Sunday May 29, 2016
Jump to content
Sometimes I wonder if we realize just how dangerous some people are. You and I believe in individual liberty, but there are some people who apparently don't. They believe that the world can be, and should be, remade in another image, one which according to their beliefs is perfect. They believe the masses should be whipped into shape whether they like it or not. They look at everything from that point of view, and that makes them very dangerous if they manage to get into power. Here's an illustration of what I am talking about.
NPR reports that the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute published a study which claims that drinking costs the state $6.8 billion a year, $1,200 for each of the state's 5,725,000 citizens.
It calculates that $6.8 billion figure based on "missing work, dying early, incarceration, and absenteeism." I know that will sound confusing because missing work and absenteeism are the same thing, but I don't write NPR articles, I just quote from them.
The study claims that the cause of all this is the fact that booze is too available. It says the solution is to raise taxes on alcohol.
Consider the mindset you just peered into:
• Are the claimed "facts" facts? Can they be proven? Can it be shown that it does it, in fact, cost Wisconsin, a state with a population similar to ours, $6.8 each year to handle problems caused by drinking?
• If the problem really exists is it the business of the government to solve it?
• Where is the authority for the government to meddle in matters of individual choice?
I very strongly urge you to think about what you have just read. I would also like to point out two facts about the study.
The study was paid for by two "federally-funded programs, the Wisconsin Public Health Infrastructure Improvement Initiative, funded through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Wisconsin Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant, funded by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration."
The study was done by someone who previously worked "as a professional substance abuse prevention program evaluator in Orange and Los Angeles counties for over ten years."
Can you see the danger in federal funds being spent on such studies? Can you see the danger in having state legislatures base their decisions on such outrageous ideas?
By the way, to show you how ridiculous that study is, the entire budget for Wisconsin for the next TWO years is $68 billion. If it costs Wisconson $6.8 billion each year because people drink, then one out of every five dollars spent in the state each year is because of drinking.
You believe that?
It's the same numbers game we always see from people who want to control us. They spend OUR money for THEIR purposes, and then say WE need to pay for it. The solution is to let everyone who wants to do something the Constitution doesn't say the feds can do put their names on a list of those who want to contribute to the program, and leave the rest of us alone. Want to save %$#@! grizzly bears? YOU pay for it. I don't want to save the. In fact, I'd pay into a program to shoot em all out.
I have yet to see even one Congressman admit that Social Security would be financially sound if Congress just paid back the money it stole from the Social Security Trust Fund, something that it had no authority to do under the law that created it. They wave their arms and yell about Social Security costing a lot of money, but they never mention that a large part of the "cost" of Social Security goes into paying INTEREST on the part of the national debt that exists because Congress took the money WE paid in, and spent it on crap THEY thought up.
Can you see how crooked that is? Paying Social Security back--you and me--for money they took out of OUR national retirement savings plan is NOT a cost of Social Security; it is paying debt. They just casually swiped the money we paid in, increased the national debt, and say WE have to pay it back. Like hell! Let the congressmen who took the money pay it back! CONGRESS owes the money to the people. THEY sucked up the savings WE have been paying in for OUR retirements all these years.
Suppose some private company took the retirement funds employees had been paying in, used it for something else, and said the employees had to pay it pack. That's the same thing. How far would that fly?
Want to save money? Quit trying to save frogs living on mountains where they don't belong. Frogs don't live on mountains; they live in lowland pools. Those %$#@! frogs are only here because what used to be a sea level plain was uplifted a mile and half above sea level. That's the same way the Grand Canyon was formed. Should be get some dirt and fill it in? Those frogs are doomed. There is NO way to save them. You can feed them caviar and make little jackets for them out of hundred dollar bills and they are still doomed.
My opinion? Let congressmen serve for a dollar a year until THEY pay back what they wasted.
And I am dead serious about an amendment that says that if a program is not specificallly authorized by the Constitution, and some crowd of do-gooders wants to create it, then what happens is this: We vote. If more than 50% of the people vote yes the program flies; if not, it doesn't. And only the yes voters pay for it.
Posting comments requires a free account