Don't worry, Big Brother is here!
angryguy77
Posts: 836 Member
http://news.yahoo.com/obesity-fight-must-shift-personal-blame-u-panel-123320915--sector.html
This is only the beginning, I expect a harder push for more control over our daily lives in the coming years by the pencil necks in D.C. We should all feel so good knowing that our gov is looking out for us, soon we won't have to make any decisions on our own.
This is only the beginning, I expect a harder push for more control over our daily lives in the coming years by the pencil necks in D.C. We should all feel so good knowing that our gov is looking out for us, soon we won't have to make any decisions on our own.
0
Replies
-
Yup personal responsibility is a thing of the past apparently0
-
I don't necessarily advocate government intervention but I do agree that obesity isn't a reflection entirely on lack of will power. For one, eating healthy is expensive, working out has costs (even if you don't go to a gym), and one would need a solid amount of leisure time and accurate information (eg time to sift through all of the crap out there) PLUS the will power not to eat delicious food that is often laden with socially pressure (does you MIL drown everything in butter? Too bad, gotta eat it or else be in a fight with her and hubby for the next two weeks). You call them excuses when you overcome them, but they are obstacles everyone faces and some fail to overcome.
Being obese isn't simply about a person's ability to eat or not eat. It's about a lot more underlying social and personal issues. Like I said, I don't believe it's up to the government to address (especially with so many more pressing issues abounding) but I DO agree with the assessment that it will take far more than simply blaming overweight people for lacking self control to improve.0 -
.... I like the Show Big Brother! Comes on in a couple months! :drinker:0
-
"I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."0
-
I see this more as a dual approach, personal responsibility coupled with some regulation to change our food supply away from mass consumption toward affordable healthy food.0
-
I see this more as a dual approach, personal responsibility coupled with some regulation to change our food supply away from mass consumption toward affordable healthy food.
Yes because that's the function of our government, to tell us what to eat
I'm pretty sure I read that in the federalist papers somewhere0 -
I see this more as a dual approach, personal responsibility coupled with some regulation to change our food supply away from mass consumption toward affordable healthy food.
Yes because that's the function of our government, to tell us what to eat
I'm pretty sure I read that in the federalist papers somewhere
It is not telling us what to eat but it is making healthier foods more accessible. Currently, it is cheaper to buy soda and such than it is to buy juices and milk.0 -
I see this more as a dual approach, personal responsibility coupled with some regulation to change our food supply away from mass consumption toward affordable healthy food.
Hey government. Let me decide what I want to eat. You go and do something you're supposed to do like, umm I don't know, protect our borders or something?0 -
I see this more as a dual approach, personal responsibility coupled with some regulation to change our food supply away from mass consumption toward affordable healthy food.
Yes because that's the function of our government, to tell us what to eat
I'm pretty sure I read that in the federalist papers somewhere
It is not telling us what to eat but it is making healthier foods more accessible. Currently, it is cheaper to buy soda and such than it is to buy juices and milk.
If taxing a product as a means to get the public to act a certain way isn't telling us what to do, then I don't know what is.
Why should the gov have that kind of authority? So essentially, because the avg person is too dumb to eat right, we need the government to step in and make sure they eat what is deemed acceptable. Why not mandate each person only consume a healthy amount of calories a day?
I saw this coming once they started taxing tobacco as a means to control the habit. Actually it was never about health, it was about increasing revenues and control.0 -
I completely agree with the article.0
-
I see this more as a dual approach, personal responsibility coupled with some regulation to change our food supply away from mass consumption toward affordable healthy food.
Yes because that's the function of our government, to tell us what to eat
I'm pretty sure I read that in the federalist papers somewhere
It is not telling us what to eat but it is making healthier foods more accessible. Currently, it is cheaper to buy soda and such than it is to buy juices and milk.
If taxing a product as a means to get the public to act a certain way isn't telling us what to do, then I don't know what is.
Why should the gov have that kind of authority? So essentially, because the avg person is too dumb to eat right, we need the government to step in and make sure they eat what is deemed acceptable. Why not mandate each person only consume a healthy amount of calories a day?
I saw this coming once they started taxing tobacco as a means to control the habit. Actually it was never about health, it was about increasing revenues and control.
lol, the government has been doing that for decades. A majority of oil cost is taxes. Alcohol and cigarette taxes. Tax breaks and incentives for various building projects and the like. Why is this the sticky wicket? Are you afraid that the government is suddenly going to turn on its citizenry? If this was the plan, it must have been set in motion generations ago....I blame the Masons.
ETA: tobacco taxation was a way to use the addiction to fund other programs rather than trying to stop the habit.0 -
Hey government. Let me decide what I want to eat. You go and do something you're supposed to do like, umm I don't know, protect our borders or something?
There will be a lot of these posts.
And when tainted or diseased food products are sold to the public by private corporations the same people will scream "Why did the government do nothing to keep us safe?!"0 -
Hey government. Let me decide what I want to eat. You go and do something you're supposed to do like, umm I don't know, protect our borders or something?
There will be a lot of these posts.
And when tainted or diseased food products are sold to the public by private corporations the same people will scream "Why did the government do nothing to keep us safe?!"
QFE0 -
Hey government. Let me decide what I want to eat. You go and do something you're supposed to do like, umm I don't know, protect our borders or something?
There will be a lot of these posts.
And when tainted or diseased food products are sold to the public by private corporations the same people will scream "Why did the government do nothing to keep us safe?!"
Please, there is a difference in keeping the food supply safe than using taxes to control our eating habits.0 -
Amen!Hey government. Let me decide what I want to eat. You go and do something you're supposed to do like, umm I don't know, protect our borders or something?
There will be a lot of these posts.
And when tainted or diseased food products are sold to the public by private corporations the same people will scream "Why did the government do nothing to keep us safe?!"
Please, there is a difference in keeping the food supply safe than using taxes to control our eating habits.0 -
Tax breaks on marriage, children and home ownership too. They should totally abolish those. How dare the government tell me I should live in a house and raise a family.0
-
I see this more as a dual approach, personal responsibility coupled with some regulation to change our food supply away from mass consumption toward affordable healthy food.
Yes because that's the function of our government, to tell us what to eat
I'm pretty sure I read that in the federalist papers somewhere
It is not telling us what to eat but it is making healthier foods more accessible. Currently, it is cheaper to buy soda and such than it is to buy juices and milk.
If taxing a product as a means to get the public to act a certain way isn't telling us what to do, then I don't know what is.
Why should the gov have that kind of authority? So essentially, because the avg person is too dumb to eat right, we need the government to step in and make sure they eat what is deemed acceptable. Why not mandate each person only consume a healthy amount of calories a day?
I saw this coming once they started taxing tobacco as a means to control the habit. Actually it was never about health, it was about increasing revenues and control.
lol, the government has been doing that for decades. A majority of oil cost is taxes. Alcohol and cigarette taxes. Tax breaks and incentives for various building projects and the like. Why is this the sticky wicket? Are you afraid that the government is suddenly going to turn on its citizenry? If this was the plan, it must have been set in motion generations ago....I blame the Masons.
ETA: tobacco taxation was a way to use the addiction to fund other programs rather than trying to stop the habit.
So because the government has been doing this type of stuff for decades is reason to allow it to expand? Makes perfect sense.
This is not a tax on a company to get it to act a certain way, and to equate the two shows your lack of comprehending the issue. Tobacco taxes have increased so much since the 90's that its near impossible for people to continue to do so without sacrificing spending in other areas.
The government won't need to turn on its citizenry if we keep allowing it to control everything we do. They in essence control most of what we do anyway.
Go ahead and keep mocking, you are just the type of person these government control freaks love.
Do you not understand that this movement is to control what we do on a very personal level. There are plenty of alternatives to bad food that won't break the bank. People just need to do some work on their own and educate themselves on the alternatives. Should we be taxed if we don't exercise? Should we only be allowed to watch so much tv because sedimentary life styles contribute to obesity?0 -
I might have missed something in the article, but why not have tax breaks/subsidies for growing/selling the healthier foods to make them cheaper in the long run instead of taxing unhealthy foods? Does the government know nothing about Skinner's research of reinforcement?0
-
I see this more as a dual approach, personal responsibility coupled with some regulation to change our food supply away from mass consumption toward affordable healthy food.
Yes because that's the function of our government, to tell us what to eat
I'm pretty sure I read that in the federalist papers somewhere
It is not telling us what to eat but it is making healthier foods more accessible. Currently, it is cheaper to buy soda and such than it is to buy juices and milk.
If taxing a product as a means to get the public to act a certain way isn't telling us what to do, then I don't know what is.
Why should the gov have that kind of authority? So essentially, because the avg person is too dumb to eat right, we need the government to step in and make sure they eat what is deemed acceptable. Why not mandate each person only consume a healthy amount of calories a day?
I saw this coming once they started taxing tobacco as a means to control the habit. Actually it was never about health, it was about increasing revenues and control.
lol, the government has been doing that for decades. A majority of oil cost is taxes. Alcohol and cigarette taxes. Tax breaks and incentives for various building projects and the like. Why is this the sticky wicket? Are you afraid that the government is suddenly going to turn on its citizenry? If this was the plan, it must have been set in motion generations ago....I blame the Masons.
ETA: tobacco taxation was a way to use the addiction to fund other programs rather than trying to stop the habit.
So because the government has been doing this type of stuff for decades is reason to allow it to expand? Makes perfect sense.
This is not a tax on a company to get it to act a certain way, and to equate the two shows your lack of comprehending the issue. Tobacco taxes have increased so much since the 90's that its near impossible for people to continue to do so without sacrificing spending in other areas.
The government won't need to turn on its citizenry if we keep allowing it to control everything we do. They in essence control most of what we do anyway.
Go ahead and keep mocking, you are just the type of person these government control freaks love.
Do you not understand that this movement is to control what we do on a very personal level. There are plenty of alternatives to bad food that won't break the bank. People just need to do some work on their own and educate themselves on the alternatives. Should we be taxed if we don't exercise? Should we only be allowed to watch so much tv because sedimentary life styles contribute to obesity?
I am mocking this chicken little -esque fear of the government because there is nothing new going on. Our freedoms are not being threatened by the government trying to give us healthier options, they are actually expanding because this will, in turn, reduce healthcare costs. It must be so exhausting to be this vigilant of shadows.0 -
Tax breaks on marriage, children and home ownership too. They should totally abolish those. How dare the government tell me I should live in a house and raise a family.
Huh? Where does that even fit into the conversation. I don't know of anyone who chose to have a child because their was a tax break involved. I know I didn't. I also didn't buy my house for the tax break either. I did it because I wanted to live in one instead of an apartment.
We are not talking about merits of taxes, but the use of taxes to control a habit on everyone in the country. What is so hard to understand about that?0 -
Seriously, another person saying "eating healthy is expensive"?
Go to the local farmers market. But fresh produce. Eating healthy isn't expensive. Plus, you probably feel better, do better at work, get a promotion, it's more than just dollar bills.
But back to the main point. If a can of corn is 69 cents and 2 ears of corn are 69 cents... It's not like fresh produce is astronomically high compared to cheap alternatives. Michelle Obama would have you believe that poor people can only afford cheap food, that is just a lie.0 -
I might have missed something in the article, but why not have tax breaks/subsidies for growing/selling the healthier foods to make them cheaper in the long run instead of taxing unhealthy foods? Does the government know nothing about Skinner's research of reinforcement?
They recommended reworking farm subsidies as well.0 -
.... I like the Show Big Brother! Comes on in a couple months! :drinker:
Me too!! That's what I hoped this post would be about!!
0 -
Nothing hard to understand if you think about it. But some folks don't think. They feel.Tax breaks on marriage, children and home ownership too. They should totally abolish those. How dare the government tell me I should live in a house and raise a family.
Huh? Where does that even fit into the conversation. I don't know of anyone who chose to have a child because their was a tax break involved. I know I didn't. I also didn't buy my house for the tax break either. I did it because I wanted to live in one instead of an apartment.
We are not talking about merits of taxes, but the use of taxes to control a habit on everyone in the country. What is so hard to understand about that?0 -
There are a lot of naive people in the world, and the first sign of it is when a person suggests the government is only trying to help. The government never makes anything easier, cheaper, or more efficient. All they do is bribe the public with the public's money.
There should be no such thing as any kind of subsidy or tax break for producers or consumers of certain products. Any kind of tax policy that attempts to manipulate public behavior is bad tax policy.0 -
So the answer is for government to subsidize healthy food and tax the hell out of junk food...Again, it is none of the governments business what we eat, how we eat, when we eat etc. The Constitution does not allow the Federal Government to do a thing for me or to me. It tells the Federal Government what it can't do.0
-
I see this more as a dual approach, personal responsibility coupled with some regulation to change our food supply away from mass consumption toward affordable healthy food.
Yes because that's the function of our government, to tell us what to eat
I'm pretty sure I read that in the federalist papers somewhere
Would you rather them do this? Or continue to subsidize corn until it's in EVERYTHING we eat... oh wait0 -
"I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."
The scariest words ever spoken!! For folks out there who think the gov't CAN help, name a Federal program that has been successful. How about SS.... no that is almost bankrupt..... I know, the Post Office!! Oh, no..... pretty much bankrupt. The welfare system? Ummm...... again, no.0 -
I might have missed something in the article, but why not have tax breaks/subsidies for growing/selling the healthier foods to make them cheaper in the long run instead of taxing unhealthy foods? Does the government know nothing about Skinner's research of reinforcement?
one reason.. corn0 -
I see this more as a dual approach, personal responsibility coupled with some regulation to change our food supply away from mass consumption toward affordable healthy food.
Yes because that's the function of our government, to tell us what to eat
I'm pretty sure I read that in the federalist papers somewhere
It is not telling us what to eat but it is making healthier foods more accessible. Currently, it is cheaper to buy soda and such than it is to buy juices and milk.
If taxing a product as a means to get the public to act a certain way isn't telling us what to do, then I don't know what is.
Why should the gov have that kind of authority? So essentially, because the avg person is too dumb to eat right, we need the government to step in and make sure they eat what is deemed acceptable. Why not mandate each person only consume a healthy amount of calories a day?
I saw this coming once they started taxing tobacco as a means to control the habit. Actually it was never about health, it was about increasing revenues and control.
lol, the government has been doing that for decades. A majority of oil cost is taxes. Alcohol and cigarette taxes. Tax breaks and incentives for various building projects and the like. Why is this the sticky wicket? Are you afraid that the government is suddenly going to turn on its citizenry? If this was the plan, it must have been set in motion generations ago....I blame the Masons.
ETA: tobacco taxation was a way to use the addiction to fund other programs rather than trying to stop the habit.
So because the government has been doing this type of stuff for decades is reason to allow it to expand? Makes perfect sense.
This is not a tax on a company to get it to act a certain way, and to equate the two shows your lack of comprehending the issue. Tobacco taxes have increased so much since the 90's that its near impossible for people to continue to do so without sacrificing spending in other areas.
The government won't need to turn on its citizenry if we keep allowing it to control everything we do. They in essence control most of what we do anyway.
Go ahead and keep mocking, you are just the type of person these government control freaks love.
Do you not understand that this movement is to control what we do on a very personal level. There are plenty of alternatives to bad food that won't break the bank. People just need to do some work on their own and educate themselves on the alternatives. Should we be taxed if we don't exercise? Should we only be allowed to watch so much tv because sedimentary life styles contribute to obesity?
I am mocking this chicken little -esque fear of the government because there is nothing new going on. Our freedoms are not being threatened by the government trying to give us healthier options, they are actually expanding because this will, in turn, reduce healthcare costs. It must be so exhausting to be this vigilant of shadows.
Right, it's so chicken little to say enough is enough when it comes to the government intruding into our daily lives. I should be thrilled the government could one day tax food that I enjoy because it knows what's best for me! I should be thanking some bureaucrat who will one day do all the work for me so I don't have to think. I mean, who needs to make decisions when we have such a benevolent government there to do it for us. After all, world history has proven that governments who have had the tightest control over their populations have always had the best intentions hasn't it?
You know, all I want is for the government to do it's job, and execute the powers granted to it in the Constitution. I don't need it regulating everything I do because it believes I'm too stupid to dress myself in the morning.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions