Bush joins new war: battle of bulge

Christian Science Monitor ^ | Thursday, June 20, 2002 | By Francine Kiefer | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

[DumpsterDiver]

I wish all of these Fanatical Autocratic Totalitarians would just shut up.

[4America]

GWB ceases to amaze me.

[grania]

And now we know what this is all about. I guess they are not squeezing as much as they wanted to from tobbaco users.

For years, smokers have said that this would be next...I mean, if BigBrother is successful at stopping smoking, that means less taxes, thus the need for something new to tax. And this could get really, really silly. Tax soda?...well what about drinks that are 50% juice?...5% juice?...who gets to define "soda". When is a potato not a potato anymore, because it has become greasy french fries or a potato chip? And pizza?...don't go there...it has so many ingredients that might or might not be healthy.

I see a whole new government hierarchy here, just to determine what foods are healthy and which should be taxed. Can lawsuits against those who produce junk food be far behind? Warnings on the packages? Making it illegal for anyone under 18 to buy junk food?

Ahhh...ain't the slippery slope amazing?

[Miss Marple]

Just so there is no misunderstanding, if you will read the article carefully, you will see that the Administration is NOT in favoring of taxing soft drinks and junk food. That little idea is from the Center for Science in the Public Interest. The writer of the article put their comment first, and then moved to a discussion of the President's program, which is basically nothing but encouraging people to exercise and eat sensibly.

I just thought I would save you all from the embarassment of ranting about how the President wants to tax soda. He doesn't.

[hopespringseternal]

The funny thing is that if the fatsos were shoving as many zuchinis in their face as they do everything else, they would still be fat.

Once again, the uplifters and utopians blame objects for the actions of people.

[metesky]

At a fitness fair on the White House south lawn, President Bush will announce the revival of the President's Council on Physical Fitness

IIRC, this was originated by JFK back when I was in high school. The same rhetoric was used then, sedentary, obese, unfit, blah, blah, blah.

Saint Jack encouraged walking, even though he could barely crawl ten feet without being "serviced" by one of his secrataries.

Every week there were pictures in the papers of various cabinet members setting off on five mile walks and fifty mile hikes.

It was a dog and poney show then and now.

Those ponies must be old and tired by now.

[section9]

Once again, Marple casts pearls before swine by stating what should have been obvious to any reader of the article. The Bush Administration does not want to tax sodas and food!

One of the things that I hope the Bushies did put in the education bill is a return to funding for physical fitness programs. If you're going to have a bloated Education Bill at least put in money for calisthenics and, of course, dodgeball. Back in the sixties, we had PE every day. Now, kids are lucky if the PE teacher takes them out once a week.

Ping for dodgeball, btw.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[THEUPMAN]

Ping for dodgeball, btw.

You can't play dodge ball ..... Teaches aggression and hurts the self esteem of weenies...

[toenail]

"I just thought I would save you all from the embarassment of ranting about how the President wants to tax soda. He doesn't."

I'm not sure exactly where I said that he did, Miss Marple. There's no misunderstanding here.

[Gunner9mm]

'"The kinds of things we're recommending ... sound controversial because they're new," says Margo Wootan'

Wrong. They sound controversial because they're stupid.

[Japedo]

if you will read the article carefully, you will see that the Administration is NOT in favoring of taxing soft drinks and junk food

From the article SNIPIT * The fattening of America is a concern to the Bush administration, which today is launching its "Healthier US" initiative aimed at the weight-gain challenge. At a fitness fair on the White House south lawn, President Bush will announce the revival of the President's Council on Physical Fitness, and emphasize both the importance of 30 minutes of daily physical activity for adults (60 minutes for kids), and the value of five fruits and vegetables guideline

SNIPT The administration itself makes the tobacco analogy, warning that the number of annual deaths related to a sedentary lifestyle and poor eating habits is approaching the number of tobacco-related fatalities.

One proposal: Add a 1-or-2 cent tax on soft drinks to finance a major nutrition and exercise education campaign. The federal government spends $1 million a year to recommend fruits and vegetables to the American people. "M&Ms has a $67 million ad budget," Wootan says.

Are you sure you read the article posted??

[Miss Marple]

The proposal is from the first group mentioned, not from the White House. Margot Wootan is NOT a member of the administration. She works for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the group that is always whining about movie popcorn, pesticides on fruit, and high-fat menus at McDonald's.

The guidelines are just that...guidelines. You are free to ignore them. You are free to not exercise and overeat. You are free to have a diet of Cheetos and beer, for all I care.

The article is written in a very confusing manner in order to make this idea of taxing junk food seem acceptable. The writer has an agenda.

The President's physical fitness program was on television this morning. It is mostly to do with getting people to exercise. Not one word about taxing sodas.

But even though these three categories now account for about two-thirds of the nation's premature deaths, the administration rejects the regulatory solution favored by nutrition experts like Ms. Wootan.

Are you sure YOU read the article?

[Japedo]

The guidelines are just that...guidelines. You are free to ignore them.

Please Cite for me in the Constitution where it gives ANY ELECTED official the power to SET any type of "GUIDELINES" pertaining to what a supposed "FREE" and "INDEPENDENT" person eats? Why is time being wasted talking about this CrapOla?

To related "FATTY FOODS" with the analogy of "CIGARETTES" One doesn't have to be hit on the head to KNOW where that's going! Please explain to me what that stance is supposta mean?

The ground work is being laid, just as it was with all the other NON-PC stuff they are trying to OUTLAW!.. Guidelines.. LOLOL INDEED!

[Libertarianize the GOP]

Always happens, I make a reply just before I sign off at midnight and I don't see the response until the next day. I wouldn't go so far as to label him Bubba II but Bush is not shrinking the Federal Goverment back to its constitutional limits.

[blackbart.223]

"I see a whole new government hierarchy here, just to determine what foods are healthy and which should be taxed. Can lawsuits against those who produce junk food be far behind?"

Don't forget that they are after your SUV also. God forbid you drive a vehicle they don't approve of.