Posted on 06/26/2013 9:55:51 AM PDT by eagleye85
Where I live, the FDA is so sneaky that they hit every backwoods farm that may be selling raw milk and wait until dad goes to work. They will then enter the property and interview mom and, if possible, any kids hanging around outside before they hit up mom. It’s happened to some of my friends.
They are pure evil. It is a form of what happens in the beginning of Inglorious Basterds, though the stakes are lower.
They should tax cigarettes too, because that will surely make people stop smoking, lower our healthcare costs, etc....
Tax alcohol too, because that will reduce rates of alcholism, decrease DWI, lower our healthcare costs, etc....
Oh yeah, tax gasoline because it will lower pollution, force development of more effecient cars, reduce our reliance on OPEC, etc...
They should tax hotel rooms because...
They should tax telephone service because...
They should tax electricity because...
/sarcasm
You really shouldn’t hold back Laz!
SERIOUSLY
/agree
This is getting completely out of hand.
Whoriskey? Is that like bourbon for prostitutes?
Because taxing foods not only allows the government to dictate behavior, it also provides a revenue stream, an enhanced ability to redistribute wealth, and even better, it punishes people they don't like - that would be us.
Concur.
SERIOUSLY!
How about if we keep cutting the EBT per person allowance until the recipients are no longer fat? That would have the same effect as a tax.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZrgxHvNNUc
Oliver - “Please sir I want some more”
This is what it is coming to.
When did calories become a vice like cigarettes or alcohol?
When the federal government says it is. Anything done to excess is a vice by definition, otherwise not; even cigarettes. Common sense.
To take food directly like this would be to subsidize production (tobacco and food staples) and then punish those who consume them (cigarettes and fast food), all in the name of health policy.
No one ever said that an overbearing government is internally consistent or rational. That is precisely why the government that governs least governs best.
At least cigarettes are not necessary to life–food is. “It’s probably not politically feasible,” concludes Abigail Okrent, an Agriculture Department researcher, according to the Post.
That is arguable. I am always reminded of context, as with everything else :
Miss [Florence] King on smoking: "It's this: I think suicide qua suicide is weak and shameful, but maybe, if I just keep smoking, I can hasten my exit from this Walpurgisnacht called America and escape the mephitic cultural collapse that Nice-Nelly conservatism is powerless to stop.
"This is probably wishful thinking in view of my family's medical history, but it points up another benefit of cigarettes we no longer hear about: consolation. Even the word is gone from the language now, but it was what came through in World War II newsreels showing weary soldiers and refugees lighting up. In their most despairing moments a cigarette was all they had, and increasingly I feel the same way."
The fundamental underlying issue is choice --- and the personal responsibility necessary to make the concept function in s free society. Unfortunately, these were decoupled decades ago, which created a government with no limits to intrusion into personal behavior. Identical to sharia law.
Once Big Brother grabbed the "health" issue away from individuals, it could justify unlimited authority to control those individuals, albeit selectively.
"Lifestyle" choices no longer pay a price for egregious lapses in judgment. Gays and other perverts get a free ride.
Parasites living entirely on the tax paid by working Americans get a perpetual free ride.
The ordinary normal citizen does not.
There.
Fixed it for you.
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.