13 Mar 13
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFI guess that is where we must agree to disagree. I exist in a world where the restriction on money restricts what you can and cannot do. You live on a budget that is within your means.
A restricted supply of money does not mean it is "not needed". What are the costs down the road of not tackling obesity? Why not make cuts to parts of the military expenditure that can be shown to be "not needed" whilst still being able to defend the US.
People like you can't understand such principles.
13 Mar 13
Originally posted by Eladar"People like you who can't understand such principles."
I guess that is where we must agree to disagree. I exist in a world where the restriction on money restricts what you can and cannot do. You live on a budget that is within your means.
People like you who can't understand such principles.
Of course I do. I also exist in a world "where the restriction on money restricts what you can and cannot do". I also "live on a budget that is within [my] means." You sound a bit silly making assertions about me based on me thinking that some health research is "needed" and you thinking it's "not needed".
As for the U.S., on a restricted budget, I reckon it "can do" research into a health issue that affects millions and millions of Americans. I think cuts can be made elsewhere. the fact that we do not agree about what should be cut does not mean I "can't understand such principles".
13 Mar 13
You may think that people have to live on a budget, but you do not believe the government should live on a budget.
If you think this study is worth going into debt, then we have to agree to disagree. Until the government pays off its debt, no program like that should exist. It is as simple as that. Cut all such expenditures until the goal is met.
13 Mar 13
Originally posted by EladarActually I do believe the government should live on a budget. You're just making stuff up. You won't find a single post by me on this forum supporting deficits and governments going into debt. And you will find perhaps hudreds of posts over the last 7 years or so where I made suggestions for cutbacks. You're just making stuff up, Eladar.
You may think that people have to live on a budget, but you do not believe the government should live on a budget.
13 Mar 13
Originally posted by EladarA $1.5 Million study into obesity is not the cause of your government's debt. If we were to cut $1.5 Million off military spending or farm subsidies, would you let this important health research continue. You claim it's "not needed" but you have not said why. You simply changed the subject.
If you think this study is worth going into debt, then we have to agree to disagree. Until the government pays off its debt, no program like that should exist. It is as simple as that. Cut all such expenditures until the goal is met.
13 Mar 13
Originally posted by shavixmirObviously its worth studying but why pay all that
You don't think that obesity in the US is worth studying?
Previous research has shown a link between male homosexuality and non-obesity and female homosexuality and obesity.
Researching this might find various factors which contribute or diminish obesity, in the long running saving millions of dollars on health-related spending.
Na. Best bomb some or other 3rd world nation and eat a bloody double whopper.
money when we have experts like Joe?
If you are saying more lesbians are fat than
women that are heterosexual I won't argue. Just
saying it doesn't take a big study to figure it out.
(I'm not sure if Joe has the answers already or is
advocating a small study)
14 Mar 13
Originally posted by FMFGood deeds are infinite, but funding for them isn't.
A $1.5 Million study into obesity is not the cause of your government's debt. If we were to cut $1.5 Million off military spending or farm subsidies, would you let this important health research continue. You claim it's "not needed" but you have not said why. You simply changed the subject.
14 Mar 13
Originally posted by normbenignAnd it's impossible for any government to run without literally everyone disagreeing where some of the money goes. You disagree with the grant. Other things I disagree with.
Good deeds are infinite, but funding for them isn't.
Considering how much of a problem obesity in the US is, and how much it costs American tax payers through our health care system, I think a tiny grant that amounts to about 0.0000006% of 2012 tax revenue is worth it.
14 Mar 13
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper"Considering how much of a problem obesity in the US is, and how much it costs American tax payers through our health care system, I think a tiny grant that amounts to about 0.0000006% of 2012 tax revenue is worth it."
And it's impossible for any government to run without literally everyone disagreeing where some of the money goes. You disagree with the grant. Other things I disagree with.
Considering how much of a problem obesity in the US is, and how much it costs American tax payers through our health care system, I think a tiny grant that amounts to about 0.0000006% of 2012 tax revenue is worth it.
That seems like an excellent argument for losing the collectivist approach to health care. The other alternative is a total complex of laws that don't leave any choices for people to worry about.
14 Mar 13
Originally posted by normbenignIt seems you're trying to set up false dilemma. Look, I get it: you don't want the money to be spent on this particular thing. But to claim there is not enough money to pay for this particular thing is not true. It's a judgement call and people disagree. Every cut made and every expenditure made involves judgement calls and people will disagree.
Is there no medical research which might be a higher priority?
14 Mar 13
Originally posted by FMFNope, you don't get it. I haven't got anything personal against this particular expense. The real question is should government be empowered to unlimited spending, and to unlimited borrowing? Should they be forced to make choices based on priorities?
It seems you're trying to set up false dilemma. Look, I get it: you don't want the money to be spent on this particular thing. But to claim there is not enough money to pay for this particular thing is not true. It's a judgement call and people disagree. Every cut made and every expenditure made involves judgement calls and people will disagree.