Debate Now Should the Government Dictate What Is and Is Not Healthy?

[Sun Devil 92]

Carter dropped the speed limit to save fuel.

Jimmy Carter lowered the speed limit to 55 mph. I've heard that saved lives and fuel. Why are we back to 70 mph ?

Great job on disposing of your original fallacy.

However you haven't proven that government vehicle safety standards don't save lives. The data has clearly demonstrated a reduction by two thirds of the number of fatalities per million miles traveled since 1979. It is indisputable that cars today are considerably safer than they were back then. So much so that manufacturers even promoted safety when it came to selling vehicles.

Uncle "Sammy" has saved lives through improved vehicle safety standards and not even the OP could argue that isn't a "healthy" thing to do.

You are the one who is making stuff up.

I'll repeat myself just one more time.....tell me what you don't understand.

I don't ever recall saying that government safety standards did not have an effect on fatalities.

If you can point it out...I'll recant.

let's also be clear....Carter got it wrong. In other words (as you like to say), We The People screwed up (happens a lot). He got it wrong. Yes, the implication here is that big brother (who you are so fond of) blew it. Big time.

Little or no fuel savings. End of story.

 

[Foxfyre]

REPEATING!!!!!

While federal speed limits are definitely an example of government overreach, let's take CAFE standards, federal speed limits, etc. to a different thread and devote this one to the thread topic please.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Carter dropped the speed limit to save fuel.

Jimmy Carter lowered the speed limit to 55 mph. I've heard that saved lives and fuel. Why are we back to 70 mph ?

Great job on disposing of your original fallacy.

However you haven't proven that government vehicle safety standards don't save lives. The data has clearly demonstrated a reduction by two thirds of the number of fatalities per million miles traveled since 1979. It is indisputable that cars today are considerably safer than they were back then. So much so that manufacturers even promoted safety when it came to selling vehicles.

Uncle "Sammy" has saved lives through improved vehicle safety standards and not even the OP could argue that isn't a "healthy" thing to do.

You are the one who is making stuff up.

I'll repeat myself just one more time.....tell me what you don't understand.

I don't ever recall saying that government safety standards did not have an effect on fatalities.

If you can point it out...I'll recant.

let's also be clear....Carter got it wrong. In other words (as you like to say), We The People screwed up (happens a lot). He got it wrong. Yes, the implication here is that big brother (who you are so fond of) blew it. Big time.

Little or no fuel savings. End of story.

Why the deflection?

You were only taken to task for making these statements;

"I've heard that saved lives... Why are we back to 70 mph ? "​

Nothing I have posted was "making stuff up" since it was all based upon factual data with appropriate links.

If you want to deflect into a topic about "fuel savings" then I suggest that you take the OP's advice and start another thread.

My point that government vehicle safety standards have saved lives is irrefutable documented fact.

 

[Foxfyre]

REPEATING!!!!!
While federal speed limits are definitely an example of government overreach, let's take CAFE standards, federal speed limits, etc. to a different thread and devote this one to the thread topic please.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Should the government dictate what is and is not healthy?

The government does not dictate, it regulates and enforces the Law of the Land.

If you disagree with the Law of the Land the Constitution protects your right to petition the government to amend it accordingly.

Today people are "healthier" because of government programs like Medicare and the FDA ensuring the safety of food and medicines. Children are safer because of government standards on toys and car seats.

All of the above has only happened because We the People wanted it to happen at one stage or another. We wanted it to happen because the elderly were dying for a lack of affordable healthcare, babies were being born without limbs, toys were causing children to suffocate, etc, etc.

The government never "dictated" any of the above. We the People wanted the government OF the people and FOR the people to set these safety standards and programs in place.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Carter dropped the speed limit to save fuel.

Jimmy Carter lowered the speed limit to 55 mph. I've heard that saved lives and fuel. Why are we back to 70 mph ?

Great job on disposing of your original fallacy.

However you haven't proven that government vehicle safety standards don't save lives. The data has clearly demonstrated a reduction by two thirds of the number of fatalities per million miles traveled since 1979. It is indisputable that cars today are considerably safer than they were back then. So much so that manufacturers even promoted safety when it came to selling vehicles.

Uncle "Sammy" has saved lives through improved vehicle safety standards and not even the OP could argue that isn't a "healthy" thing to do.

You are the one who is making stuff up.

I'll repeat myself just one more time.....tell me what you don't understand.

I don't ever recall saying that government safety standards did not have an effect on fatalities.

If you can point it out...I'll recant.

let's also be clear....Carter got it wrong. In other words (as you like to say), We The People screwed up (happens a lot). He got it wrong. Yes, the implication here is that big brother (who you are so fond of) blew it. Big time.

Little or no fuel savings. End of story.

Why the deflection?

You were only taken to task for making these statements;

"I've heard that saved lives... Why are we back to 70 mph ? "​

Nothing I have posted was "making stuff up" since it was all based upon factual data with appropriate links.

If you want to deflect into a topic about "fuel savings" then I suggest that you take the OP's advice and start another thread.

My point that government vehicle safety standards have saved lives is irrefutable documented fact.

There is no deflection.....

The question still stands. And the basic physics are still in play.

You've pushed the idea that we can go faster now because our cars are safer. Why ?

Are you saying if we remove all variables (year of car, safety features etc...), except speed, that there would be no correlation between speed and fatalities ?

The other part of my original statement then holds (unless you have that data), that asks why we felt we could go back up to 70 mph. Unless you think there is no difference between 70 and 55 (and if you compare 55 in 1980 with 70 of today, this conversation is over) then you must have determined that there is some level of acceptable fatalities. If so, what is it and who determined it.

The question of fuel savings is simply a byproduct of this conversation. Carter (i.e. big brother) blew it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Carter dropped the speed limit to save fuel.

Jimmy Carter lowered the speed limit to 55 mph. I've heard that saved lives and fuel. Why are we back to 70 mph ?

Great job on disposing of your original fallacy.

However you haven't proven that government vehicle safety standards don't save lives. The data has clearly demonstrated a reduction by two thirds of the number of fatalities per million miles traveled since 1979. It is indisputable that cars today are considerably safer than they were back then. So much so that manufacturers even promoted safety when it came to selling vehicles.

Uncle "Sammy" has saved lives through improved vehicle safety standards and not even the OP could argue that isn't a "healthy" thing to do.

You are the one who is making stuff up.

I'll repeat myself just one more time.....tell me what you don't understand.

I don't ever recall saying that government safety standards did not have an effect on fatalities.

If you can point it out...I'll recant.

let's also be clear....Carter got it wrong. In other words (as you like to say), We The People screwed up (happens a lot). He got it wrong. Yes, the implication here is that big brother (who you are so fond of) blew it. Big time.

Little or no fuel savings. End of story.

Why the deflection?

You were only taken to task for making these statements;

"I've heard that saved lives... Why are we back to 70 mph ? "​

Nothing I have posted was "making stuff up" since it was all based upon factual data with appropriate links.

If you want to deflect into a topic about "fuel savings" then I suggest that you take the OP's advice and start another thread.

My point that government vehicle safety standards have saved lives is irrefutable documented fact.

There is no deflection.....

The question still stands. And the basic physics are still in play.

You've pushed the idea that we can go faster now because our cars are safer. Why ?

Are you saying if we remove all variables (year of car, safety features etc...), except speed, that there would be no correlation between speed and fatalities ?

The other part of my original statement then holds (unless you have that data), that asks why we felt we could go back up to 70 mph. Unless you think there is no difference between 70 and 55 (and if you compare 55 in 1980 with 70 of today, this conversation is over) then you must have determined that there is some level of acceptable fatalities. If so, what is it and who determined it.

The question of fuel savings is simply a byproduct of this conversation. Carter (i.e. big brother) blew it.

REPEATING!!!!!
While federal speed limits are definitely an example of government overreach, let's take CAFE standards, federal speed limits, etc. to a different thread and devote this one to the thread topic please.

 

[westwall]

ADDRESS the OP boys and girls.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm sure she and I agree on this or that. We disagree HUGELY on her school lunch program though.

Unbelievable isn't it?
School lunch food is actually worse now than before...unreal.

While I think school lunches for the most part have been pretty pitiful over the ages so far as appeal and being appetizing has been concerned. But they once did offer stuff most kids would eat and they were filling.

But then too, that was back in the days when school lunches were a convenience and purely voluntary and otherwise parents were expected to have the responsibility to feed their kids. But back before the federal government got involved, I recall that school lunches were usually edible and they did include such things as bread baked on premises, fresh veggies and fruit, often supplied by area farmers, and whole milk, not the reduced fat or skin milk variety. And the occasional hamburger or hotdog with ketchup--usually on more relaxed Fridays--was a treat and no biggie so far as nutrition was concerned. I suppose the school figured a little indulgence now and then wouldn't wreck the kids.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I'm sure she and I agree on this or that. We disagree HUGELY on her school lunch program though.

Unbelievable isn't it?
School lunch food is actually worse now than before...unreal.

While I think school lunches for the most part have been pretty pitiful over the ages so far as appeal and being appetizing has been concerned. But they once did offer stuff most kids would eat and they were filling.

But then too, that was back in the days when school lunches were a convenience and purely voluntary and otherwise parents were expected to have the responsibility to feed their kids. But back before the federal government got involved, I recall that school lunches were usually edible and they did include such things as bread baked on premises, fresh veggies and fruit, often supplied by area farmers, and whole milk, not the reduced fat or skin milk variety. And the occasional hamburger or hotdog with ketchup--usually on more relaxed Fridays--was a treat and no biggie so far as nutrition was concerned. I suppose the school figured a little indulgence now and then wouldn't wreck the kids.

I was born in '65 so I went through school in the 70's.
I would say about 75% of the kids brought their lunch everyday. Until high school, for some reason it wasn't cool to bring your lunch to school any more.
There were two lunch programs, the government one that only the poor kids ate, and the ala carte one that you paid for. Wasn't the greatest food, but everything was made on premises. No fastfood chains supplying food like now which is unbelievable.
Most kids ate the sub sandwiches they made, which were pretty good really and french fries. There was no soda pop. You drank milk, juice or water.
No candy bars machines, no coke machines either. Also nuts.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm sure she and I agree on this or that. We disagree HUGELY on her school lunch program though.

Unbelievable isn't it?
School lunch food is actually worse now than before...unreal.

While I think school lunches for the most part have been pretty pitiful over the ages so far as appeal and being appetizing has been concerned. But they once did offer stuff most kids would eat and they were filling.

But then too, that was back in the days when school lunches were a convenience and purely voluntary and otherwise parents were expected to have the responsibility to feed their kids. But back before the federal government got involved, I recall that school lunches were usually edible and they did include such things as bread baked on premises, fresh veggies and fruit, often supplied by area farmers, and whole milk, not the reduced fat or skin milk variety. And the occasional hamburger or hotdog with ketchup--usually on more relaxed Fridays--was a treat and no biggie so far as nutrition was concerned. I suppose the school figured a little indulgence now and then wouldn't wreck the kids.

I was born in '65 so I went through school in the 70's.
I would say about 75% of the kids brought their lunch everyday. Until high school, for some reason it wasn't cool to bring your lunch to school any more.
There were two lunch programs, the government one that only the poor kids ate, and the ala carte one that you paid for. Wasn't the greatest food, but everything was made on premises. No fastfood chains supplying food like now which is unbelievable.
Most kids ate the sub sandwiches they made, which were pretty good really and french fries. There was no soda pop. You drank milk, juice or water.
No candy bars machines, no coke machines either. Also nuts.

Right. I was somewhat ahead of you in school, and in all my formal education from First Grade though college, I don't recall a single vending machine existing on any campus and there was no place to buy soft drinks or candy bars or any other snacks--you ate in the cafeteria during designated lunch periods and that was it. Gum, candy, etc. was not allowed in the classrooms.

And yes, it was not fashionable to bring your lunch from home during a lot of that so only the pickiest eaters did. I don't know how much thought was put into school lunch nutrition but I think it was based mostly on what foods were available to buy in bulk at the time and what menus could be offered that the kids would bitch about the least. But I do recall that it seemed pretty much like the food mom served at home except that it never tasted quite as good. And child obesity was almost non existent.