How about if the government tried to solve some real problems first?

So they Feds have done nothing to curb the illegal immigration problem for the last few decades and Attorney General Eric Holder hasn’t even read the law he has been criticizing, but they think they should spend tax dollars so Big Government can Monitor How Much Your Kids Weigh?

And what are they doing to prevent terrorist attacks on our soil?  They glossed over the military base murders and the mainstream media acts as if it never happened.  We got lucky with the eunuch-bomber and the Times Square bomber but that will run out soon.

(Oh, and by the politically correct definition, isn’t it “hate speech” for Michelle Obama to keep picking on kids who are fat?  Is she liable if her inflammatory rhetoric causes kids to pick on those who are overweight?)

How many other serious problems can you think of that the Federal Government should be solving but isn’t, even while branching out into more areas beyond its charter?

31 thoughts on “How about if the government tried to solve some real problems first?

  1. We see this on the city level too. Tulsa, Ok is worried about trying to get an Olympics bid while at the same time cutting salaries for the police force. It shows how priorities get messed up.

    • Tulsa trying to get the Olympics??!! We lived there about 20 years ago. I can’t imagine them ever getting the Olympics, unless the competition is for every form of extreme weather except tsunamis and hurricanes.

  2. Do you really think that people entering the country illegally is a bigger issue than the fact that most of the people in your country (and mine) eat garbage?Most of these people will die early, will cost the nation trillion in extra health care and due to their health, will not be physically or mentally capable of contributing much of anything to society.

      • Y’all are a little too wrapped up in what’s “not” in the constitution, but you’ll sue the asses off any government agency that does not treat your water, send a fire truck, inspect your veggies, or CLEAN UP YOUR OIL SPILLS.

        The ridiculous average weight of children in North America is a really big issue, and when a child of 8 weighs 250 pounds due to a poor diet, he is being abused, and authorities must step in to prevent the child from dying.

      • I’m all for good nutrition and exercise but am disturbed that some people don’t see the downsides of the gov’t intruding in the lives of citizens this way. Using your logic the gov’t should manage every spoonful of food you eat and every physical activity you do.

        Sent from my iPhone

      • You make it sound like I want the gov to supply a mandatory menu for every meal. I’m just saying that it’s okay to intervene when a child is being killed by his diet at home, just as it is okay to intervene if the child’s parents are dealing drugs at home. We are talking about kids with a diet that may not allow them to survive to adulthood.

      • No. I’m not serious.

        As Neil said, I’m taking the terrible argument presented to its logical conclusion to show how terrible it is.

      • If your only argument against an idea is to take it to what you speculate to be its logical conclusions, you have already lost the argument.

        Would you take your argument to its logical conclusion in the other direction? Should the government ignore child abuse in all cases?

      • So many mistakes in one. That isn’t my only argument. And yes, I take arguments to their logical conclusions in both directions, and saying that the gov’t shouldn’t track the weight of all children — and should defend our borders now! — does not lead to ignoring child abuse.

      • So what do you want to do for kids whose parents are killing them by not providing adequate food? Pray for them?

      • Ryan, you ceased to be serious several comments ago so I’m just going to ignore your non sequitors.

      • So then what is it’s logical conclusion, Ryan?

        What’s so bad about the government providing a mandated menu for each meal? This would ensure food equality among all people, no more food-gap between the rich and the poor. This would ensure proper nutrition for all, no more rich getting more nutrients than the poor.

        Why are you so opposed to equality?

      • I don’t think that’s what anyone is proposing. The Catholic Church has suggestions for who we sleep with and how; are they also proposing that this should be enacted in law?

      • Red Herring.

        We are discussing government enforced food menus for the poor, not the Catholic Church’s timeless and inerrant teaching on human sexuality and marriage.

        Why don’t you support food equality, for the children?

      • Who says I don’t? And I see it’s now “for the poor” There are people in many parts of the world who would line up for a “government enforced food menu” and indeed this does happen wherever aid is required. But this isn’t about that, your national obesity problem has little to do with poverty and lack of choice. It’s to do with people making the wrong choices. And no, I wouldn’t agree with your government forcing them to make the right choices, but I have no problem with them being aware of who is at risk, for the purpose of stepping in if and when necessary. Surely if a school is aware that a child is ill, but the parents either don’t know or don’t care, they would take steps to save the child? Or is that big government shoving their filthy socialist nose into everyone’s business?

      • Ryan,
        When I was a child my parents enforced dietary laws upon me, and that was their right, they were my parents. Now that I’m an adult, I make my own dietary decisions and I face the natural consequences of my dietary choices. The time for external consequences is over; it’s part of growing up. I don’t want gov’t to be my mommy and daddy.

        However, let’s say you are right, and that philosophically, gov’t should manage my diet. You are making a bad assumption in that the gov’t is capable of doing such regulation well.

        Ever watched the Jamie Oliver show? He is trying to introduce healthy food to school cafeterias. All the while he is trying to work within a governmental system in which french fries are an acceptable vegetable yet stir-fry is not, as well as dealing with a mountain of red tape.

        Also, what we know about food is changing. For instance, we’ve been told for so long that fat-free is the way to go, but all those things contain chemicals that don’t belong in the body.

        Here’s a link about the messed up food pyramid recommended by the USDA. http://nourishedkitchen.com/kelly-kitchen-kop/

        Also, let’s look at the recent idea to regulate salt in food. Companies will just deal with that by adding more sugar or by adding some salt substitute (if there is such a thing) made of who knows what.

      • There no enforcing of dietary “laws” here. You’re making far too much of this. All I’m saying is that the government has the right to step in if a kid is dying due to poor nutrition. These are cases where parents are not providing a child with the necessities of life.

        And yes, I see your point about Jamie Oliver. I’ve seen the show, and I think what he has done is fantastic. He’s taking the stance that we each are responsible for our own health and our own diet. But he’s also trying to get the rules changed, to help those that will otherwise fall through the cracks.

        I accept your point about the government regs on food. They are currently worthless, and school lunches are a good example of that.

        The dilemma is that our diet is killing us, and the consequences of the choices we make do not just affect us personally. Those choices affect what’s available in the supermarkets, and they affect health care costs across the board. If your kids eats very well, they are still affected by the fact that the rest of the kids in their class who has twinkies for breakfast will be slower learners, and will hold your child back. If everybody else in your town eats crap, then the cost of fresh fruits and vegetables will rise, since it will be more expensive for the markets to keep them in stock.

        We need some government regulations on food, even if it is simply to stop allowing manufacturers to put things in food that are known to kill people, and to lie about it on the package.

      • What if a mother who is pregnant is not getting proper nutrition? Should the government intervene to force her to have proper nutrition for her pre-born baby’s sake? Would not that also be child abuse?

      • “but you’ll sue the asses off any government agency that does not treat your water, send a fire truck, inspect your veggies, or CLEAN UP YOUR OIL SPILLS”

        I’ve never heard of a government agency getting sued by conservatives for providing tainted water, not sending fire trucks, and not inspecting veggies. Could you give us enough examples to show that this is a problem with conservatives? As far as the oil spill being “ours” did you check to see who got a handsome check from BP as a campaign donation? And can we assume that you and other libs in no way play a part in the demand for oil by not driving cars, flying on planes, and being connected to the grid?

        Your logic seems to suggest that conservatives are for public safety so they are hypocrites for not wanting government to go the whole way and control every aspect of our lives. Can we also assume then, given all the deaths on the highways, in work places, hospitals, domestic violence, and also in industries with mountains of regulations and oversight spills still happen, planes still crash, mines still explode, terrorist still kill, and markets still crash, that liberalism is an utter and absolute failure? Follow the logic Ryan, it is a much better guide than your emotions.

      • As far as the oil spill being “ours” did you check to see who got a handsome check from BP as a campaign donation

        I’m in favour of making campaign donations by corporations illegal, so don’t get me started on that, but you should know that all major corporations donate money to pretty much all candidates with a chance of winning. BP donated to both Democrats and Republicans, and it’s not unusual that Obama got the biggest donation since most people thought he had the best chance of winning.

        Plenty of conservative source, as will as the Fox News pundits have been slamming Obama for “not doing enough” to prevent and clean up this oil spill.

      • Ok, let’s see; so far the “conservative” opinion that I have read on this oil spill includes:
        – where is all the oil? The govt is making far too much fuss over this (Rush Limbaugh)
        – It’s going to be a huge disaster and is all Obama’s fault, campaign donations etc caused him to not regulate BP. This is his Katrina and he’s not doing anything.
        – the govt actually caused the disaster, because they hate big oil (despite the large donations) and want to close down the industry (you know, the one that gives them all this money).

        Maybe it’s just me, but there’s nothing more destructive to a cause than conflicting conspiracy theories. I know you hate the guy and think he’s a Marxist (thereby demonstrating that either you have a very good grasp of hyperbole, or a very poor understanding of communism) but until you get your story straight it’s all just incoherent babbling.

So, what do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s