Here come the salt police!!!!

[Vanquish]

The great thing about this thread is that the people complaining won't change what happens in the least. That makes me chuckle and laugh and happy in my cockles.

Just because one of you calls it "common table salt" and has warm fuzzy feelings about it...doesnt mean that it doesn't cause health problems.

Windbags keep blowin' wind.

The FDA is constitutional...salt regulations are constitutional...and you've reduced this debate to about 10 words:

SUCK IT! THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO TO STOP IT!!!

 

[G.T.]

Prove it.

I pay very low insurance premiums smokers i know pay higher premiums.

If I do not suffer and get treated for the illnesses related to high risk behavior, how exactly am i paying more for my annual check ups?

If you can't figure this out I don't believe I can help you. Insurance costs are not the only healthcare costs.

 

[saveliberty]

The great thing about this thread is that the people complaining won't change what happens in the least. That makes me chuckle and laugh and happy in my cockles.

Just because one of you calls it "common table salt" and has warm fuzzy feelings about it...doesnt mean that it doesn't cause health problems.

Windbags keep blowin' wind.

The FDA is constitutional...salt regulations are constitutional...and you've reduced this debate to about 10 words:

SUCK IT! THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO TO STOP IT!!!

The Dangerous Side Of Sugar on Yahoo! Health

The Dangerous Side Of SugarBy Joy Bauer, M.S., R.D., C.D.N. - Posted on Tue, Apr 20, 2010, 12:57 pm PDT Joy's Healthy Bite

As if you needed another good reason to kick your soda habit, a new study from the Journal of the American Medical Association reveals that a diet heavy in added sugar is linked to elevated triglyceride levels and may increase your risk for a heart attack.

Up next. Anyone care to bet how long they get to regulate this unpopular move?

 

[masquerade]

Two words come to mind .... personal responsibility.

Giving more power to the government, in my opinion, is never a good idea.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It's a done deal. They will be lowering the salt content in processed foods. They're saving you from yourself and kids who don't know any better as well.

You can eat all those things on your own time. No problem.

The job of government is not to save someone from themselves.... it is to protect the freedoms and rights that we have

If I choose to go on the all Jack Daniels and Crisco diet... that is my business
If I have a product that has 96% of it's calories from fat and enough salt to make a horse happy for a month.. so be it... as long as I am not having toxic chemicals or contaminants and I disclose what is in my product... if the public don't want it, the public won't buy it

The whole point is that those dose amounts ARE toxic.

The amounts in our food are NOT TOXIC, go peddle your fear somewhere else.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If I choose to eat 4 pounds of salt and 6 pounds of butter every day... and there is a company that wishes to package and sell the products that fit that bill... that is all part of a little thing called freedom

If I choose to ingest 6 ounces of crystal meth and 12 cc's of herion every day... and there is a company that wishes to package and sell the products that fit that bill... that is all part of a little thing called freedom.

MORON ALERT. MORON alert.

 

[DiamondDave]

The great thing about this thread is that the people complaining won't change what happens in the least. That makes me chuckle and laugh and happy in my cockles.

Just because one of you calls it "common table salt" and has warm fuzzy feelings about it...doesnt mean that it doesn't cause health problems.

Windbags keep blowin' wind.

The FDA is constitutional...salt regulations are constitutional...and you've reduced this debate to about 10 words:

SUCK IT! THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO TO STOP IT!!!

Are oxygen regulations constitutional? Are vitamin B12 limitations or regulations constitutional? Too much water can be toxic, better not sell bottles of water that are over a gallon and to regulate that must be constitutional...

This is indeed government overstepping its powers, AGAIN

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The great thing about this thread is that the people complaining won't change what happens in the least. That makes me chuckle and laugh and happy in my cockles.

Just because one of you calls it "common table salt" and has warm fuzzy feelings about it...doesnt mean that it doesn't cause health problems.

Windbags keep blowin' wind.

The FDA is constitutional...salt regulations are constitutional...and you've reduced this debate to about 10 words:

SUCK IT! THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO TO STOP IT!!!

Not true, we can elect more people that think like us and have Congress restrict what the FDA can do. We can threaten the same and have current members do the same. THAT is how Government works in this Country dumb ass.

 

[Wry Catcher]

To me its a waste of time and government reasources. People can choose to eat healthier if they want to.

I object and I am not a fringer or ignorant.

But you appear to be (by your response) ideological. Government required seat belts in cars, air bags in cars, helmets on bikes, etc. to make us safer. Does this infringe on your freedom? You can ignore the advice at your peril, and object to government interference all you please. You are free to do so, but to suggest that a government ignore the health and well being of its citizens is absurd. Defending us from danger is one of governments roles is it not? Or is the war on terror a waste of time and resources too?

Did your parents not teach you to be responsible for yourself and your actions? Do you honestly think our government was formed with the purpose of caring for you and saving you from yourself?[/QUOT]

I suggest you leave my parents out of the discussion.
The broad question is, what is the purpose of government? I'd like to hear your answer to my question, though I will answers yours.
If one were to read the preamble to our Constitution and consider it to be the vision statement or mission statement of the founders, then one must consider that yes, the people came together "in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.
Consider (as conservatives are want to say) what is a literal interpretation of the "general welfare"? Might that mean the health and/or safety of the people?
Now consider (source: 2010 NY Times Almanac., page 395 "Motor Vehicle Deaths"):
Since the first reported motor vehicle death on 9/13/1899, 2.9 million people have died in auto accidents in the U.S. Over the years, however, the number of deaths per 100,000 population and 100,000 registered vehicles have declined dramatically. The motor vehicle rate in 2008 fell to an historic low...data suggests that seat belts, air bags, child safety seats, strict drunk driving laws and enforcement save thousands of lives each year.
This didn't just happen, government - local, state and federal agencies acted and the general welfare of our nations people benefited.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Prove it.

I pay very low insurance premiums smokers i know pay higher premiums.

If I do not suffer and get treated for the illnesses related to high risk behavior, how exactly am i paying more for my annual check ups?

If you can't figure this out I don't believe I can help you. Insurance costs are not the only healthcare costs.

Insurance costs are my only health care costs and those do not rise because some other guy in another state smokes or eats too much salt.

 

[kwc57]

But you appear to be (by your response) ideological. Government required seat belts in cars, air bags in cars, helmets on bikes, etc. to make us safer. Does this infringe on your freedom? You can ignore the advice at your peril, and object to government interference all you please. You are free to do so, but to suggest that a government ignore the health and well being of its citizens is absurd. Defending us from danger is one of governments roles is it not? Or is the war on terror a waste of time and resources too?

Did your parents not teach you to be responsible for yourself and your actions? Do you honestly think our government was formed with the purpose of caring for you and saving you from yourself?[/QUOT]

I suggest you leave my parents out of the discussion.
The broad question is, what is the purpose of government? I'd like to hear your answer to my question, though I will answers yours.
If one were to read the preamble to our Constitution and consider it to be the vision statement or mission statement of the founders, then one must consider that yes, the people came together "in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.
Consider (as conservatives are want to say) what is a literal interpretation of the "general welfare"? Might that mean the health and/or safety of the people?
Now consider (source: 2010 NY Times Almanac., page 395 "Motor Vehicle Deaths"):
Since the first reported motor vehicle death on 9/13/1899, 2.9 million people have died in auto accidents in the U.S. Over the years, however, the number of deaths per 100,000 population and 100,000 registered vehicles have declined dramatically. The motor vehicle rate in 2008 fell to an historic low...data suggests that seat belts, air bags, child safety seats, strict drunk driving laws and enforcement save thousands of lives each year.
This didn't just happen, government - local, state and federal agencies acted and the general welfare of our nations people benefited.

general welfare

......."The Founding Fathers said in the preamble that one reason for establishing the Constitution was to “promote the general welfare.” What they meant was that the Constitution and powers granted to the federal government were not to favor special interest groups or particular classes of people. There were to be no privileged individuals or groups in society. Neither minorities nor the majority was to be favored. Rather, the Constitution would promote the “general welfare” by ensuring a free society where free, self-responsible individuals - rich and poor, bankers and shopkeepers, employers and employees, farmers and blacksmiths - would enjoy “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

Quoting the Tenth Amendment, Jefferson wrote: “I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That ‘all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.’ To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”

Writing about the “general welfare” clause in 1791, Thomas Jefferson saw the danger of misinterpreting the Constitution. The danger in the hands of Senators and Congressmen was “that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.” Unlike public officials during Jefferson’s time, our modern-day legislators have a very loose interpretation of the Constitution. The result is that government has mushroomed into a monolithic bureaucracy"..........

 

[Wry Catcher]

Did your parents not teach you to be responsible for yourself and your actions? Do you honestly think our government was formed with the purpose of caring for you and saving you from yourself?[/QUOT]

I suggest you leave my parents out of the discussion.
The broad question is, what is the purpose of government? I'd like to hear your answer to my question, though I will answers yours.
If one were to read the preamble to our Constitution and consider it to be the vision statement or mission statement of the founders, then one must consider that yes, the people came together "in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.
Consider (as conservatives are want to say) what is a literal interpretation of the "general welfare"? Might that mean the health and/or safety of the people?
Now consider (source: 2010 NY Times Almanac., page 395 "Motor Vehicle Deaths"):
Since the first reported motor vehicle death on 9/13/1899, 2.9 million people have died in auto accidents in the U.S. Over the years, however, the number of deaths per 100,000 population and 100,000 registered vehicles have declined dramatically. The motor vehicle rate in 2008 fell to an historic low...data suggests that seat belts, air bags, child safety seats, strict drunk driving laws and enforcement save thousands of lives each year.
This didn't just happen, government - local, state and federal agencies acted and the general welfare of our nations people benefited.

general welfare

......."The Founding Fathers said in the preamble that one reason for establishing the Constitution was to “promote the general welfare.” What they meant was that the Constitution and powers granted to the federal government were not to favor special interest groups or particular classes of people. There were to be no privileged individuals or groups in society. Neither minorities nor the majority was to be favored. Rather, the Constitution would promote the “general welfare” by ensuring a free society where free, self-responsible individuals - rich and poor, bankers and shopkeepers, employers and employees, farmers and blacksmiths - would enjoy “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

Quoting the Tenth Amendment, Jefferson wrote: “I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That ‘all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.’ To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”

Writing about the “general welfare” clause in 1791, Thomas Jefferson saw the danger of misinterpreting the Constitution. The danger in the hands of Senators and Congressmen was “that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.” Unlike public officials during Jefferson’s time, our modern-day legislators have a very loose interpretation of the Constitution. The result is that government has mushroomed into a monolithic bureaucracy"..........

Source please. I doubt Jefferson wrote: Unlike public officials in Jefferson's time...". Do you have a primary source for Jefferson (letters, etc.), wherein he gives his spin on the preamble? It appears to me this post is taken from a secondary source. Correct? And even if the words are his, the context is equally important.

 

[kwc57]

general welfare

......."The Founding Fathers said in the preamble that one reason for establishing the Constitution was to “promote the general welfare.” What they meant was that the Constitution and powers granted to the federal government were not to favor special interest groups or particular classes of people. There were to be no privileged individuals or groups in society. Neither minorities nor the majority was to be favored. Rather, the Constitution would promote the “general welfare” by ensuring a free society where free, self-responsible individuals - rich and poor, bankers and shopkeepers, employers and employees, farmers and blacksmiths - would enjoy “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

Quoting the Tenth Amendment, Jefferson wrote: “I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That ‘all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.’ To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”

Writing about the “general welfare” clause in 1791, Thomas Jefferson saw the danger of misinterpreting the Constitution. The danger in the hands of Senators and Congressmen was “that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.” Unlike public officials during Jefferson’s time, our modern-day legislators have a very loose interpretation of the Constitution. The result is that government has mushroomed into a monolithic bureaucracy"..........

Source please. I doubt Jefferson wrote: Unlike public officials in Jefferson's time...". Do you have a primary source for Jefferson (letters, etc.), wherein he gives his spin on the preamble? It appears to me this post is taken from a secondary source. Correct? And even if the words are his, the context is equally important.

You asked for my thoughts on the purpose of government as it realtes to "general welfare". The comments I linked to closely reflect my thoughts. If you want to question the context of what the original writer of the link I provided says, knock yourself out. The writer said it, I just subscribe to it.

 

[manifold]

The great thing about this thread is that the people complaining won't change what happens in the least. That makes me chuckle and laugh and happy in my cockles.

Just because one of you calls it "common table salt" and has warm fuzzy feelings about it...doesnt mean that it doesn't cause health problems.

Windbags keep blowin' wind.

The FDA is constitutional...salt regulations are constitutional...and you've reduced this debate to about 10 words:

SUCK IT! THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO TO STOP IT!!!

Not true, we can elect more people that think like us and have Congress restrict what the FDA can do. We can threaten the same and have current members do the same. THAT is how Government works in this Country dumb ass.

And you can also lobby to legalize Mormon pedophilia cults.

How's that work'n out for you?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Source please. I doubt Jefferson wrote: Unlike public officials in Jefferson's time...". Do you have a primary source for Jefferson (letters, etc.), wherein he gives his spin on the preamble? It appears to me this post is taken from a secondary source. Correct? And even if the words are his, the context is equally important.

You asked for my thoughts on the purpose of government as it realtes to "general welfare". The comments I linked to closely reflect my thoughts. If you want to question the context of what the original writer of the link I provided says, knock yourself out. The writer said it, I just subscribe to it.

Oh! Silly me. I asked your thoughts and you gave me an unsourced alleged opinion of Jefferson out of context. And I'm supposed to knock myself out looking for this link in all of Jeffersons work? Normally I don't respond in this manner, but, in your case it is perfectly reasonable - fuck off.

 

[boedicca]

This has already been addressed in other threads, but great job beating a dead horse.

Questioning this action is basically questioning the constitutionality of the FDA. Are you prepared to put forth a decent argument that the FDA isn't constitutional?

Because an organization is Constitutional does not mean every thing it does is for the benefit of the people it is supposed to be serving. Further because an organization is Constitutional does not preclude one from trying to stop them from implementing bad policy or law.

Nice attempt to deflect though. Ohh and provide links to all these other threads please.

Indeed. Being "Constitutional" doesn't give any position or organization unfettered power to do whatever it wants.

 

[AquaAthena]

Until now, the government has pushed the food industry to voluntarily reduce salt and tried to educate consumers about the dangers of excessive sodium. But in a study to be released Wednesday, an expert panel convened by the Institute of Medicine concludes that those measures have failed. The panel will recommend that the government take action, according to sources familiar with the findings.

But why let science spoil all of the nanny-state fun? Don’t let facts get in the way of a crisis model for government intervention. After all, it’s for your own good, which the elites in the federal bureaucracy obviously understand better than you do.

Hot Air Blog Archive Great news: FDA to regulate salt in processed foods

Should have seen this one coming.

They're lowering the salt content of processed food slowly. I don't see anything wrong in that.

Processed foods have so much other garbage added it doesn't really matter how much they lower the sodium content anyway, it still won't make it good for you to eat. You can still take a salt shaker and kill yourself with the stuff anyway.

It is another government regulation, taking away our liberties to live and die as "we the people choose." There is everything in the world, wrong with that.

 

[kwc57]

You asked for my thoughts on the purpose of government as it realtes to "general welfare". The comments I linked to closely reflect my thoughts. If you want to question the context of what the original writer of the link I provided says, knock yourself out. The writer said it, I just subscribe to it.

Oh! Silly me. I asked your thoughts and you gave me an unsourced alleged opinion of Jefferson out of context. And I'm supposed to knock myself out looking for this link in all of Jeffersons work? Normally I don't respond in this manner, but, in your case it is perfectly reasonable - fuck off.

So in other words, you are unable to respond to the personal responsibility ideas presented in favor of your preferred nanny state politics. You should have just said so instead of getting all pissy like a little girl.

 

[manifold]

Jesus ape-raping Christ, can't kw and wry learn how to fucking quote already!!!

They both look like they're responding to themselves.

 

[kwc57]

Jesus ape-raping Christ, can't kw and wry learn how to fucking quote already!!!

They both look like they're responding to themselves.

I know how.....as evidenced in my quoting you here. He screwed it up in a post and it continues down thru the chain.