Five Ft. Three

“A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.” ― Milton Friedman

Bloomberg – proof positive that Republicans can be nasty nanny state big government liberals

on May 31, 2012

Hands off my Pepsi, big government liberals!  If I want a supersized sugary drink, it’s really none of your damn business.  Next thing you’ll want is my Almond Joy, and I ain’t giving that up either.

Yes, I know I don’t live in New York so it doesn’t affect me what Bloomberg is doing there, but it’s just the whole annoying liberal mindset that gets to me, like they are mommy knows best.  Maybe they do and maybe they don’t, but I would rather live in a country where I can make up my own mind on what’s good for me or not.


19 responses to “Bloomberg – proof positive that Republicans can be nasty nanny state big government liberals

  1. Dave Miller says:

    Why is he a liberal? Can’t he be a wrong headed conservative?

    But beyond that, as mayor, if he feels this will ultimately cut health care costs for which the government, why is it bad thing?

    Obesity is a major health issue and it is quickly heading to a catastrophic level. How can you assure me that yours, or anyone else’s lame food choices will not result in me having to pay higher health ins premiums?

    I don’t know how to reconcile what I see as two valid viewpoints…

    • Beth says:

      To answer your first set of questions, Dave, there is nothing conservative about over regulating us, and only liberals want the government telling us more of how we should live our lives. So, Bloomberg is a liberal regardless of his political affiliation.

      Secondly, promoting good health is not a bad thing, but a government forcing the issue is not promoting, it is abusing their power and taking freedom away from you and me.

      Thirdly, higher premiums would be imposed on even those who make the bad choices, so that should be an incentive to be healthier, would it not?

    • Z-man says:

      BECAUSE it doesn’t end there Dave, it never does. Do you honestly think he’s gonna stop with soda? next it’ll be eat your brussel’s sprouts. Now Bloomberg who’s a RINO wants to ban sugary drinks over 16 oz. so most folks would just go out and buy a bunch of those smaller sodas so even putting the freedom issue aside I don’t get it. I myself like those mini-Pepsis and personally I lost alot of weight by not drinking too much soda but I don’t go out and tell others how to live. Hey buddy how do you define poor health food choices in the first place? why can’t you have a pizza every once in a while and enjoy Life?

    • David Miller says:

      Hang on guys… I never said I agree with his proposed regulations, but they do lay bare an issue for us…

      Given that the public, and that does mean you and me, are going to pay for Joe Soda drinker to be treated at the hospital for his obesity, or any other self induced health problem, how should a government of the people, again, you and me respond?

      It is no different than the fact that we continue to rebuild homes and businesses in flood and tornado areas after disasters.

      We are never, never going to tell those folks that continue to live and build in tornado alley to pound sand, so do the people, again, you and me, have a right to require them to take some mitigation to lessen our financial exposure?

      And then if we do, how do we determine that?

      This stuff is never as black and white as people make it out to be.

      For the record… I think Bloomberg’s idea is pretty stupid and unenforceable… and Beth, you are right on the sin taxes… if we are going to levy them to change detrimental behavior, which I could live with, we should 100% dedicate the proceeds to deficit reduction, as opposed to programs that, if our goal of reducing said behavior is realized, will then be left without funding…

  2. Z-man says:

    OMG Dave I so disagree with you I don’t know where to begin. Let me catch my breath…

  3. BB-Idaho says:

    I don’t care for soda, 16 oz or otherwise. i like brussel sprouts (with a ton of butter), lima beans,
    peas, spinach, butter beans. I don’t care for apples…and I haven’t followed Bloomberg’s mandate thing. Is there a death penalty, or what? Along the lines of silly gov’t regulations,
    here in Idaho they banned the sale of ‘5 Wives Vodka’; the liquor board stated it would be
    inflammatory to our heavy Mormon population. Since they don’t (are aren’t supposed to)
    drink alcohol, and the stuff is made and sold in UTAH (!) it seems like a regulatory exercise
    in silly folly, right out of Monty Python. (and Beth, Idaho is very, very conservative…they just
    like to regulate THEIR ideas….

    • Z-man says:

      There’s a heavy Mormon population in Idaho? Getting back to Dave I thought everyone kinda agrees these days that Prohibition was a bad thing and you could make the case that alcohol is far worse than soda. Nobody’s ever driven over somebody after having too much soda unless maybe to find a bathroom.

  4. Dave, I understand your point but I think this is a stupid law/regulation. Yes our culture has a regulation problem. So do our diets. All this supersize marketing has certainly contributed to obesity. But this will not solve anything. If you think about it, folks are just as likely to drink two 16 oz drinks as one 32oz, especially when most of the time one can get free refills!

    All this one-off regulation does nothing except make bigger government and create inequality opportunities and the market. There is another political figure right over the river from Bloomberg, Chris Christie, who is taking on sports gambling. For totally different reasons other than health but still the “its ok here, but not there, or if run by these people but not those” is totally stupid. And I kind of agree with Christie on this one. Of course legalizing gambling will bring in more revenue for the state which is what they need.

    So back to the health issue and money. IF you are going to allow all things bad for you . . .

    Why not change the size of cigarette boxes to half of what they are now, or beer bottles, or what ever you think is bad for folks but keep the prices the same? Get rid of free refills?

    It just might price peoples bad habits right out of their budget and they will be healthier for it and lower premiums. If not, it will be more tax revenue for the state.

    Of course I think that this plan will/would be equally as popular and divided as the one bloomberg is proposing, but hey it is an alternative. 😉

    • Beth says:

      Oh yes, governments love sin taxes thinking they can profit while saying they are *trying* to curb people away from their vices. It’s all spin! Bottom line is that regulations, as you and Z-man have pointed out, never work and it really isn’t the purpose of government anyway.

  5. I agree Beth, but even more importantly hows the Obamboozler going to spin today’s Job news, it should be fun to hear it.. Let’s face it you liberal sheep, the buck stops with the Zippy… Nobody else.


  6. Beth says:

    Beck on his radio show today talked about how hypocritical are those who are pro-aborts and say the government can’t tell them what to do with “their” bodies (which isn’t even true, they are killing their babies, which are not the mother’s body!) and yet it’s OK for the government to tell us what we can and cannot put into our bodies (in other words, what foods and drinks).

  7. Jim McKee says:

    The mistake that so many people make is in thinking that all Republicans are the same. There are moderates such as John McCain and Lindsey Graham, big government liberals like Bloomberg, and conservatives such as Rand Paul and Allen West. There used to be a spread like this among Democrats as well, but it seems like that is much less the case these days.

    • Beth says:

      Agreed, however the GOP leadership doesn’t seem to care as long as they have an “R” after their name. Groups such as the Tea Party are trying to show the GOP that we Conservatives DO care and won’t just vote for any “R”.

  8. Beth says:

    DD, I just don’t have a Google account anymore and that is why I cannot leave comments!

  9. BB-Idaho says:

    “..I can make up my own mind on what’s good for me or not.” I agree. In fact, a 16 oz. soda is
    only 185 calories..about the same as a couple of bananas. There are many things worse than a
    soda, like a fastfood hamburger and fries…one of my sins. I think Bloomsberg is tilting at windmills here: it’s fine to recommend a good diet, but different to mandate what people eat and drink.

  10. Z-man says:

    I tend to agree BB. IMO what makes you fat comes more from some solid foods rather than liquids, it’s just logical. I find pasta makes me fat whereas a small bag of potato chips doesn’t but things like potato chips are often the most maligned.

Thanks for joining in on the discussion!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s