Trying to understand the Tea Party

mikepegg44 wrote:

k, then why am I aloud to leave my house. Danger lurks everywhere...where is the line?

I should be able to make choices regarding my safety right? I mean, mountain climbing is dangerous, better outlaw it, people get concussions playing football, better outlaw backyard games. . . it just seems that anything can be a safety issue, that isn't good enough to tell me how to live.

well, the line has been drawn, because none of those things you mentioned have been outlawed....

mikepegg44 wrote:

Let me see if I understand what you were saying. That is like saying that you got an income tax break for 5 years but now don't get it anymore. Is that costing you money or is it not? I believe that it is, they are getting more of my money now than they did before and that means I do not have it in my pocket.

Are you saying you feel entitled to a sustained tax break... sort of like some people say others feel entitled to the benefits of social programs?

mikepegg44 wrote:

This is a strange one for me, as you might be jumping a little too far. Speed limits are a PUBLIC health issue. Not a private one. Me not wearing a helmet is a private health issue, not a public one. But you can use this argument if you like, I just think it is flawed.

I think he makes a great point. How exactly are you reasoning that some things are public health issues and others are not? Look up any public health organization and you'll see bike helmets listed right along with speed limits as public health issues.

Do you mean that if you break the speed limit you are infringing on the rights of others, whereas if you fail to wear a bike helmet you are not? One could argue that the other drivers on the road put themselves in danger by choosing to engage in a potentially dangerous activity (driving on roads with no speed limit), so it’s their responsibility to protect themselves if they choose to and their own fault if they are hurt… thereby putting them in the same category as the bike riders who don’t wear helmets. One could also argue that, while failing to wear a helmet doesn’t infringe on the rights of others because others are not in danger, it does infringe on the rights of the taxpayers who frequently end up picking up the tab for the medical care of people with head injuries… thereby putting them in the same category as the driver who may be hit if there were no speed limits. Additionally, helmet and car seat laws are only for minors. The argument there is that the state has an obligation to intercede on behalf of children who can’t be responsible for themselves when parents are neglecting to protect their children’s safety. You also mentioned that smoking in public places shouldn’t be regulated, though that infringes on the rights of others as well.

I think your lines between public and private health are pretty subjective/artificial.

mikepegg44 wrote:

Me wearing a helmet does NOT make someone else more safe. Where is the line drawn then?

I don't get it. You started out by saying that when the taxpayers must pay more in taxes that means their freedom has been taken away. And now you're saying people should be able to engage in activities that ultimately take away more money/freedom from the taxpayers. You can't have it both ways.

I think people should just admit that freedom is not black and white. Ultimately, in whatever situation, someone will lose some "freedom". Our job is to navigate the shades of grey and try to come to the best possible solution that limits the loss of anyone's freedom as much as possible. But we can never do that as long as people continue to think the view they have constructed of what it means to preserve freedom is the only accurate view and no other views are valid, or as long as they continue to view freedom only from their own perspective without recognizing (or caring) that their "freedom" often comes at the expense of the freedom of others.

ETA: I also think it's important to acknowledge that concessions have been made to preserve your freedom, even at the cost of others. The public health folks don't ask the government to regulate that you can't leave your house or drive your car or play football, though, you're right, these things are also dangerous (and can therefore cost me, the taxpayer, money). They only look at what is most infringing upon the rights of the taxpayers and ask for regulation where the benifit (me not having to pay for your hospital bills) is judged to outweigh the cost (you having to wear a helmet).

TriumphantAngel wrote:

as a paramedic who gets to see the consequences of head injuries received by people involved in serious accidents who do not wear protective head equipment, let me tell you it's not a pretty sight.

but hey, go ahead. don't let something than can save your life annoy you. feel free to make a decision not to wear one. it's your life. not mine. can't have the government sticking their nose in. by the way, i assume you don't have a problem calling government paid/run emergency service personnel, and their equipment if ever you or a member of your family is unfortunate enough to have an accident while not wearing a helmet?

and you know that saying 'it can never happen to you'. that's a lie.

i will never understand someone that doesn't take whatever precautions they can to ensure their utmost safety. i know you can't control everything, but you can do what you can to try and minimize things. lifes a precious thing. we only get one of them.

What's sad is that the regulation he's complaining about isn't even about the lives and safety of him and other adults; it's about the lives and safety of his and other people's children. :(

I’m not sure if this thread is about understanding the tea party or bicycle helmet safety, but I will try to offer some insight . . . and I should make it clear that I’m not associated with the Tea Party or the Republicans or the Democrats. But my parents are small business owners and they feel the sting of expansion of government and regulations first hand.

To give some background, they own a small campground wood packaging business in northern Indiana. Right now we are fighting off an invasion of Emerald Ash Borer which is a pesky beetle that is killing off all of the ash trees in Michigan and is heading south. Several years ago they received a two-week notice from the USDA that all wood, regardless of species, that crossed state lines needed to be kiln-dried and stamped with the USDA insignia. Since most of their wood is shipped to a distributer out of Chicago, they effectively had to shut down operations. They tried to explain that they have never had one Ash tree come though production but USDA would not consider reasoning. They were faced with two options: 1) Close down and lay off 20 workers 2) Build an expensive kiln to dry the wood and go though a six month fight for USDA approval. Fortunately for the families that they employ, they decided to go for option 1.

Was the wood they processed ever under threat of the beetle? No. Was the USDA willing to reason common sense or extend a grace period for compliance? No. Did it cost them several hundred thousand dollars and months of lost production to comply with an issue that doesn’t affect them? Yes.

They are understandably concerned with the expansion of government regulations and how it will affect their business. Most small business would have just closed shop rather than absorb the necessary cost to comply. They were kind of lucky that this happened to them when the economy was still strong . . . if this happened today, they would most likely have to close down.

My parents are not racists. They identify with the Tea Party but they don’t identify with the few a-holes that make the headlines (and for good reason). They are just trying to survive these hard times and provide twenty families with an opportunity to keep food on their tables.

Jason P wrote:

I’m not sure if this thread is about understanding the tea party or bicycle helmet safety, but I will try to offer some insight . . . and I should make it clear that I’m not associated with the Tea Party or the Republicans or the Democrats. But my parents are small business owners and they feel the sting of expansion of government and regulations first hand.

To give some background, they own a small campground wood packaging business in northern Indiana. Right now we are fighting off an invasion of Emerald Ash Borer which is a pesky beetle that is killing off all of the ash trees in Michigan and is heading south. Several years ago they received a two-week notice from the USDA that all wood, regardless of species, that crossed state lines needed to be kiln-dried and stamped with the USDA insignia. Since most of their wood is shipped to a distributer out of Chicago, they effectively had to shut down operations. They tried to explain that they have never had one Ash tree come though production but USDA would not consider reasoning. They were faced with two options: 1) Close down and lay off 20 workers 2) Build an expensive kiln to dry the wood and go though a six month fight for USDA approval. Fortunately for the families that they employ, they decided to go for option 1.

Was the wood they processed ever under threat of the beetle? No. Was the USDA willing to reason common sense or extend a grace period for compliance? No. Did it cost them several hundred thousand dollars and months of lost production to comply with an issue that doesn’t affect them? Yes.

They are understandably concerned with the expansion of government regulations and how it will affect their business. Most small business would have just closed shop rather than absorb the necessary cost to comply. They were kind of lucky that this happened to them when the economy was still strong . . . if this happened today, they would most likely have to close down.

My parents are not racists. They identify with the Tea Party but they don’t identify with the few a-holes that make the headlines (and for good reason). They are just trying to survive these hard times and provide twenty families with an opportunity to keep food on their tables.

sorry but that doesn't justify anything

I've never molested children so there shouldn't be laws against it

give me a break

stuckinline wrote:

Jason P wrote:

They were faced with two options: 1) Close down and lay off 20 workers 2) Build an expensive kiln to dry the wood and go though a six month fight for USDA approval. Fortunately for the families that they employ, they decided to go for option 1.

wait, i'm confused. you say they chose option 1, did they lay off the workers?

My bad. I meant option 2. Sorry.

Jason P wrote:

I’m not sure if this thread is about understanding the tea party or bicycle helmet safety, but I will try to offer some insight . . . and I should make it clear that I’m not associated with the Tea Party or the Republicans or the Democrats. But my parents are small business owners and they feel the sting of expansion of government and regulations first hand.

To give some background, they own a small campground wood packaging business in northern Indiana. Right now we are fighting off an invasion of Emerald Ash Borer which is a pesky beetle that is killing off all of the ash trees in Michigan and is heading south. Several years ago they received a two-week notice from the USDA that all wood, regardless of species, that crossed state lines needed to be kiln-dried and stamped with the USDA insignia. Since most of their wood is shipped to a distributer out of Chicago, they effectively had to shut down operations. They tried to explain that they have never had one Ash tree come though production but USDA would not consider reasoning. They were faced with two options: 1) Close down and lay off 20 workers 2) Build an expensive kiln to dry the wood and go though a six month fight for USDA approval. Fortunately for the families that they employ, they decided to go for option 1.

Was the wood they processed ever under threat of the beetle? No. Was the USDA willing to reason common sense or extend a grace period for compliance? No. Did it cost them several hundred thousand dollars and months of lost production to comply with an issue that doesn’t affect them? Yes.

They are understandably concerned with the expansion of government regulations and how it will affect their business. Most small business would have just closed shop rather than absorb the necessary cost to comply. They were kind of lucky that this happened to them when the economy was still strong . . . if this happened today, they would most likely have to close down.

My parents are not racists. They identify with the Tea Party but they don’t identify with the few a-holes that make the headlines (and for good reason). They are just trying to survive these hard times and provide twenty families with an opportunity to keep food on their tables.

help me understand...this gov't requirement happened several years ago....which lead your parents to join the tea party now...

interesting...

Jason P wrote:

Yes. Which to a degree makes sense since the Tea Party didn't exist several years ago. And I don't think they filled out a membership or anything. They just agree with the principle of limited government and free markets. Neither the Democrats or Republicans seem too concerned at the moment.

considering the fact these bugs killed millions of trees, it seems right that the gov't took action to address the issue...sadly your folks were caught up in it...

and considering the "free markets" got us into the mess we are in (i.e., the great recession), thus forcing the gov't to take action, I just find it ironic that folks want both...

I guess the gov't could have taken no action, thus allowing the EAB's to continue to kill millions of trees...

I'd be willing to bet, if no action was taken, folks would be saying "the damn dare gobberment didn't do nothing to stop the EAB's..."

inmytree wrote:

Jason P wrote:

Yes. Which to a degree makes sense since the Tea Party didn't exist several years ago. And I don't think they filled out a membership or anything. They just agree with the principle of limited government and free markets. Neither the Democrats or Republicans seem too concerned at the moment.

considering the fact these bugs killed millions of trees, it seems right that the gov't took action to address the issue...sadly your folks were caught up in it...

and considering the "free markets" got us into the mess we are in (i.e., the great recession), thus forcing the gov't to take action, I just find it ironic that folks want both...

I guess the gov't could have taken no action, thus allowing the EAB's to continue to kill millions of trees...

I'd be willing to bet, if no action was taken, folks would be saying "the damn dare gobberment didn't do nothing to stop the EAB's..."

yep.....

I've changed my tune over the last 15 years....I used to spew the same anti-gov't that I see a lot of on here.

Anymore I say that the gov't won't screw us any harder than private industry does. I embrace socialized medicine because I see too many of our allies doing it successfully.