Monday, October 11, 2010

Too Much Government?

Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Paterson are proposing a ban of the purchase of sugary drinks with food stamps in the city of New York in an attempt to fight obesity.

Does this proposal unfairly single out low income residents? Has government gone too far? What do you think?




Comments

1. Simpson said...

This is not too much government.When you GIVE MONEY,you can determine how its used.You can't buy cigarettes or alcohol either.

2. Jon said...

I didn't think liberals could ever think of too much government.If they want pop,get a job.

3. Brian said...

Low income minorities have been the victim of social engineering for years.Another example of manipulating the weak and uninformed,all while allowing junk food like potato chips and ice cream to be purchased with these same food stamps.Make sense?

4. Tina said...

I do not think that it has unfairly singled out low income residents I believe that some low-income consumers will be targeted however I do believe that the government has more pressing issues to concern it's self with. I.E. JOBS, Illegal immigrants and saving the social security administration. They are worried about soda's sugary drinks…what about the effects of cancer? I bet they won't stop the manufacturing of cigarettes that’s big KILLER business. This is tact for the congress members who have big stock in Splenda and substitute Sweetener. What ever affects stocks on Wall Street becomes an issue to low-income Americans (Myth um um ponder that thought). All low-income consumers do not have obesity issues why target that community.

5. Cyn said...

I disagree with Tina. I do believe that to restrict some unhealty items and not others does unfairly target low income consumers,but agree with her that this is a smokescreen to cover up all of the real issues that the politicians don't want to deal with in an election cycle.

6. Robert Brown said...

I have to agree with Brian.Why must the poor always be subjected to being nothing more than a guinea pig?

7. Baye Kambui said...

I would recommend that we ban all refined sugars, regardless of eaters' social status. All refined sugars seem to cause diseases. Unfortunately, the corporate lobby groups might end up murdering anyone who moves that recommendation forward...

The poor have a more acute challenge since the price per calorie continues to decrease, making Dollar Deals at fast food restaurants more accessible than healthier choices as an example.

Americans are eating themselves to death, and – heads up the people who dislike big government – the medical costs of treating these sick folks will soon become unsustainable.

Therefore, let's ban them all from everyone...

song currently stuck in my head: "life is just a moment (part 2)" - roy ayers ubiquity

8. Jovan said...

Paterson is taking every opportunity to thumb his nose at the Democrats who put him out to pasture.

9. Ronald said...

Too much!

10. Geoff said...

They are singled out,but not unfairly.The government does have a right to restrict the use of food stamps.

11. Jason said...

WHY ARE WE NOT TALKING ABOUT JOBS?

12. Brian said...

I guess they have a "right" to sugary drinks.SMH

13. Todd said...

It is not fair.I would go for a tax on unhealthy similar to cigarette tax that would be administerd fairly across the board.

14. Mel said...

Another example of how we treat the least of us.I am for healthy food and would hope that this ban could be instituted fairly regardless of income. I like the idea of a "FAT" tax similar to the luxury,gas and cigarette tax.

15. Ralph said...

2 MUCH!

16. Jesse said...

The unfairness is in the fact that these politicians think that low income people can't make good decisions.Obesity affects all socioeconomic levels.Education is the key.Nutrition courses in schools and balanced diets and no junk food in schools is where the change can be made.

17. Gayle said...

Another incident of good intentions with bad consequences.

18. Winston said...

Way too much.

19. Bill said...

The question has less to with the government going too far than the fact our priorities are screwed up.NY is banning Pepsi while California is legalizing weed.

20. Moody Blues said...

Big Brother needs to get out of our lives and wallets.

21. Larry said...

Just heard you for the first time.NY has far bigger issues than soft drinks and salt consumption.Govt regulation is out of control.

22. Eddie said...

I agree with Baye.Restrict or ban unhealthy foods for everyone or tax the hell out of people for these items.

23. Walt said...

I agree that this is way beyond the scope of these two idiot politicians.They know that this will never pass muster.This is cheap media exposure.

24. Biz said...

It has not been easy.I promised myself that I would never post again.This takes the cake.If these people cannot seem to purchase healthy foods for themselves,then the government SHOULD step in.Either we restrict it now or pay later through our new government backed OBAMACARE.I see that your peeps (Cyn and Baye) are still part of your Mutual Liberal Appreciation
Party.Taking your show on the road to the One Nation Socialist March was the icing on the cake.

25. Mark said...

This is absurd.

26. Jesse said...

Am I hallucinating or did I just hear you on CNN? Tanya Free take over the airwaves!LOL

27. Tamara said...

Low income and minorities have always been subjected to this type of thing.

28. kevin blackburn said...

Hi Tanya....Just wanted to comment on your question of the week...Maybe if the parasites on food stamps would do for themselves and quit living on my tax dollar they could drink whatever the fuck they want to....They dont have the "right" to drink anything on my dime! Unbelievable!

29. Brian said...

Single out- YES Unfairly-NO

30. Cyn said...

Biz is not worthy of response.

31. Clarence said...

There is nothing wrong with restrictions on welfare.

32. Kim said...

R U suggesting that somehow these people are entitled to soda pop?

33. Cameron said...

I don't think this is about entitlements at all.It is more about social engineering.It is my hope that mandates will be replaced with education.

34. Blair said...

If the government is willing to place restrictions on what you can buy with food stamps, then they should extend the restriction in other possible areas where not only those who use food stamps are targeted. Sounds like hypocrisy to me...

35. Jerry said...

YES

36. wayne said...

like there are no "fat" folks in government. i hope the drink industry fight this tooth and nail. fat and skinny people have always died without having one soda pop. common sense is not so common anymore.



Post Your Comments

Name
URL
Email
(Note: Email address is NOT published!)
Remember Me
Comments

CAPTCHA Reload
Write the characters in the image above