Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lurkette
Incidentally, (threadjack coming up here) I don't hear anybody bitching about the government interfering in personal consumption behavior by subsidizing the hell out of agriculture and oil so we can have cheap oranges in December and gas that costs less than milk so we can drive huge cars instead of funding public transportation. If you don't object to government action that affects one set of behaviors (public transportation issues), why do you object to it when it affects another set (public health)?
|
Well, I'm not bitching (your word) but I am against a lot of government subsidies in general. It didn't come up on this thread until now.
Do you really want polititians to attempt to determine what is healthy or not and tax what they consider unhealthy behavior? What is considered a good diet seems to change every few years. Diet and weight loss books are often on the best sellers list and they often don't agree. I can't even remember what the latest fad is between high carb and low carb. A few years ago weren't we supposed to avoid red meat?
I am wary of what the current polititians might consider unhealthy behavior to tax. I don't think they should make us all pay more for fatty foods when many of us have no problems maintaining our weight. In my opinion I think one of the problems with some folks gaining so much weight is because they diet and loose but their bodies go into fat storing mode and they gain it all back and more. If it isn't McDonalds they will get the extra calories from other foods anyway.
Mostly I am just against the polititians getting too much involved in our personal lives. I fear that it is a slippery slope and they won't just stop with McDonalds.