But why? Why not let businesses choose - and target the use of trans fats through other means?
I hate to break it to you, but it isn't all about you.So? That person is that person, that person is not me... I don't need protection from myself.
You only pay for those hikers that have to be rescued. It would have been cheaper if the government had designated the area as dangerous, of course they can't foresee all possibilities for accidents.They, "We" in fact do pay for those hikes in the parks. We pay when we have to rescue one of the idiots that hikes without being prepared. We pay for those houses when they are destroyed by said tornado, hurricane, and fire..
Do you seriously believe the government will pay for your house when it burns down, when a hurricane blows it away, when a tornado destroys it? The government may make loans available for you to rebuild, but they will not rebuild it for you. Where do you get such nonsense?Did you seriously just mkae that argument?
We could also tax obesity by the pound which would wipe out the fed debt overnite. While we're at it... we could quickly generate an enormous surplus if we'd simply legalize and tax heroin, pot, prostitutes, independent bookies, bootlegging.... etc. We could also give tax credits and deductions for using lower income whores, bookies, dealers.
.
Tax those fatsos!!! I love it... no more deficit and those like myself who are thin and trim can continue to enjoy life without paying taxes!!!let's do it.... :rock
That's why I support the end of Food Stamps, and the allotment of food (based on the current value of food stamps alloted to recipients) at local supermarkets. The govt decides the menu of food you eat when you're on welfare. Govt nutritionists will determine the food stuffs available at supermarkets to recipients. If you don't like, get off of welfare. The govt can cut out all the crap food it wants. You will also be taught how to prepare meals with the available list of food. Why should we leave the decision up to these people to spend our tax dollars in a smart way to care for their families. If you don't want to learn to cook, then you'll have to eat flour out of the bag.Just like the smoking ban, the trans fat ban, people were like "yeah right" and called us all sorts of consiracy nuts....
I tell you salt is next.
Bloomberg is a tyrant.
That's why I support the end of Food Stamps, and the allotment of food (based on the current value of food stamps alloted to recipients) at local supermarkets. The govt decides the menu of food you eat when you're on welfare. Govt nutritionists will determine the food stuffs available at supermarkets to recipients. If you don't like, get off of welfare. The govt can cut out all the crap food it wants. You will also be taught how to prepare meals with the available list of food. Why should we leave the decision up to these people to spend our tax dollars in a smart way to care for their families. If you don't want to learn to cook, then you'll have to eat flour out of the bag.
If you don't want to learn to cook, then you'll have to eat flour out of the bag.
You seem to be ignorant of the fact that politicians are tax payer funded employees and tax payer dollars does not stop being tax payer dollars just because the government takes it from you.
Telling someone what they can and can not use MY MONEY for is not telling them how to live their lives. Why do you fail to understand the fact that foodstamps are not a gift, they are a helping hand.
Alright. Since you seem to think that it is "your" money and that you should be able to determine how and on what it is spent how about you go and tell a politician the same thing and then demand that their paycheck be cut in half. How long do you think that it would take before you're laughed out of the building? Assuming of course that you're just not thrown out first.
Again, lending a helping hand does not mean that you can tell them how to live their lives. How many times must I repeat myself? It doesn't matter how many times that you state that it is "your money" (which it's not) and that you have a "right" to tell them what they can/cannot buy with it, you do not.
Their life does not entitle them to spend my money however the **** they please, nor does their life entitle them to my money.Thier life equals more rights than "your" money. Or any money period.
Alright. Since you seem to think that it is "your" money and that you should be able to determine how and on what it is spent how about you go and tell a politician the same thing and then demand that their paycheck be cut in half. How long do you think that it would take before you're laughed out of the building? Assuming of course that you're just not thrown out first.
Kal'Stang said:Again, lending a helping hand does not mean that you can tell them how to live their lives.
Kal'Stang said:How many times must I repeat myself? It doesn't matter how many times that you state that it is "your money" (which it's not) and that you have a "right" to tell them what they can/cannot buy with it, you do not. Thier life equals more rights than "your" money. Or any money period.
James James James... There are 130m taxpayers. Your share of the grocery bill is therefore 130 millionth of each dollar spent. Who can say what part of the grocery bill your 130millionth paid for?
How much I pay into the system verses where or how much is spent on any particular thing is irrelevant to the fact that I have a right to demand that my money is not wasted. You may feel that some one on tax payer funded assistance deserves such as food stamps is entitled to have me and everyone else pay for energy drinks, soda, cookies and other luxury foods most reasonable people like me would argue is that if you want those things then get a job and pay for those things yourself.
Before you start throwing out barbs, you should know that Libs are not the ones that are insisting that no restrictions should be put on what can or can't be bought with food stamps. At least, not this one. I'm a Dem, don't consider myself a Lib, but am labeled as such by cons, but I agree that if soda is not nutritional, it shouldn't be allowed with food stamps. Neither are cigarettes and alcohol.I do not think any politician would have the balls to say its not your money,sensible people would be outraged and that politician thrown out. I guess you libs have this idea that the money some how grows on trees that tax payers should shut the **** up when those in office wish to spend tax payer dollars a certian way.
As a tax payer you have a voice, but if the majority decides they want to spend the money a certain way, it doesn't matter what you think.As a tax payer and a voter I have every damn right to make sure the clowns in office do not waste my money and I have every damn right to make sure that when they give my money to other people that strings come attached with it so that they are not wasting my money.
Ironic, I'm a Dem, and I feel the exact same way.Again I am not telling them how to live. I am telling them what they can and can not use my money for. If they want soda,cupcakes or other luxery foods then they can get a job and pay for those things.
They are not allowed to buy booze or cigarettes. And I think sodas should be added to the list.Should those on food stamps and welfare be allowed to buy booze and smokes with that money, should they be allowed to use their welfare check to gamble or pay for the services of prostitutes? After in your eyes telling them they could not buy those things is telling them how to live their life.
Their life does not entitle them to spend my money however the **** they please, nor does their life entitle them to my money.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?