Exercise….Eat Well……Die Anyway……….

Yesterday I had a rage against people that insert themselves into others lives and this post is kinda on the same lines…….

We have all heard the crap flowing from the mouths of “TV” doctors like OZ and whats his name on CNN and from the media hosts that are sooooooo concerned with the eating habits of our citizens….to the point that they are trying to infer that being fat should somehow be a crime or a sin.

They, the pundits, are saying that they see children that are fat at their kid’s schools and at the malls and so on…….and they are disgusted, at least that is the way they portray their attitudes.  But what is the answer?

The Independent Institute has a commentary by William F. Shugart II and I quote excerpts from this writing:

Recognizing that further hikes on existing federal excise taxes for Congress’ two old standbys—alcohol and tobacco—will not raise enough revenue, Washington is considering selectively taxing “sugary” soft drinks that supposedly contribute to the modern sin of obesity. Fat cats apparently are not the only Americans who may see their tax bills go up.

Suggesting that “soda is clearly one of the most harmful products in the food supply,” as the executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest recently did, recasts the proposed excise tax as one with a positive effect: nudging consumer behavior toward a healthier lifestyle. According to one estimate, a tax of one cent per fluid ounce on carbonated soft drinks would raise $17 billion per year and reduce consumption by 13 percent. This appears to allow the federal government to do well by doing good.

Yet the reality is that soft drink sales have already been declining for the last nine years without a federal excise tax. While correlation is not causation, it is clearly a stretch to argue that sodas have contributed significantly to a nationwide obesity “epidemic.” In fact, the obesity rates in the two states that do tax soft drinks are among the nation’s highest.

Selective excise taxes violate a widely accepted principle of public finance known among economists as “horizontal equity.” This principle suggests that individuals in similar economic circumstances ought to bear similar tax burdens. In other words, one person’s tax bill should not be higher simply because of what he or she chooses to consume.

Excise taxes also are very blunt instruments for controlling consumption behavior; they punish responsible consumers as well as those who overindulge. Worse, a soft drink tax, like all consumption taxes, would be regressive, falling more heavily on the poor than on the wealthy.

Singling out consumers of some products to finance a healthcare plan the president says will benefit all Americans is fiscal discrimination at its most brazen. And the farther the nation moves toward a single-payer health insurance program, the more pressure there will be to tax any product that anyone, anywhere, plausibly can argue is detrimental to one’s health.

Today it may be carbonated soft drinks. Tomorrow, it may be ethnic food, coffee, bacon and eggs, hot dogs and red meat.

So all you idiots that want to dictate to people what they should or should not eat or drink…..I say….BITE ME!

It is very simple your moronic dingbats….make healthy food cheaper and everyone will join the game…if we must make a certain type of food a “sin” then make the alternative cheaper and do not raise taxes.

Personally, I do not care what they do to sodas…I do not drink them…..but taxing them is NOT the answer….I feel that jogging is unhealthy…why not put a $10 exercise fee on all shoes and attire…do you think the “healthy” dipsticks will go for that?  I doubt it……

Side note:  the government program WIC will start issuing vouchers for fruit and veggies only and will make getting sugary items and high fat milk harder.

Wait!  High fat milk?  Do you mean that milk is NOT good for every body?  So, they want recipients  to drink white water or watered down Elmer’s glue…how yummy is that?