We’re being told that we’re a fat nation. Okay, that may be true, but is it the government’s place to dictate whether we have a 44 ounce Pepsi, or super size our fries? The latest out of Gotham City is that city officials are now considering restrictions on treats ranging from popcorn to milkshakes.
I don’t believe the federal, state or local government needs to concern themselves with what Americans eat or don’t eat.
In a nation that has a bulging budget deficit, there are more important things that should be of concern to our leaders.
Oh sure, New York’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg got his mug on the front pages of America’s daily newspapers, Time and Newsweek, but really, Mr. Mayor is that the only problem facing you in the Big Apple?
Now, the Supreme Court is under a microscope for having, are you ready for this, broccoli on its menu. Not literally on the menu at the court’s dining room, but as part of the health care debate that is being considered by the high court.
“‘If Congress can require Americans to buy health insurance,’” Justice Antonin Scalia asked, “‘could it force people to buy just about anything — including a green vegetable that many find distasteful?’” he was quoted saying in the New York Times.
“‘Everybody has to buy food sooner or later,’” he said. “‘Therefore, you can make people buy broccoli.’”
Good point Mr. Justice Scalia.
I believe when the government requires the American people to buy a commodity or service, it is no longer a government of the people, by the people and for the people, but a government of dictates, or as some have been calling our federal government of late — a nanny state. It becomes a government that takes care of every need from the time of pre-conception through death. That, I believe, is not what our Founding Fathers had in mind when they fled their European nations of origin for a land where the government provided national security and an infrastructure, more concerned with roads and commerce between the states and foreign governments.
All of this posturing by government heads is sounding more like a nagging mother who demands that we eat our broccoli before leaving the dinner table than a government concerned with eliminating our enormous debt it has compiled.
We the people need to take back our government from these meddlesome nannies.
—Keith Hansen
Comments (26)
Add commentCounting down to the
screeeeech!
Idea
Instead of telling me what to eat, reward me with lower health insurance premiums for being healthy. It is pretty frustrating to know others pay the same or less and are not concerned about their health. America is full of over weight pigs who would rather eat like crap and watch TV while I work out and stay in shape.
Where does he get this stuff?
Mr. Hansen, what are you reading/hearing to form your opinions? This is yet another one of your rants that is again from the right-wing machine.
First, if you want Americans to have the freedom to eat anything in any quantity they want, then please complete that thought. When they get diabetes or the many other diseases attributed to poor diets then please do not expect the government to pay for their self-inflected diseases. When they go to the emergency rooms then why do you and I have to pay for their poor decisions? Where is that right-wing belief in taking take of yourself - we do not need any stinking government? Yea, until I need it.
Secondly, with all due respect to Justice Scalia - he is a moron. Comparing something that EVERYBODY needs like healthcare to eating broccoli is idiotic. George H. W. Bush, or should I say George Herbert Walker Bush :-), can never let broccoli pass his lips but I can guarantee you that he has needed to see a doctor.
Hey, JB
He wasn't comparing healthcare to broccoli. He was comparing healthcare to food. We obviously don't all need broccoli, but we all do need food. It's a figure of speech where a part is used to represent the whole.
Hey, Tripwire3
Justice Scalia's comment about broccoli was brought up during the hearings before the Supreme Court about the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.
So, yes, the comment attributed to Justice Scalia was about the healthcare issue. And I stand by my comment about Scalia - he is an embarrassing justice.
Why is our government more worried about
the bulging American populous than about the bulging budget deficit?
Bulging waistline vs Bulging deficit
One reason is that Rep. Boehner and his Tea Party cabal is not willing to accept a 10:1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases. Even Jeb Bush finds that position too far right for him.
Spending cuts alone will not solve our deficits and until groups like Americans for Tax Reform, aka Grover Norquist, are willing to face reality we will continue to have this impasse.
And after all,
an economic collapse is just another step in the left wing coup planned for us.
Hey, JB
I wasn't arguing where or when the comment came up.
He may be an embarrassing justice, but it certainly isn't because of your argument.
Furthermore, a 10:1 spending to taxes ratio may be unpalatable to some but these days, it is probably necessary. Politicians know that they never get exactly what they want so they shoot for the stars hoping to get most of what they want. It's like putting something on Craigslist for $100 knowing that no one will pay the full amount and you will probably only get $75 for it. That's why economics is a behavioral science.
Conservatives also know that tax increases are inevitable. There will be no way around it. But, FIRST, they want to know that the tax and spend liberals won't simply increase taxes just so they can INCREASE spending.
Tea Party Hypocrisy
I will believe the Tea Party types are serious about spending cuts when they are willing to accept cuts in Social Security and Medicare, two of the largest government expenditures.
This poll shows the hypocrisy:
"A new McClatchy-Marist Institute for Public Opinion poll shows 81 percent of voters oppose major cuts to Social Security and Medicare. The poll, which tests voters’ opinions of deficit cutting policies being considered by the super committee, found overwhelming opposition to such cuts within each demographic. Even supposedly anti-government Tea Party supporters opposed the cuts by a 76-22 margin. The poll also found consensus behind increasing taxes on higher-earning Americans: 67 percent of respondents agreed with that suggestion, including 53 percent of Republicans."
JB
Since you are directing your comment at me, I assume you believe that I am a "Tea Party type." Truth is, I have never been to a Tea Party rally nor am I interested in attending one. If I were you, I would be careful of painting with such a broad brush. But then I suppose we're all guilty at some point of stereotyping.
Not every conservative buys into everything the Tea Party holds to. Unless, of course, you want to say that every liberal supports the selling of drugs, prostitution and destruction of public property that the Occupy movement has become so famous for.
More to the point, you complain that Boehner wants outrageous cuts but then you demand that we also cut SS and Medicare. Am I reading this correctly?
Tripwire3
No, I was not making any assumptions about your political associations.
The GOP is now being taken over by the Tea Party mentality - just ask Rep. Boehner about their influence in his caucus. I made no mention about Boehner wanting outrageous cuts, that was your interpretation. He and his caucus have not been very specific about what cuts to make. You have to go to the big ticket items if you are to have any effect on the deficit.
I was saying that he turned down a 10:1 ratio of cuts to taxes, due to the influence of the Tea Party members of Congress. And those who are crying the loudest for spending cuts apparently do not want to cut spending that affects them - see the McClatchy-Maris poll numbers, thus their hypocrisy.
Have you been to an OWS rally? If not, then you are portraying the vast majority with one of your stereotyping broad brush strokes. :-)
JB, unlike a lot of the 99%
I have been paying into Social Security INSURANCE and Medicare all my life. My share of it, when I retire, isn't a government expenditure it's a withdrawal of my own funds. We can cut yours though.
Fair n Balanced, your contributions only.
When you retire and start to collect your "contributions" and if you will only take out what you put in plus some reasonable interest then that would be terrific.
The problem is that many people take out WAY MORE than they ever put in. If more people would do what you will be doing that would really help, so Thanks.
What will you be doing once you have exhausted your "contributions"?
Contributions vs. Payouts, FYI
Just for your information Fair n Balanced:
"Consider a single man who earns the average wage throughout his career ($43,100 in 2010 dollars), works every year from age 22 to 64, and then retires at age 65 in 2010. Over his lifetime he has paid $345,000 into the system. But he is likely to get back $72,000 more than that, or $417,000 in Social Security and Medicare payouts, according to recent Urban Institute calculations".
So what is that return? About 21% ?
It is even a better deal for a two-earner couple:
"A two-earner couple with one spouse earning the average wage each year ($43,100 in 2010) and the other spouse earning 45 percent of the average wage annually ($19,400 in 2010) who both retire in 2010 will get back $300,000 more in retirement benefits than they paid into the system. A couple with this earnings history would pay $500,000 in taxes over their lifetime, but get back $800,000 in benefits."
What is that return? A 60% return?
Does this help explain the problem?
Cut SSI and Medicaid! I pay into SS and Medicare
and hopefully I will one day withdraw a small portion of what I paid in. Unlike SSI and Medicaid, those that use it, abuse it.
JB
"Have you been to an OWS rally?" Nope, never been to one of them either. I suspect that many, perhaps most, in both movements are probably concerned about many of the same things.
Nor was I making any judgments about the OWS. My point was that both of them have probably been co-opted, at least to a degree, by some unsavory elements. So, it is easy to make pejorative comments about either, but let's not forget that each one of us is influenced by our biases.
I will say this though. You may not like the religious element in the TP but I have never heard of any violent activities on their part. Can you point me to some articles that speak thereof?
eyolf
A reasonable argument. Probably wouldn't hurt for all of us to study history a little closer.
But, what should I be blaming myself for?
I think quite
a few "disabled" people are depleting the whole SS/Medicare program and wax elouquently on here daily. I think some of those may not get farm subsidies because they don't need them. Also, secret agent, look at the obits. You'll see that the real life expendency seems to be dropping lately. I believe directly due to stress caused by dealing with liberal crackpots and being forced to pay for their depravity.
There is no better ROI than
There is no better ROI than the campaign contributions or the behind the scenes purchase of Free Speech handed on a silver platter to the wealthy by the treasonous US Supreme Court Fascist Five.
Hopefully this election cycle will show how destructive the Citizen's United case was to this country and our elections. Restraint has never been a strong point of the 1%ers when it comes to looting this country and sincerely hope that the gorge themselves at our expense.
Scalia belongs in prison for
Scalia belongs in prison for what he done to the Supreme Court.
He virtually gave all Americans the finger when he went duck hunting with Cheney shortly before he heard a case that involved Cheney letting the oil companies write the US energy policy. That's when Cheney gave us all the finger and said it was none of our business who wrote our energy policy.
If the cons are nothing else they are arrogant.
Someday I hope to return the finger to both of them.
Snort
snort. As I said disability works for many.
Roosevelt conned everybody
because the life expendancy almost guaranteed that no one could collect too much. God over ruled him and let my parents' generation live to their 90s and 100s at a record pace. About half of their children worked and partied hard, thus lowering their life expendancy. They still work and pay for the system. The other half partied hard and learned how to game the system to get out of paying for it and at the same time using their "disability" to deplete the system that needed their contribution. What really irritates a lot of us working taxpayers is when some liberals that are depleting the system continually try to lecture us on our responsibility to take care of them.
Sometime those same hypocrites have huge campers to pull around behind their large trucks at the same time they preach fuel conservation.
Back to the original post
I really don't believe that everyone should have to buy healthcare, but it seems much more humane than denying them service when they stumble in needing care.
And I'm tired of them expecting me (and the rest of us) to pay for their healthcare.
Make them pay their share, or cut them off.