Not to be swayed by Michael Bloomberg's spectacular failure and exercise in petty paternalism on a soda ban, Rosa De Lauro (D-CT) has introduced legislation on a soda tax.
These people are incredible. They're addicted to regressive taxes just like people are addicted to cigarettes.
The economy is sputtering and what are they interested in? Taking more cash from the pockets of people - low-income people since it is that group that will be most affected.
If ye demand evidence of shocking ignorance consider this phrase uttered by her:
“When a two-liter cola is 99 cents and blueberries are over three dollars, something has gone very wrong,”
Something, I say, has gone very wrong when politicians are these ignorant and stupid about economics.
And just so we're clear. There's NOTHING scientific in a soda ban or tax. Progressives are good at claiming their schemes are rooted in science when nothing of the sort is true.
As Baylen Linnekin points out in the article: "For the record, a pint of blueberries contains more than 40g of sugar. That’s about as much sugar as you’ll find in a pint of soda."
They're animists. Animists who want to control.
The quicker people who vote for people like this figure out they don't care one way or another about their health, the faster we can rid ourselves of this corrosive, misguided and over reaching social and political mindset.
In fact, on this issue, people are indeed pushing back. Just read the comments.
However, it doesn't stop dietary paternalists like Bloomberg and De Lauro which should make one wonder why. Why are they so intent on ignoring the will of the people? Is it because they believe they know what's right? Which I'm sure plays some role. Are they getting some kind of kickback out of it?
Cui bono?
These people are incredible. They're addicted to regressive taxes just like people are addicted to cigarettes.
The economy is sputtering and what are they interested in? Taking more cash from the pockets of people - low-income people since it is that group that will be most affected.
If ye demand evidence of shocking ignorance consider this phrase uttered by her:
“When a two-liter cola is 99 cents and blueberries are over three dollars, something has gone very wrong,”
Something, I say, has gone very wrong when politicians are these ignorant and stupid about economics.
And just so we're clear. There's NOTHING scientific in a soda ban or tax. Progressives are good at claiming their schemes are rooted in science when nothing of the sort is true.
As Baylen Linnekin points out in the article: "For the record, a pint of blueberries contains more than 40g of sugar. That’s about as much sugar as you’ll find in a pint of soda."
They're animists. Animists who want to control.
The quicker people who vote for people like this figure out they don't care one way or another about their health, the faster we can rid ourselves of this corrosive, misguided and over reaching social and political mindset.
In fact, on this issue, people are indeed pushing back. Just read the comments.
However, it doesn't stop dietary paternalists like Bloomberg and De Lauro which should make one wonder why. Why are they so intent on ignoring the will of the people? Is it because they believe they know what's right? Which I'm sure plays some role. Are they getting some kind of kickback out of it?
Cui bono?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Mysterious and anonymous comments as well as those laced with cyanide and ad hominen attacks will be deleted. Thank you for your attention, chumps.