Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Really?

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), the national Tea Party star who is eyeing a possible run for President, really is opposing every initiative from the White House. In her latest comments, Bachmann slammed First Lady Michelle Obama's move as part of her physical fitness campaigns, plus decisions by the Obama administration proper, to promote breastfeeding.

The government has taken recent steps to promote breastfeeding, including a ruling last week by the Internal Revenue Service to declare breast pumps and other nursing supplies as medical tax deductions.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011 ... hp?ref=fpa" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

dbackjon wrote:Really?

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), the national Tea Party star who is eyeing a possible run for President, really is opposing every initiative from the White House. In her latest comments, Bachmann slammed First Lady Michelle Obama's move as part of her physical fitness campaigns, plus decisions by the Obama administration proper, to promote breastfeeding.

The government has taken recent steps to promote breastfeeding, including a ruling last week by the Internal Revenue Service to declare breast pumps and other nursing supplies as medical tax deductions.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011 ... hp?ref=fpa" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

apparently this is the "nanny state" run amok... funny - I thought using a market-based incentive to encourage, not force, a behavior that has been conclusively show to significantly reduce obesity rates might be a good idea...

classic MB - toss this out there and then hope it gets f'd up in a game of telephone... how long before the emails start flying around the internet about how the administration wants to "force women to breastfeed, because that's what Sharia law says... and because it will hurt white people, and that's all they want to do... that and weaken Amurika"

If god wanted you to have the baby, he'd make sure you could produce titty milk....therefore, pumps should be unnecessary...

Appaholic wrote:If god wanted you to have the baby, he'd make sure you could produce titty milk....therefore, pumps should be unnecessary...

True - if you can't produce enough milk, then god wants the baby to die. Or the mom to stay home. One of the two.

Am I the only one that can actually kinda see her point?

And you guys know how much that pains me to say anything remotely nice about that crazy lady.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Really?

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), the national Tea Party star who is eyeing a possible run for President, really is opposing every initiative from the White House. In her latest comments, Bachmann slammed First Lady Michelle Obama's move as part of her physical fitness campaigns, plus decisions by the Obama administration proper, to promote breastfeeding.

The government has taken recent steps to promote breastfeeding, including a ruling last week by the Internal Revenue Service to declare breast pumps and other nursing supplies as medical tax deductions.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011 ... hp?ref=fpa" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

apparently this is the "nanny state" run amok... funny - I thought using a market-based incentive to encourage, not force, a behavior that has been conclusively show to significantly reduce obesity rates might be a good idea...
classic MB - toss this out there and then hope it gets f'd up in a game of telephone... how long before the emails start flying around the internet about how the administration wants to "force women to breastfeed, because that's what Sharia law says... and because it will hurt white people, and that's all they want to do... that and weaken Amurika"

Hey, I'm all in favor of breastfeeding and I think more people should do it, but there's certainly no established scientific thought that "conclusively show to significantly reduce obesity rates". There are plenty of studies that show that any reduction in obesity rates due to breastfeeding are almost entirely kept to the first year of life and that by age 6 it has little to no factor and is greatly overcome by so many other variables (i.e. genetics, behavior, environment, etc). It's a great thing to do, for cost, for nutrition, and for the psychological bond between mother and child, but let's not pretend that science is conclusive about it's benefits for obesity because science is clearly not in agreement on that notion.

I think this Bachman person, for as much as I know about her (admittedly little) comes off as a certified whacko, but I have no problem with the questioning of a tax deduction for a behavior (breastfeeding) on the premise that the behavior will do one thing (reduce obesity) when there's no certainty that it will do that one thing.

Again, I think one of the problems with our tax code is that we use the tax code to do way too many things - pick which industries we want to favor, which states or regions of the country we want to favor, what behavior we want to reward, etc. IMO, let's just use the tax code to raise revenue to run the government and keep it simple.

My wife couldn't breast feed our son...I guess I should put him down tonight since he doesn't deserve to live.

bandl wrote:My wife couldn't breast feed our son...I guess I should put him down tonight since he doesn't deserve to live.

Is he obese now?

bandl wrote:My wife couldn't breast feed our son...I guess I should put him down tonight since he doesn't deserve to live.

nah, you just don't get write off a $39 breast pump on your taxes... /buzzkilled

GannonFan wrote:

bandl wrote:My wife couldn't breast feed our son...I guess I should put him down tonight since he doesn't deserve to live.

Is he obese now?

He's almost 8 months old...so yes
He's still got his baby fat and those invisible rubber bands around his wrists/ankles/thighs/forearms.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

bandl wrote:My wife couldn't breast feed our son...I guess I should put him down tonight since he doesn't deserve to live.

nah, you just don't get write off a $39 breast pump on your taxes... /buzzkilled

We honestly had no idea we could even write that stuff off.

Can we write off sippy cups?

bandl wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Is he obese now?

He's almost 8 months old...so yes
He's still got his baby fat and this invisible rubber bands around his wrists/ankles/thighs/forearms.

G*d d*mn infant formula!!!!!!! The dude's screwed now, there's no way back from that obesity curve he's on. You might was well invest in sticks that he can put a rag onto so that he can wash his back when he's older and confined to a bed because he won't be able to fit through the doorway of his own bedroom (note - stolen from a Simpsons episode)!

GannonFan wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
apparently this is the "nanny state" run amok... funny - I thought using a market-based incentive to encourage, not force, a behavior that has been conclusively show to significantly reduce obesity rates might be a good idea...
classic MB - toss this out there and then hope it gets f'd up in a game of telephone... how long before the emails start flying around the internet about how the administration wants to "force women to breastfeed, because that's what Sharia law says... and because it will hurt white people, and that's all they want to do... that and weaken Amurika"

Hey, I'm all in favor of breastfeeding and I think more people should do it, but there's certainly no established scientific thought that "conclusively show to significantly reduce obesity rates". There are plenty of studies that show that any reduction in obesity rates due to breastfeeding are almost entirely kept to the first year of life and that by age 6 it has little to no factor and is greatly overcome by so many other variables (i.e. genetics, behavior, environment, etc). It's a great thing to do, for cost, for nutrition, and for the psychological bond between mother and child, but let's not pretend that science is conclusive about it's benefits for obesity because science is clearly not in agreement on that notion.

I think this Bachman person, for as much as I know about her (admittedly little) comes off as a certified whacko, but I have no problem with the questioning of a tax deduction for a behavior (breastfeeding) on the premise that the behavior will do one thing (reduce obesity) when there's no certainty that it will do that one thing.

Again, I think one of the problems with our tax code is that we use the tax code to do way too many things - pick which industries we want to favor, which states or regions of the country we want to favor, what behavior we want to reward, etc. IMO, let's just use the tax code to raise revenue to run the government and keep it simple.

link on the obesity thing? i'm not doubting you - just would like to know... from what i've read the anti-obesity argument was a big part of this... (the other reasons, nutritional, psychological and cost are valid and all)

GSUAlumniEagle wrote:Am I the only one that can actually kinda see her point?

And you guys know how much that pains me to say anything remotely nice about that crazy lady.

No. She does have a point. But you could make that case for alot of tax deductible items....like kids....so I hope she'll be consistent championig all unnecessary tax deductible items....

bandl wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
nah, you just don't get write off a $39 breast pump on your taxes... /buzzkilled

We honestly had no idea we could even write that stuff off.

Can we write off sippy cups?

medical supplies only, sadly. /yetmorebuzzkill

check with your tax guy about what defines "medical supplies" for a baby... i would suspect one of those infant thermometers would be a deduction - among other things

Appaholic wrote:

GSUAlumniEagle wrote:Am I the only one that can actually kinda see her point?

And you guys know how much that pains me to say anything remotely nice about that crazy lady.

No. She does have a point. But you could make that case for alot of tax deductible items....like kids....so I hope she'll be consistent championig all unnecessary tax deductible items....

considering the fucking baby farmer she is??? no chance in hell

23 (i think, might be more) foster kids run through her little indoctrination camp - each one a tidy tax write-off.

I don't get the issue here. I wouldn't necessarily vote for something like this, but I wouldn't object to it, either, so long as breast feeding wasn't made mandatory.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Hey, I'm all in favor of breastfeeding and I think more people should do it, but there's certainly no established scientific thought that "conclusively show to significantly reduce obesity rates". There are plenty of studies that show that any reduction in obesity rates due to breastfeeding are almost entirely kept to the first year of life and that by age 6 it has little to no factor and is greatly overcome by so many other variables (i.e. genetics, behavior, environment, etc). It's a great thing to do, for cost, for nutrition, and for the psychological bond between mother and child, but let's not pretend that science is conclusive about it's benefits for obesity because science is clearly not in agreement on that notion.

I think this Bachman person, for as much as I know about her (admittedly little) comes off as a certified whacko, but I have no problem with the questioning of a tax deduction for a behavior (breastfeeding) on the premise that the behavior will do one thing (reduce obesity) when there's no certainty that it will do that one thing.

Again, I think one of the problems with our tax code is that we use the tax code to do way too many things - pick which industries we want to favor, which states or regions of the country we want to favor, what behavior we want to reward, etc. IMO, let's just use the tax code to raise revenue to run the government and keep it simple.

link on the obesity thing? i'm not doubting you - just would like to know... from what i've read the anti-obesity argument was a big part of this... (the other reasons, nutritional, psychological and cost are valid and all)

Here's one, although there are plenty of others. Breastfeeding is great, but it's just one tiny variable in a whole host of variables that cause obesity. Unfortunately, there's no silver bullet to stop obesity.

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/2/422S.full

There is evidence that increased intensity and exclusivity of breast-feeding is associated with decreased incidence of obesity and overweight in childhood and adolescence (1–4). These associations, however, are difficult to interpret because mothers who elect to breast-feed for prolonged periods may differ in many ways from those who do not. A recent meta-analysis, after adjusting for possible confounds, reported no strong association between breast-feeding and risk of obesity in adolescence (5).

SuperHornet wrote:I don't get the issue here. I wouldn't necessarily vote for something like this, but I wouldn't object to it, either, so long as breast feeding wasn't made mandatory.

I'm just against using the tax code to encourage behavior, especially when there is no scientific assurance that the behavior in question will alleviate the problem it is trying to solve. You can use the home mortgage interest deduction, in there to encourage home ownership, as an example of a tax code being used to encourage behavior that has, to an extent, gone wrong.

GannonFan wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
link on the obesity thing? i'm not doubting you - just would like to know... from what i've read the anti-obesity argument was a big part of this... (the other reasons, nutritional, psychological and cost are valid and all)

Here's one, although there are plenty of others. Breastfeeding is great, but it's just one tiny variable in a whole host of variables that cause obesity. Unfortunately, there's no silver bullet to stop obesity.

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/2/422S.full

There is evidence that increased intensity and exclusivity of breast-feeding is associated with decreased incidence of obesity and overweight in childhood and adolescence (1–4). These associations, however, are difficult to interpret because mothers who elect to breast-feed for prolonged periods may differ in many ways from those who do not. A recent meta-analysis, after adjusting for possible confounds, reported no strong association between breast-feeding and risk of obesity in adolescence (5).

thanks - very informative.

interesting point about opting to breastfeed being one of hundreds of choices made by parents... (my hunch is that those same parents are keeping their kids away from excess amounts of processed foods at much higher rates as well)

GannonFan wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
link on the obesity thing? i'm not doubting you - just would like to know... from what i've read the anti-obesity argument was a big part of this... (the other reasons, nutritional, psychological and cost are valid and all)

Here's one, although there are plenty of others. Breastfeeding is great, but it's just one tiny variable in a whole host of variables that cause obesity. Unfortunately, there's no silver bullet to stop obesity.

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/2/422S.full

There is evidence that increased intensity and exclusivity of breast-feeding is associated with decreased incidence of obesity and overweight in childhood and adolescence (1–4). These associations, however, are difficult to interpret because mothers who elect to breast-feed for prolonged periods may differ in many ways from those who do not. A recent meta-analysis, after adjusting for possible confounds, reported no strong association between breast-feeding and risk of obesity in adolescence (5).

Sure there is GF....just need to increase taxes on junk food & sodas...or outlaw them outright....that will cure obesity

GannonFan wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:I don't get the issue here. I wouldn't necessarily vote for something like this, but I wouldn't object to it, either, so long as breast feeding wasn't made mandatory.

I'm just against using the tax code to encourage behavior, especially when there is no scientific assurance that the behavior in question will alleviate the problem it is trying to solve. You can use the home mortgage interest deduction, in there to encourage home ownership, as an example of a tax code being used to encourage behavior that has, to an extent, gone wrong.

this is also a measure designed to make having kids more affordable (which is, by roundabout extension) about reducing abortions (seriously... that's how this stuff is viewed on the hill)

as for the mortgage deduction - it's the underpinning of middle class home ownership... a very good thing indeed... the world of mortgages and home financing on the other hand is complete shitmess and another story entirely.

Appaholic wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Here's one, although there are plenty of others. Breastfeeding is great, but it's just one tiny variable in a whole host of variables that cause obesity. Unfortunately, there's no silver bullet to stop obesity.

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/2/422S.full

Sure there is GF....just need to increase taxes on junk food & sodas...or outlaw them outright....that will cure obesity

Well, that and taxing people for the hours they just sit on their a*s and don't move or exercise.

GannonFan wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:I don't get the issue here. I wouldn't necessarily vote for something like this, but I wouldn't object to it, either, so long as breast feeding wasn't made mandatory.

I'm just against using the tax code to encourage behavior, especially when there is no scientific assurance that the behavior in question will alleviate the problem it is trying to solve.

Nailed it!

Appaholic wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
I'm just against using the tax code to encourage behavior, especially when there is no scientific assurance that the behavior in question will alleviate the problem it is trying to solve.

Nailed it!

I could go for that argument. The efforts to tax alcohol out of existence seem to have fallen flat.