TexasCHLforum.com

VMI77 wrote: I was looking through the Constitution and don't see any authority given to the Federal government for compelling us to do things bureaucrats determine are for our own good.

Increasing adoption of energy efficient measures: Offering an attic-clearance service (at full cost) to
people led to a five-fold increase in their subsequent adoption of attic-insulation. Interestingly,
providing additional government subsidies on attic insulation services had no such effect.

VoiceofReason wrote:
I was at the school a few times when my kids were growing up, giving them a rough time about the stupidity of school “policies” and lack of common sense by the teachers and administration.

The government is trying to stop people from smoking. They couldn’t outlaw it so they tried to regulate it out of existence. That didn’t work so they sued the manufacturers. That didn’t work so they are trying to tax it out of existence. Sound familiar? Same tactics they are using with guns.

"But they were doing it for our own good."

To answer your questions: yes. Anything you want to do (as long as it doesn’t harm others) you should be able to do without government interference. The more government is allowed to control people, the more they are going to try to.

If you want to be fat you should have the right to be fat. Thanks to the government, everyone is aware of the dangers in being fat, smoking and other vices. OK thanks for telling me those things are unhealthy, now leave me alone and keep your nose out of the size my soft drink cup.

The government has their noses in just about everything people do now, too much so. From seat belts to the size of toilet tanks. If some people don’t have the courage or enough sense to stand up now and say enough they will wake up some day paying extra taxes for every pound overweight and in a mandatory physical fitness programs.

∑ Increasing college enrollment and retention: Providing streamlined personal assistance on the
FAFSA form (e.g., pre-populating forms using tax return data and following up with a personal call)
to low or moderate income individuals resulted in a 29% greater likelihood of their attending college
for two consecutive years.
∑ Getting people back to work: Asking unemployed individuals to create a concrete plan for immediate
implementation regarding how, when, and where they would pursue reemployment efforts led to a15-
20% decrease in their likelihood of claiming unemployment benefits just 13 weeks later.
∑ Improving academic performance: Students taught to view their intelligence as a “muscle” that can
grow with hard work and perseverance (as compared to a “fixed trait”, such as eye-color) experienced
academic boosts of ½ a letter grade, with the largest effects often seen for low-performing students,
students of color, or females in STEM-related courses.
∑ Increasing retirement savings: The Save More Tomorrow program 1) invites employees to pledge
now to increase their savings rate later, since self-control is easier to exert for future events; 2) links
planned increases in the savings rate to pay raises, in order to diminish loss aversion; and 3) leverages
the power of inertia by keeping members enrolled until they reach a preset limit or elect to opt.
Adoption of these auto-escalation plans has boosted annual savings by an estimated $7.4 billion.
∑ Increasing adoption of energy efficient measures: Offering an attic-clearance service (at full cost) to
people led to a five-fold increase in their subsequent adoption of attic-insulation. Interestingly,
providing additional government subsidies on attic insulation services had no such effect.
∑Increasing tax compliance: Sending letters to late taxpayers that indicated a social norm –i.e., that “9
out of 10 people in Britain paid their taxes on time” – resulted in a 15 percent increase in response
rates over a three-month period, rolling out to £30 million of extra annual revenue.

VoiceofReason wrote:

EEllis wrote:You folks do recognize this has been going on since, well, forever? What do you think the tax breaks for married couples are but a govt incentive to a behavior that is believed to be a societal benefit. Mind you the idea of ivory tower intellectuals running the show hardly fills me with confidence but if all this project does is attempt to encourage behavior viewed as beneficial, well that would apply to any public service announcement or even just building a park, promoting health an exercise right?, so over reacting to this is just making you look a bit off.

And we don’t want to “look a bit off” to some other people do we? We should follow the lead of everyone else and not “stand out”, right?

I don’t remember ever giving a flip what others thought of me even in grade school. I have always gone my own way and I have never understood people that will “just go along with the crowd” in order to be accepted. That is one way those with authority control people.

Too late in life to try to change my nature.