Surcharge on sweets may not trim many waists ("expert": soda = cigarettes of the food world)

Eric,

Watch the magic trick by politicians and be amazed!

So we tax McDonalds and all the foods from the fast-food chains. These are the places that welfare moms, their brood and the rest of the subsidized poor, “go out to dinner” on a regular basis.

But then the media starts whining about how “the poor can’t afford their (fast) food”, so they push us to pay more taxes to subsidize them. So, we not only get taxed out of our minds to pay for the poor to afford McDonalds every night (which we can no longer afford), but now we get taxed again to pay for the new tax on the McDonalds food.

So— not only taxes to pay for services for the useless, but even higher taxes to pay for the taxes on the services for the useless, already subsidized by our taxes.

Ain’t life in America wonderful? May God Help us All!

GOP Lady,

IMHO, Rush is right about 80% of the time —and I say this as someone who Rush has personally, on-air, has quoted positively.

But Rush leans statist and sometimes is a little too populist for my taste — meaning he caters to what his audience WANTS to hear and is willing to pay to hear, instead of what I know he really believes. He’s too smart not to know — just as you are.

Rush knows that he can’t tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and still survive in his business. So as a priest once said to me, “You have to give a child milk before they can handle meat.” Rush gave us milk when we needed to be gumming meat.

He’s absolutely right with that quote, but I’ve known people who said virtually the same thing to me 20 years ago — “Nationalized medicine requires me to take away your right to smoke, drink, eat fatty foods and not exercise — for the good of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”

P.S, Yes, Spock was a Socialist!

"“But Rush leans statist...” How so? I haven’t seen it, but am willing to hear about it and keep my ear tuned for it.

I am a bit of a hardliner when it comes to small government, lower taxes, and preserving our liberties. I believe in closing our borders, limiting immigration and keeping a sound military to protect the USA.

Rush says basically the same thing -- I am completely with him on fighting the nanny-staters.

However, Rush could have taken Clinton apart over Bosnia and didn't. Rush could have sliced and diced Clinton over Kosovo and didn't -- Rush's criticism at the time over Kosovo was so mild that it was practically unnoticed. And worse than that, he left some really good Republicans out there hanging -- guys like Tom Tancredo, when they filed a lawsuit against Clinton for violating the US Constitution and the War Powers Act. Where was Rush on this? Why wasn't he yelling his head off? We had no US interest there, but instead Rush didn't want to flush McCain (who supported the bombing) down with Clinton, so he backed off. McCain should have been flushed, and Obama might not be in the White House if he had been dumped before everyone knew his name.

My problem with Rush is that he has rarely met a military action that he didn't like -- and that kind of "be militarily active everywhere" is expensive -- it requires bigger government and higher taxes. You can't have it both ways -- lower taxes, smaller government and a US military that is everywhere with us handing out boatloads of foreign aid to everyone-- and Rush leads you to believe that you can have it all.

I am not squeamish when it comes to kicking butt when we have to. Post 9/11, if I were in charge, Saudi Arabia would have been turned into the USA's new personal "AM/PM Mini Mart" after the radiation cleared -- and the world would be a better place for it.

But if we Americans don't want our government in our faces telling us what to do every moment, why should we think any other country's people would -- or should? And if our politicans do this to other countries, how long do you think it would be before they started doing the same thing to us?

Moreover, when you let your "favorite president" rule by executive orders, you have to realize that when & if the guy you don't like assumes the president's office, he will have the same rights. You can't start griping about it when Mr. Wrong assumes the same powers as your Mr. Right. But Rush does exactly that.

Personally, I think that Rush would be happy with some patriarchal, benevolent dictator as president -- someone who bossed everyone else in the world around, but left us Americans alone. But unfortunately, it doesn't work that way -- what goes around comes around. When you empower the state to take away the rights of others just because they can, it won't be long before they are taking away your rights, too.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.