DrMaddVibe
14 years ago

Maybe so but is the solution really to just get rid of such agencies?

teedubbya wrote:




I was just looking at last year's budget....


http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/BudgetReports/ucm153154.htm 


You tell me if it's all warranted or needed?
teedubbya
14 years ago
I'm actually cool with getting rid of any agency. The govt is bloated. But some of the functions should remain. How they are being done could certainly be much different.

maybe you somehow involve law enforcement or the military. Maybe you don't worry about hte front end and let companies kill folks but become so punitive on the tail end they become hyper vigilent.... etc. I don't have all the answers but some of the functions are pretty damn legitimate. That said they could all stand to be reviewed.
teedubbya
14 years ago

I was just looking at last year's budget....


http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/BudgetReports/ucm153154.htm 


You tell me if it's all warranted or needed?

DrMaddVibe wrote:




I'm all for a total review. Take some time to really understand their operations and align it with their budget. Then get rid of what you feel is not necessary. Your review in the last few minutes is likely not definitive. It is a knee jerk reaction.

I actually agree with fuzz that food safety is under funded. that said it may not necessarly take more money to fix that. Maybe they are stretched to thin need to narrow their focus. Maybe they need more cash. Maybe they need to cut other things and use that money to focus on food..... I'm no expert. i've not seen an expert on it in here.

I am more familiar with the drug side and recent modificaitons to how they function. I am particularly familiar wit hthe recent actions on propoxyphene and the reasons. Without the FDA it would be business as usual.
DrMaddVibe
14 years ago

I'm actually cool with getting rid of any agency. The govt is bloated. But some of the functions should remain. How they are being done could certainly be much different.

maybe you somehow involve law enforcement or the military. Maybe you don't worry about hte front end and let companies kill folks but become so punitive on the tail end they become hyper vigilent.... etc. I don't have all the answers but some of the functions are pretty damn legitimate. That said they could all stand to be reviewed.

teedubbya wrote:




We could off the USPS...privatize it. I'm willing to bet it would turn a profit too!

Sorry, but I happen to believe if you're making a good product...it will sell. You like the product, you buy the product. The manufacturer in turn will provide the product and make enhancements when needed...take Coca-Cola for example...sales in the billions...yet, they made New Coke...what happened? Did the FDA come in and say "NOOOOOOO!!!!"? No. The market did it's job. People voted with their feet. Can you even buy New Coke any more?

The whole mantra Fuzzy is barking about is just noise for the sake of noise.
ZRX1200
14 years ago
Till they can show effectiveness and the willingness to stay within a rational scope of operation yes.
teedubbya
14 years ago
Massengil killed people and would continue to do so. Ultimately the product would get pulled, but only after they reaped the benefits. Then they could continue. They are a great example because they are still around. Fuzz's nickname comes from their main product.

propoxyphene is another example. It has been around forever and has been a cash cow. It is not a good product and never has been. It basically did more harm than good but made millions (maybe billions).

its nice ot have such faith in corporations. I do not.
teedubbya
14 years ago
"Sorry, but I happen to believe if you're making a good product...it will sell. You like the product, you buy the product. The manufacturer in turn will provide the product and make enhancements when needed...take Coca-Cola for example...sales in the billions...yet, they made New Coke...what happened? Did the FDA come in and say "NOOOOOOO!!!!"? No. The market did it's job. People voted with their feet. Can you even buy New Coke any more?"



No one died from New Coke..... and yes the market can/will and should handle these sorts of thing. The govt should be involved in protection/safety issues. Corporations have a COI that is too tempting to over come. Time and time again evrn with current laws they prove this. Revove all such laws and regulations and you will regret it.
teedubbya
14 years ago
Although I may be wrong. Because without the govt coke would be an elixer marketed against massengill and contain cocaine!
ZRX1200
14 years ago
Don't mistake my opinion for corporate trust.
teedubbya
14 years ago

Don't mistake my opinion for corporate trust.

ZRX1200 wrote:



I don't. I was referencing DMV. And as I said... fine get rid of the FDA. But please figure out who/what is going to carry out their funcitons..... because while you may take them for granted, I do not.
teedubbya
14 years ago
But back to the original topic.... if not for the fda the condoms the Big O wore may have broken and the other gay dudes may have gotten sick.

(I really do not know if the FDA monitors condoms or gay people..... this was not intended to be an academic statement and is not sourced out or referenced as such)
tailgater
14 years ago
TW,
You keep saying that Michelle is "encouraging" child nutrition.

She helped develop and push through the Child Nutrition Bill.

Now, you could argue that it's a fairly bipartisan bill and actually does some good. But regardless of the intent or even the results, this is just one more example of big government.
THink about it: Why should the FEDERAL governemtn DICTATE what kids can eat and what the schools should serve?
Why should the federal government be able to BAN food items on a national level?

It's a joke.
And if you think it's a good thing then I feel sorry for you since you obviously live in a town that needs this type of babysitting.

You want your kid to eat healthy? Do what I do and send them with a bag lunch.
A nice sandwich, some seasonal fruit, and (gasp) some cookies or chips. At least until the latter are banned.

Yes.
I said banned.
And if you think this is fear mongering, then you haven't read the bill.



I have paid close attention to this subject matter.
One of my daughters had dietary problems that resulted in her being severly underweight. To the point where it started to cause developmental issues.
For a period of time, the ONLY thing she would eat at lunch was peanut butter and sometimes chips or Doritoes.
As Michelle's pet project to fix the little porkies gains momentum, there are schools all around the nation that are banning any fried food including snack chips. Add this to the local issues concerning peanut allegies and I would be faced with a far worse problem and lots of red tape to fight through. Simply because I want to send my kids to school with a lunch she's eat.

It's pure BS, and it's just one more facet of our lives that uncle sam is trying to control.
CONTROL.
And people like you think "well, it would be nice to curb obesity". But you don't look at the real life big picture.

F*ck the federal government for trying to control our lives.
And F*ck michelle obama for turning a great proactive initiative into expensive legislation.

Appologies to Chewbacca for all the previous wookie comments.

teedubbya
14 years ago

TW,
You keep saying that Michelle is "encouraging" child nutrition.

She helped develop and push through the Child Nutrition Bill.

Now, you could argue that it's a fairly bipartisan bill and actually does some good. But regardless of the intent or even the results, this is just one more example of big government.
THink about it: Why should the FEDERAL governemtn DICTATE what kids can eat and what the schools should serve?
Why should the federal government be able to BAN food items on a national level?

It's a joke.
And if you think it's a good thing then I feel sorry for you since you obviously live in a town that needs this type of babysitting.

You want your kid to eat healthy? Do what I do and send them with a bag lunch.
A nice sandwich, some seasonal fruit, and (gasp) some cookies or chips. At least until the latter are banned.

Yes.
I said banned.
And if you think this is fear mongering, then you haven't read the bill.



I have paid close attention to this subject matter.
One of my daughters had dietary problems that resulted in her being severly underweight. To the point where it started to cause developmental issues.
For a period of time, the ONLY thing she would eat at lunch was peanut butter and sometimes chips or Doritoes.
As Michelle's pet project to fix the little porkies gains momentum, there are schools all around the nation that are banning any fried food including snack chips. Add this to the local issues concerning peanut allegies and I would be faced with a far worse problem and lots of red tape to fight through. Simply because I want to send my kids to school with a lunch she's eat.

It's pure BS, and it's just one more facet of our lives that uncle sam is trying to control.
CONTROL.
And people like you think "well, it would be nice to curb obesity". But you don't look at the real life big picture.

F*ck the federal government for trying to control our lives.
And F*ck michelle obama for turning a great proactive initiative into expensive legislation.

Appologies to Chewbacca for all the previous wookie comments.

tailgater wrote:



LOL

ok I get it now. she supported a bill you didn't like so therefore

*grunt* she ugly!


By the way, this statement:

And people like you think "well, it would be nice to curb obesity". But you don't look at the real life big picture.

Is enough to discount what you say. You have no idea if I look at the real life big picture or not. And you have no idea if I think it would be nice to curb obesity or not. You just blurt stuff out like that as if it is fact. In otherwords you define someone as how you want to define them then argue with the definition you just set. It matters not if the definition is accurate. I think this is why the strawman subject comes up in here.
teedubbya
14 years ago
Gotta fly. But to sum it all up:

You guys are all a bunch of poo heads and you are wrong. So there.
DrMaddVibe
14 years ago

Gotta fly. But to sum it all up:

You guys are all a bunch of poo heads and you are wrong. So there.

teedubbya wrote:




Hey!!!

I gotts to ask....
tailgater
14 years ago

LOL

ok I get it now. she supported a bill you didn't like so therefore

*grunt* she ugly!

teedubbya wrote:




Wrong.
It's not "therefore" she's ugly.

It's "AND" she's ugly.

She's ugly. Period. Bad bill or not.
Where'd we lose you?

tailgater
14 years ago



And you have no idea if I think it would be nice to curb obesity or not. You just blurt stuff out like that as if it is fact. In otherwords you define someone as how you want to define them then argue with the definition you just set. It matters not if the definition is accurate. I think this is why the strawman subject comes up in here.

teedubbya wrote:




Sorry.
I guess I may have given you too much credit.
Perhaps you DON'T want to curb childhood obesity.

I must say this, TW. You chose the wrong thread to nit pick.
I often do "blurt stuff" to get an effect or to attempt humor.
But not this time.
I made some basic assumptions with the premise that you've got a decent moral compass.

Shoot me for being wrong.



And before you think that I'm trying to belittle you here, reread your post and ask yourself what point you're trying to make here when you state "And you have no idea if I think it would be nice to curb obesity or not."

Kinda foolish, dontcha think?

teedubbya
14 years ago

Sorry.
I guess I may have given you too much credit.
Perhaps you DON'T want to curb childhood obesity.

I must say this, TW. You chose the wrong thread to nit pick.
I often do "blurt stuff" to get an effect or to attempt humor.
But not this time.
I made some basic assumptions with the premise that you've got a decent moral compass.

Shoot me for being wrong.



And before you think that I'm trying to belittle you here, reread your post and ask yourself what point you're trying to make here when you state "And you have no idea if I think it would be nice to curb obesity or not."

Kinda foolish, dontcha think?

tailgater wrote:



foolish? no. not really.

the exact quote was:

"And people like you think "well, it would be nice to curb obesity". But you don't look at the real life big picture."

Do I want to curb obesity? Maybe. I don't know....I really never gave it much thought other than when applied directly to myself. I don't really think the govt has a huge roll in it though which would put me contrary to the first lady....which seems to be the point and seems to put me in a different bucket than you are trying to put me. So the fact is people like me really have not thought much about it.

Your real issue is when you say "But you don't look at the real life big picture." That is absolutely nonesense. I look at lots of pictures of fat chicks. REALLY BIG pictures of fat chicks. Sometimes full size posters. I dig them. It turns me on.

Putting the whole statement together you attribute something to me that simply isn't true. Parse it however you want but it isn't.
teedubbya
14 years ago
And the assumption that I have a decent moral compass is hysterical.
ZRX1200
14 years ago
I thought you were leaving?

Big tease......
Users browsing this topic