfare? Hardly.

[Diapered Jason]

Again, your psuedo-facts are based on something you know nothing about. I grew up on a farm. Farmers do not get paid for low crop yield or failed crops unless they have crop insurance. Also, farmers are the hardest working Americans you will ever meet. They are subsidized to grow what Washington wants but they do not have to grow what the government wants if they reject the subsidy. If Washington wants to call the tune, they have to pay the piper. American farmers literally feed the world. Our country gives away the excess food our country does not use. This is a point of national security. If we do not control our own food supplies, we are at the mercy of those that due.

As for the light bulb, then why must the government get involved? The free market will kill off the 100wat light bulb as sure as the buggy whip and steam engine were killed off by internal combustion and cars. Anything the government touches is usually unnecessarily burdened.

I'm just really sick of the whole something-for-nothing-someone-else-pays-for-it mentality. I pay enough in federal taxes alone currently to keep a family of 4 above the poverty level. If I get 5% of that back for having a mortgage, you are saying I'm getting welfare? Hardly.

This is Bush and Clinton era policy if you don't remember. You shouldn't have assumed it would be the same as when you were growing up, but clearly from your statements you are for farmer welfare or socialism as you stated you wish to control it, which it largely already is. It is true you have to buy crop insurance, but this is subsidized and ran by the government. In fact, this is a multibillion dollar expenditure for the government since they lose money with this crop insurance program every year. I call that welfare. You give money, but you get more money back and I, the tax payer, am subsidizing this. Any and all tax refunds you get from the government is an expenditure or government spending, because it costs the government money. The tax subsidy you get for having a mortgage is a good thing, but it is free money from the government nonetheless that has an effect on the economy as well as many other things. Be aware this is something-for-nothing that I am paying for, because I am a tax payer who does not have a mortgage. You say you are sick of it, but you yourself reap the benefits of it. Not only that, you think you deserve it. Welcome to the crowd. That is what everyone else thinks.

For the record, the state with the best economy is North Dakota. If you drive through North Dakota, you see nothing but corn fields for miles. I did this recently, it is a boring drive. Clearly, the farmers are taking full advantage of the subsidies, but it is because they can. Hardest working, not part of this debate, but they seem to be doing very well with the help they get from the government, which is billions of dollars each year.

I am trying to tell you not to be hypocritical, because that is your current condition. You are proud, I know, and I am not trying to put you down, just realize what you get from the government.

[square_duck]

I haven't read the justifications given, but at a wild guess:

The idea is that people trend to defaults, and current pricing schemes end up with people defaulting to the largest size. Reduce the maxium size sellable, and you reduce the default. Reduce the default and mindless calorie consumption drops for most people. Businesses spend alot of money to study defaults and mindless consumption to maximize profit. It isn't some idea that was just invented by Bloomberg. Ethical businesses try to engineer intelligent defaults and benefit consumer and business.

In principle, I get that they are trying to do a good thing. However, ON principles, I think they overstepped, majorly. Don't want you population to mindlessly consume sugary crap? How about you develop the critical thinking, self-assement, and mindfullness of your population, so they are less likely to take defaults, and more likely to default to better options in the first place.

Of course, if people actually learned to think for themselves then pretty much every politician and most businesses would be screwed and since those are bassically the same entities now...I don't have much hope for the future.

WHAT!!!???!?!?!?! You want to EDUCATE people??!!?!? You want to ACTUALLY have people thinking for themselves?? HERESY! This will be the beginning of ANARCHY! and think of all the Victims ...the unemployed state and political workers...I think this is a G*R*E*A*T idea....please keep going!

[BoTox]

This is Bush and Clinton era policy if you don't remember. You shouldn't have assumed it would be the same as when you were growing up, but clearly from your statements you are for farmer welfare or socialism as you stated you wish to control it, which it largely already is. It is true you have to buy crop insurance, but this is subsidized and ran by the government. In fact, this is a multibillion dollar expenditure for the government since they lose money with this crop insurance program every year. I call that welfare. You give money, but you get more money back and I, the tax payer, am subsidizing this. Any and all tax refunds you get from the government is an expenditure or government spending, because it costs the government money. The tax subsidy you get for having a mortgage is a good thing, but it is free money from the government nonetheless that has an effect on the economy as well as many other things. Be aware this is something-for-nothing that I am paying for, because I am a tax payer who does not have a mortgage. You say you are sick of it, but you yourself reap the benefits of it. Not only that, you think you deserve it. Welcome to the crowd. That is what everyone else thinks.

For the record, the state with the best economy is North Dakota. If you drive through North Dakota, you see nothing but corn fields for miles. I did this recently, it is a boring drive. Clearly, the farmers are taking full advantage of the subsidies, but it is because they can. Hardest working, not part of this debate, but they seem to be doing very well with the help they get from the government, which is billions of dollars each year.

I am trying to tell you not to be hypocritical, because that is your current condition. You are proud, I know, and I am not trying to put you down, just realize what you get from the government.

Yes, I've been to North Dakota and they are booming because of oil. Yes, they grow a lot of corn but the overwhelming boost to their economy is the private lands exploration of oil.

On farming, you are still confused. If a farmer's crop makes, he gets nothing from his insurance. There are other subsidies that apply to minimum prices paid for a crop that are signed up for as payment for growing what Washington says it wants. If Washington wants corn and I grow soybeans, I get no subsidy nor price guarantee. If the crop brings more than the minimum, the government kicks in nothing. There is very little subsidy in cattle either. Cattle farmers are much less tied to the government and pretty much get market prices when we sell stock at the stock yards.

Again, you are confused. The tax refund I get back is a FRACTION of what I've paid in over the previous 12 months. Government makes nothing and has to confiscate it from others. If I am forced to give the government 1/3 of my hard earned dollars and get back a mere 2% as a refund, I'm supposed to say, "Thank you, please take more?" Typically liberal mentality that believes everything is owned by the government and anything we have is at the government's benevolence. A farmer actually grows/raises/produces something.

[Diapered Jason]

Again, you are confused. The tax refund I get back is a FRACTION of what I've paid in over the previous 12 months. Government makes nothing and has to confiscate it from others. If I am forced to give the government 1/3 of my hard earned dollars and get back a mere 2% as a refund, I'm supposed to say, "Thank you, please take more?" Typically liberal mentality that believes everything is owned by the government and anything we have is at the government's benevolence. A farmer actually grows/raises/produces something.

It an attitude like that that got you into this debate in the first place. Where in my posts did I say I believe everything is or should be owned by the government? Clearly, you do not know where I stand, but I have yet to actually tell you whether or not I approve of tax levels or anything we have talked about for that matter. If I were you, I would not have made that assumption. I am just telling you what it is. For tax subsidies and returns, benevolence certainly has nothing to do with it. Many of them are for steering the economy, which by the way, is a socialist idea, as well as many other things. That said, you should be making the connection that a mere 2% you get back is an expenditure for the government that has to be pay for some way, otherwise it would not happen. This is done either by cutting spending, raising the debt, or by raising the base tax rate. The more money you get back from your tax returns, the more one or more of those things I previously mentioned has to happen. In extension, any time the government cuts the taxes and does not have a surplus, it will have to take on more debt or cut spending. That is why I call tax cuts and subsidies an expenditure.

[BoTox]

That is why I call tax cuts and subsidies an expenditure.

Oh brother! What a warped point of view. You still don't get that government has no money. They take it from me and everyone else with a paycheck. This is hopeless as long as you will not acknowledge government give me a portion of my taxes back is still me paying a crap load more than they returned. In essence, I overpaid and they refunded the difference.

[Diapered Jason]

Oh brother! What a warped point of view. You still don't get that government has no money. They take it from me and everyone else with a paycheck. This is hopeless as long as you will not acknowledge government give me a portion of my taxes back is still me paying a crap load more than they returned. In essence, I overpaid and they refunded the difference.

It is not a point of view, that is just what it is. We know the government does not have any money. That much is obvious, but it is still a budget whether it be balanced or not balanced. Regardless, the money you get back on a tax return comes from somewhere. Sure, you pay your taxes, so you get some back, but part of the money you get back is also borrowed money, because the government is in debt and does have a balanced budget. If I can't explain it to you in terms of expenditures, then just try seeing real basically where the money goes. The government takes your taxes and puts in a big pot with the rest of the taxes and revenue. Whether it be social security or income, it goes in a big pot. The government knowing that it cannot meet its obligations borrows money and throws it into the pot as well. Then the government pays it dues, whether it be medicare/medicaid, defense, social security, interest on the loans, or your tax return. So you see, if the government had less tax subsidies, there would be less bills to pay just as if the government had decided not to fund some project. That is why you can call tax subsidies an expenditure, because the difference between a tax subsidy and funding some road project is null in the book keeping. In addition, temporary tax cuts, such as the Bush/Obama tax cuts, are also regarded in the same way.

Now, what the government should do to balance the budget and when it should balance the budget is a totally different argument.

[Bettypooh]

Hmmmm.... from sodas to light sockets and some socialism, too- boy how this topic has taken on a life of it's own

What the people want they will get- legally or otherwise. In the EU nations, the incandescent light bulb cannot be legally sold but one intelligent guy over there will be happy to legally send you "100 watt globe shaped heating devices" that strangely enough fit the standard "A" type bulb sockets so your Easy-Bake oven can be repaired That they happen to emit luminescence just happens to be a side-effect of the 'intended' purpose

Here in the US the sales ban on 100W incandescent bulbs is already in effect, and the smaller rated bulbs will be similarly gone in a couple years, yet there are places where they are still the most efficient option, and when you take the whole process into consideration from raw materials to landfill, the incandescent bulb is still the best option we have for many applications. A CFL or LED in your closet or attic will never pay for itself in your lifetime even if you bought it as a child and died at a very old age The CFL is inefficient unless it is used for 10-15 minutes or more, and the LED bulb is too expensive to make it worthwhile in short-use applications The "green" aspect does not exist when you consider what it takes to manufacture and dispose of the new compared to the old, and what the factories leave as waste in the wake to be dealt with is a much larger and more dangerous mass than before too. I do know whereof I speak as I have done the research- all of this can be easily found online. It is well known for those who have been watching the insane mess being created "for our own good"

The only household incandescent bulbs which are exempt from the US sales ban are specially shaped bulbs like in a candelabra, special-purpose bulbs where a direct replacement is not suitable, like the small-sized bulb in your fridge (which also is an "A" base type bulb), and bulbs with bases that are not standard for which no CFL or LED is being currently made Since we can't do without our Easy Bake ovens, I suspect some kind soul here will begin selling the 'replacement heating element' for them in the US soon too

I wonder how much the government will spend hunting down those illegally imported shipments of "light bulbs". When my small stash is gone, my closets and bedroom lights will be a lot 'cooler' looking with 25 watt fridge bulbs in them, even if they then become as dim as our political 'leaders' currently are

Bettypooh

[BoTox]

Hmmmm.... from sodas to light sockets and some socialism, too- boy how this topic has taken on a life of it's own

Light bulbs, sodas and social justice are all the hallmark of a "progressive" socialist program. Beware those that woud do for you what you can more effectively do for yourself. There is already a US light bulb manufacturer that can still sell 100watt bulbs. He sells them for rough service like shop lights.

A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.

Milton Friedman

Read more at http://www.brainyquo...WrkW8eh3vt0W.99

If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand.

Milton Friedman

Read more at http://www.brainyquo...WrkW8eh3vt0W.99

[Diapered Jason]

If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand.

Milton Friedman

Read more at http://www.brainyquo...WrkW8eh3vt0W.99

Lol, I like that one. That one is funny.

By far though, the LEDs are the most environmentally friendly. Neither CFL or incandescents are all that environmentally friendly. CFLs contain mercury of course, but incandescents use more power and produce more waste.

Certainly though, the cost of LEDs will come down very soon. When they do, they will become my bulb of choice.

Oh, BoTox, I think I get what you are saying now. I think you were referring to tax deductions, such as deducting your property tax from your income tax. I thought you were referring to some tax subsidy or tax credit, such as having multiple houses or places of living (yeah, that exists). The tax deduction is different, because in this case, it is exactly as you said it. You did pay extra, and you are getting your money back. Deducting your property tax is not an expenditure, but the tax subsidy example I gave is an expenditure. My mistake for misunderstanding you.

[lilJester]

yeah remind me to thank the governemnt for screwing with my asthma medication. We all know that it's the asthmatics faults for the ozone with the cfc's in our inhalers....