Opinion of Michael Bloomberg

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Proposing it is enough. And yes, I know it would only ban pop above whatever size... but that doesn't matter. It's the thought that counts.

[AkSaber]

Hypocritical nanny-stater.

[patrick1]

I personally dislike Bloomberg but I give him higher marks as a mayor.  New York has had some terrible mayors in the past and Bloomberg has been better than many other alternatives that could have held office. New York also could have taken some serious backward steps in the wake of 9/11 but I think under his stewardship New York remains a safe and vibrant city.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

We've had to deal with overzealous politicans banning junk food in Ontario (cough, Mr. McGuinty). It, to me, is an abomination of the highest degree. It is no politician's business to overreach their "power" that far. I know this sounds narrow, but I really don't care.Stay out of our lives.

HP, almost strictly for the soda ban.

The proposed law was stupid. Not because it "meddled in lives", but because it recognized the obesity crisis yet had no real teeth to tackle the big issue. The government has a right (if not a duty due to overzealous corporate advertising) to tax/ban/discourage junk food consumption because obesity is a major contributor to rising medical costs. An obese individual does not just negatively affect their own lives: they are less productive on average, more likely to be disabled, and thus more likely to require healthcare. What's amazing is the party claiming to bring fiscal responsibility and debt reduction has so adamantly opposed efforts to combat obesity (see the criticism of Michele Obama).

Perhaps the government should just make a deal with the obese/overweight at large: no government healthcare, but they can keep their soda.

[© tweed]

Great mayor, but I wouldn't want him in any higher office.

you've officially been kicked out of the left-wing club

He has been a good mayor. He's passed a lot of valuable social and public health policy that both Democrats and Republicans have been afraid to do. He's balanced budgets by raising taxes, rather than forcing the poor to shoulder all the weight. He's increased teacher's salaries. And he's implemented a lot of anti-poverty programs, while defending the necessity of taxation and pointing out the rising income inequality gap in the country, something that you'd never hear from Republicans or even most Democrats. Of course he's far from perfect, but as far as American politicians go, he's better than most.

unions hate him, he f'd the firefirefightets.  he does not respect unions as co-pilots, he's a capitalist in the pursest sense of the world, such is why Al hates him... he's hateable, let's hate Ray Kelly more, sure, but back down, you're becoming a ruling class asshole

[stegosaurus]

We've had to deal with overzealous politicans banning junk food in Ontario (cough, Mr. McGuinty). It, to me, is an abomination of the highest degree. It is no politician's business to overreach their "power" that far. I know this sounds narrow, but I really don't care.Stay out of our lives.

HP, almost strictly for the soda ban.

The proposed law was stupid. Not because it "meddled in lives", but because it recognized the obesity crisis yet had no real teeth to tackle the big issue. The government has a right (if not a duty due to overzealous corporate advertising) to tax/ban/discourage junk food consumption because obesity is a major contributor to rising medical costs. An obese individual does not just negatively affect their own lives: they are less productive on average, more likely to be disabled, and thus more likely to require healthcare. What's amazing is the party claiming to bring fiscal responsibility and debt reduction has so adamantly opposed efforts to combat obesity (see the criticism of Michele Obama).

Perhaps the government should just make a deal with the obese/overweight at large: no government healthcare, but they can keep their soda.

How exactly would any of the things highlighted in red negatively effect others without government policies that create social interdependence? Obesity is a public issue because the government made it one. The voluntarily obese (those without physical conditions that prevent them from maintaining a healthy weight) should take personal responsibility for their situation and not wish punishment on everyone else who can drink sugary beverages and eat  fatty foods without transmutating into a corpulent drag on society. I would think (hope) a vast majority of fat people would agree with this, especially if the fat empowerment crusades of the last decade have had any positive impact.

[© tweed]

Great mayor, but I wouldn't want him in any higher office.

you've officially been kicked out of the left-wing club

He has been a good mayor. He's passed a lot of valuable social and public health policy that both Democrats and Republicans have been afraid to do. He's balanced budgets by raising taxes, rather than forcing the poor to shoulder all the weight. He's increased teacher's salaries. And he's implemented a lot of anti-poverty programs, while defending the necessity of taxation and pointing out the rising income inequality gap in the country, something that you'd never hear from Republicans or even most Democrats. Of course he's far from perfect, but as far as American politicians go, he's better than most.

unions hate him, he f'd the firefirefightets.  he does not respect unions as co-pilots, he's a capitalist in the pursest sense of the world, such is why Al hates him... he's hateable, let's hate Ray Kelly more, sure, but back down, you're becoming a ruling class asshole

I'm a goddamn mean drunk 

my apologies

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

We've had to deal with overzealous politicans banning junk food in Ontario (cough, Mr. McGuinty). It, to me, is an abomination of the highest degree. It is no politician's business to overreach their "power" that far. I know this sounds narrow, but I really don't care.Stay out of our lives.

HP, almost strictly for the soda ban.

The proposed law was stupid. Not because it "meddled in lives", but because it recognized the obesity crisis yet had no real teeth to tackle the big issue. The government has a right (if not a duty due to overzealous corporate advertising) to tax/ban/discourage junk food consumption because obesity is a major contributor to rising medical costs. An obese individual does not just negatively affect their own lives: they are less productive on average, more likely to be disabled, and thus more likely to require healthcare. What's amazing is the party claiming to bring fiscal responsibility and debt reduction has so adamantly opposed efforts to combat obesity (see the criticism of Michele Obama).

Perhaps the government should just make a deal with the obese/overweight at large: no government healthcare, but they can keep their soda.

I'd probably support this deal. I tend to like ultimatums.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

How exactly would any of the things highlighted in red negatively effect others without government policies that create social interdependence?

Lower productivity is an economic issue. It affects employers and the businesses they work in. If they're fired/not hired, then they're dragging us via welfare payments. You are correct on government interdependence wrt Medicare/Medicade etc. However, those programs aren't going away and with around 200 million Americans overweight (and about 70 million obese), their effect is massive.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is it a bad thing that the government recognizes that we need to tackle a driving force behind higher medical costs and rising health issues?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree that they should take personal responsibility, but I do not see an issue with a government promoting healthier lifestyles to create a longer-living, more productive, and more happy populace. I would not put all of the blame on the fatties however. The relationship between government and food corporations, especially corn subsidies, have fostered socioeconomic conditions that make unhealthier food the cheaper option. I see a tax as a way of correcting the subsidy and adjusting for the true cost of the food.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Siding with Lief on this one. He's been a good mayor and done things that partisan mayors would've been afraid to do. I have my misgivings about him but I can't seriously look at some of the things he's accomplished and call him "horrible."

[stegosaurus]

Lower productivity is an economic issue. It affects employers and the businesses they work in. If they're fired/not hired, then they're dragging us via welfare payments. You are correct on government interdependence wrt Medicare/Medicade etc. However, those programs aren't going away and with around 200 million Americans overweight (and about 70 million obese), their effect is massive.

I don't buy that being fat/obese necessarily makes one unproductive nor severely hinders one's ability to find worthwhile work. A vast majority of the jobs available in America are non-labor jobs (service, medical, and administration); very few of these jobs require one to maintain a healthy weight in order to succeed and be productive. On that note; I'm thinking you meant unemployment benefits when you said "welfare", because one does not receive "welfare" simply for being unemployed. Unemployment benefits have finite time tables (barring extensions) in which the beneficiary must find work, which I've demonstrated above is accessible to the fat/obese. There is the food stamp issue, but I think this is easily fixed by banning the purchase of unhealthy food with food stamps - something I think a lot of people could agree with.

You're absolutely right about Medicaid/Medicare; the fault for this is in the nature of Medicaid/Medicare. These programs need reformed in ways far beyond "the fat person problem". I would like to see more requirements to qualify for Medicaid/Medicare, but that's for another thread.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Define "tackle". I'm all for public outreach campaigns and disincentives for unhealthy lifestyles, but to directly punish the producers of unhealthy food because portions of the population can not control their eating habits seems to be a step in the wrong direction. It is not Company X's fault when rotund teenagers drink an entire 12 pack of their soda a day. This is something to keep in mind when dealing with this issue.

You are correct about the relationship between government and big industry, but that is mostly demonstrative of the failures of asking the federal government to determine which businesses are worthy of subsidies and which aren't - it's the "picking winners and losers" argument. In this context, it's still seems absurd to punish businesses and consumers for poor public policy. Granted, these business are complicit. Certainly, these businesses could just turn down the subsidies...but that is a utopian demand. No intelligent, successful business person is going to turn down a handout from Uncle Sam on the basis of some half-baked political principle.

As for the tax; I think that, like any sort of junk food ban, is to pass the consequences of individual choices onto businesses and the public at large, including those who practice responsible eating. Furthermore, taxing unhealthy things has never decreased demand or consumption - just ask big tobacco. Tobacco usage has decreased because of public awareness and public service campaigns targeted to the youth. The exploding price of cigarettes has been inconsequential.

This is not to say that there aren't things we can do to disincentive obesity:

1) Public Service campaign focused on the consequences of being overweight: both the economic and health hazards posed by overeating. The message needs to be that it's not okay and that it's unacceptable. We treated smokers with disdain - we said they smelled bad and that we didn't want to be around them and neither should you. Of course that's not what I'm saying about fat people; but the message needs to be as firm as what we did with tobacco.

2) Use tax incentives to encourage businesses to produce food that meets certain health standards. In coordination with an end to subsidies - this could be effective.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I know I'm a Republican (although he's technically an Independent now, he was endorsed by the Republican Party in his most recent reelection bid), but he has become a creature of the far-left.  Then again, most of my fellow Republicans would probably agree with me and label him a RINO, as much as I hate that term.