Gay Patriot Header Image

How come whenever there’s a problem, the Democrats’ solution is to raise taxes and increase spending?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 1:26 am - May 13, 2010.
Filed under: Big Government Follies,Health & medical

Michelle Obama’s obesity report: Tax pop and candy, subsidize fruits and veggies.

Now, I certainly salute the First Lady for her commitment to combating child obesity, but why can’t she manage to come up with a solution that doesn’t involving taxing one product and subsidizing another?

It seems that those on the left identify problems in order to come up with government solutions.

Share

88 Comments

  1. To say the Mexicans ceded the land under a treaty is like saying you freely gave your lunch tax money to a bully Ashpenaz’s medical insurance after he kicked you into submission got the government to steal it from you, then publicly gloated about it.

    Not that I agree with the central premise there on Mexico – I don’t – but I thought the interpolations would be interesting to try out. You know… highlighting hypocrisy and all that.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 14, 2010 @ 7:28 pm - May 14, 2010

  2. No, the health insurance thing is like everyone at the table pooling their lunch money so everyone can have the same amount of food.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — May 14, 2010 @ 8:31 pm - May 14, 2010

  3. Against their will, whether they like it or not. Very Democratic, Ash.

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 14, 2010 @ 9:19 pm - May 14, 2010

  4. No, because the group at the table has a written constitution which asks them all to participate in the common welfare, and the majority of people at the table have voted that food needs to be distributed equally to everyone as part of the common welfare. If you don’t like the constitution at that table, find another table where you don’t have to worry about anyone’s welfare but your own.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — May 14, 2010 @ 9:31 pm - May 14, 2010

  5. No, the health insurance thing is like everyone at the table pooling their lunch money so everyone can have the same amount of food.

    … at gunpoint, gun held by fat and lazy bully who contributes nothing.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 14, 2010 @ 9:33 pm - May 14, 2010

  6. the group at the table has a written constitution which asks them all to participate in the common welfare

    … which the bully violated by holding up the others at gunpoint.

    You can’t put lipstick on a pig, Ash. I mean, keep trying, but why should you expect us to go along? Your ideas are discombulated and ignorant, your politics a direct violation of Christianity.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 14, 2010 @ 9:35 pm - May 14, 2010

  7. (sorry, “discombobulated”)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 14, 2010 @ 9:36 pm - May 14, 2010

  8. It’s so ironic, Her Rumpiness leading the fight against child obesity. She needs to look in a mirror and realize her butt is the size of a bus.

    Comment by John in Dublin CA — May 14, 2010 @ 10:42 pm - May 14, 2010

  9. Everybody at the table had an equal vote, and those who wanted to distribute the food equally won.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — May 14, 2010 @ 11:32 pm - May 14, 2010

  10. We have illegal immigration because big business wants the cheap labor. That’s why the federal government is not and has not done anything about it. People would not risk their lives to get into a country where there were no jobs for them once they got here. Building a fence would help, but a lot of people are here illegal by overstaying tourist ans student visas, not by crossing illegally. Stop the exploitation of illegal labor, and most of the illegals would stop coming.

    Comment by Houndentenor — May 15, 2010 @ 6:18 am - May 15, 2010

  11. Ashpenaz proclaims:

    To say the Mexicans ceded the land under a treaty is like saying you freely gave your lunch money to a bully after he kicked you into submission.

    Reality check for Ashpenaz: The United States acted in its own self interest. The Mexican government acted in its own self interest. The fickle finger or history wrote that chapter and moved on.

    You, for some inane reason, want to reopen the issue and settle the score according to your point of view. As a typical liberal whiner, you side with the Mexicans (but not the Aztecs.) I suppose you carry a flame for the Seminoles and the Cherokees and the Eskimos and the free roaming buffalo and the virgin forests of yore as well.

    Where are the Mexican borders you propose? And how come the American Indians don’t get a prior claim over the polyglot Mexicans in your little playlet? And how about the no borders Indians who lived on both sides of the Rio Grande: do you have reparation plans for them? And how about the riparian rights to the water?

    You really should chair a “human rights” commission in Africa or China or Malaysia or Indonesia or Sri Lanka or Iran. But, then, the living there is not so easy.

    Comment by heliotrope — May 15, 2010 @ 7:51 am - May 15, 2010

  12. Houndentenor tells us:

    Stop the exploitation of illegal labor, and most of the illegals would stop coming.

    Well, name some names. If this is so obvious, you obviously know some of the businesses engaging in the practice. So, out with it: name a few.

    It would seem that “sanctuary” cities would be humming through this depression with all the cheap labor the businesses there are exploiting. Do tell us. Do.

    Comment by heliotrope — May 15, 2010 @ 7:56 am - May 15, 2010

  13. #59. to use an often misattributed quote: “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”

    There is nowhere in the constitution that says the enumerated powers of the Federal Government include taking my labor and the labor of my godkids to pay for the health care of another.

    Or to put it another way, my partner’s sister is being a bitch and taking the car. Why aren’t you buying me a new one?

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 15, 2010 @ 8:24 am - May 15, 2010

  14. #62 Tyson Chicken comes to mind. Of course they were ignored in the 90’s… wonder why?

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 15, 2010 @ 8:25 am - May 15, 2010

  15. I grew up in the Black Hills of SD which is a disputed territory. The treaty says the Lakota still own it. So, I think the Mexicans have a case for the Southwest. We were the illegal immigrants there first. Then we stole the land and now they’re the “illegal” immigrants.

    Of course, there are all those Asian-American families we’d need to deport first, since they came here illegally to build the railroad. So, who gets the land? The Native Americans? The Mexicans? The Texans? The Asian-Americans? The current residents? Who gets to say who’s there illegally?

    Comment by Ashpenaz — May 15, 2010 @ 12:46 pm - May 15, 2010

  16. P. S. Abraham Lincoln, a Republican (and our first gay president) was against the Mexican War:

    http://americanhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/abraham_lincolns_opposition_to_the_mexican_war

    Comment by Ashpenaz — May 15, 2010 @ 12:50 pm - May 15, 2010

  17. Getting back to taxes, have they taxed viagra? Or is it covered by Obamacare?

    Comment by Roberto — May 15, 2010 @ 12:52 pm - May 15, 2010

  18. Ashpenaz, I am not a fan of Pat Buchanan but I highly recommend reading his book, State of Emergency. He puts the situation in perspective. The ¨gringo¨ was invited to settle Texas in 1821 when Mexican authorities ceded the land to Moses Austin, who moved 300 families with only two conditions; they had to become Roman Catholic and swear allegiance to Mexico. As more settlers came to work the land and develop the territory they wanted representation in the National Assembly. (Sounds like what happened in Boston, ¨taxation without representatiion¨) Don´t buy into the Aztlan Plan that alleges we stole it from them. Antoniio Villaraigoza is a member of MEChA, and esposes reconquista. As long as he is Mayor of L.A. illegals will have sanctuary.

    Comment by Roberto — May 15, 2010 @ 1:16 pm - May 15, 2010

  19. I like Lincoln and Thoreau’s take on the Mexican War better than Buchanan’s.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — May 15, 2010 @ 3:21 pm - May 15, 2010

  20. P. S. The statement many conservatives use to explain conservatism, “That government governs best which governs least” comes from Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience, an essay against the Mexican War. Thoreau spent his famous night in jail protesting the Mexican War.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — May 15, 2010 @ 3:23 pm - May 15, 2010

  21. None of which in any way changes the facts of the matter that others have pointed out.

    Your “logic” is, as usual, nonexistent. The Mexican-American war was controversial in America at the time; therefore we today should be happy about Reconquista and about the influx of drug dealers, rapists and other criminals into Arizona who prey on its good citizens, and should call Arizonans racist if they wish to protect themselves from criminals. Just pathetic.

    Everybody at the table had an equal vote

    Nope.

    and those who wanted to distribute the food equally won.

    Nope, wrong again. The Democrats have no interest in “distributing the food equally”, only in grabbing it for themselves and their clients – by force, and in clear violation of the Constitution.

    It’s a question of morality and rights, Ash. You truly think they should be put up to a vote? You truly think that if, say, I could get people to vote to steal from you and enslave you, the fact that people voted for the stealing and the enslavement would somehow make it OK?

    Reading the Bible, Jesus almost certainly wouldn’t think that. He preached for people to love their neighbors – Not to enslave them. Not to rape them, steal from them or exploit them – as you believe in doing, e.g. with Obamacare. He upheld the major commandments – like not stealing. He advocated that people help each other from their hearts, i.e. by choice. Not that they use Caesar to exploit and enslave each other, while themselves sitting fat and idle. Have you given away YOUR money, Ash, to help people less fortunate than you? Not other people’s money… but YOURS. Jesus had pity for individual government oppressors as sinners, and He advised people against getting in trouble with Caesar, but He never once approved Caesar’s oppressive acts. For all these reasons, your politics fly in the face of the known teachings of Jesus. You’ve made big advertisements before on this blog, Ash, of His importance to you. Were you being entirely truthful?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 15, 2010 @ 8:28 pm - May 15, 2010

  22. Stop the exploitation of illegal labor, and most of the illegals would stop coming.

    And as I have posted already, the gay and lesbian community and Obama Party OPPOSES enforcing the laws that, quote, “stop the exploitation of illegal labor”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 15, 2010 @ 9:06 pm - May 15, 2010

  23. Ashpenaz, here is the core of the issue: If Mexico got shafted in the halcyon days of Thoreau, so what? A lot of time has passed and for whatever reason, Mexico has not had the power to overwhelm the US and make the US atone or pay reparations.

    For whatever reason, you are mired in an historical dispute of little import. If the Mexicans have stayed hostile and combative over the alleged slight, they have shown precious little evidence. You seem to blame Marie Charlotte Amélie Augustine Victoire Clémentine Léopoldine and that whole crazy quilt aftermath of the European revolutions of 1848 on the United States. Fine. You have your tea-pot so make a tempest.

    Ask your little brown Mexican brothers about the fifth of May, Carlotta, Belgium, the US reaction to Napoleon III and the screwy back and forth concerning Benito Juárez.

    That you have taken sides with the conservatives and Catholics of old Mexico is quite a surprise to me. But then, just maybe your whole history of Mexico came from a rather condensed comic book version of the intricate whole.

    I suggest you learn the history of Chapultepec from the Aztecs to the current museum. Maybe you will broaden your horizons a tad.

    Comment by heliotrope — May 15, 2010 @ 10:29 pm - May 15, 2010

  24. ILC–uh, what?

    Heliotrope–Slavery was a long time ago. The Indian Wars were a long time ago. People are still mad. The Mexican War was a long time ago. The Asian-American influx to work on the railroads was a long time ago. The sodomy laws were a long time ago. People are still mad. The Japanese internment camps were a long time ago. People are still mad.

    When we switch to 50-50% people of color to white in around 2040, America will have half the country with a different view of what it means to be an American based on a completely different history of how they got here. Continuing to impose the white version of history on those whose experience tells them it isn’t true isn’t going to help.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — May 16, 2010 @ 2:13 pm - May 16, 2010

  25. Ash,

    Thoreau was never near a mexican. He wrote his essay and his opposition to the war to justify not paying his delinquent taxes. Maybe I should use my oppostion to socialism to justify my not paying taxes. At least Buchanan has researched the subject from hispanic sources how mexican children are taught to believe the souhwest was stolen from them.
    One of my biggest disappointments was to hear the former Mexican President, Vicente Fox, the first from the right to be elected, telling the U.S he was going to send more of the poor here. I expected him to ask the we send him economist to help make his country more productive to keep his people at home and prosperous. Economists educated by Dr. Milton Friedman at the University of Chicago, applied his theories and Chile is the most prosperous countriy in Latin America. How many chileans are here illegally? I never met one. I´ve known argentines, colombians, venezuelans (before Chavez, now they can´t get out). As former President Bill Clinton, used to say, ¨it´s the economy stupid.¨

    Comment by Roberto — May 16, 2010 @ 2:47 pm - May 16, 2010

  26. You´re wrong again Ash, as long as the real history is taught, and respect for the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and an appreciation of the struggle the Founding Fathers had to make this Republic a reality, and as they assimilate, the essence of what it means to be an American will not change. I know. I speak from experience. I and my parents arrived here legally on the last banana boat from Italy. I am proud of my heritage ,and though as a adolescent was resentful at being dragged from his native land to a new home, new people, I studied and learned and I´m equally proud to be an American and Viet Nam era veteran gay though I am. Any attempts to redefine what it means to be an American by revising history by watering down the facts, holding our Constitution and Declaration of Independence in derision will Balkanize this country. I will oppose it with every fiber of my being.

    Comment by Roberto — May 16, 2010 @ 3:09 pm - May 16, 2010

  27. I am proud to be an American, too–and I am more than happy to offer citizenship to those who come here to find a better place. I am happy to make is as simple as getting a guest worker pass. However hard it might have been for my Welsh and German ancestors to get here, my love of America and what it has to offer makes me want as many people to have a place here, as simply and as quickly as possible.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — May 16, 2010 @ 6:57 pm - May 16, 2010

  28. ILC–uh, what?

    Translation: No. You weren’t serious.

    You knew perfectly well what I was saying, and asking you. And you couldn’t give a straight answer.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 16, 2010 @ 7:22 pm - May 16, 2010

  29. (so to speak)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 16, 2010 @ 7:23 pm - May 16, 2010

  30. ILC:

    Deuteronomy 24

    17 Do not deprive the alien or the fatherless of justice, or take the cloak of the widow as a pledge. 18 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you from there. That is why I command you to do this.

    19 When you are harvesting in your field and you overlook a sheaf, do not go back to get it. Leave it for the alien, the fatherless and the widow, so that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands. 20 When you beat the olives from your trees, do not go over the branches a second time. Leave what remains for the alien, the fatherless and the widow. 21 When you harvest the grapes in your vineyard, do not go over the vines again. Leave what remains for the alien, the fatherless and the widow. 22 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt. That is why I command you to do this.

    Matthew 2

    13When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. “Get up,” he said, “take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.” 14So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, 15where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.”

    Matthew 25

    31″When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

    34″Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

    37″Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

    40″The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’

    41″Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

    44″They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

    45″He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

    46″Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

    Comment by Ashpenaz — May 16, 2010 @ 10:57 pm - May 16, 2010

  31. Thus proving, Ash, that you knew perfectly well what I was saying. Thank you.

    AND: None of which addresses what I said. Not even remotely. Because, you see, unlike you Ash, I actually believe in justice. I actually believe in TAKING ACTION to help people. Using my own resources. Not other people’s; my own.

    Thus, what I said still stands unchallenged:

    I think someone needs to remember Exodus 20:15 and Matthew 19:19. (Not to mention Exodus 21:16, remembering that all measures which exploit others by force are the moral equivalent of kidnapping.)

    Reading the Bible, Jesus… preached for people to love their neighbors – Not to enslave them. Not to rape them, steal from them or exploit them – as you believe in doing, e.g. with Obamacare. He upheld the major commandments – like not stealing. He advocated that people help each other from their hearts, i.e. by choice. Not that they use Caesar to exploit and enslave each other, while themselves sitting fat and idle… Jesus had pity for individual government oppressors as sinners, and He advised people against getting in trouble with Caesar, but He never once approved Caesar’s oppressive acts. For all these reasons, your politics fly in the face of the known teachings of Jesus.

    Ash, you have yet to answer, or even address, a single one of my questions to you on four separate topics:

    1) You can’t put lipstick on a pig, Ash. I mean, keep trying, but why should you expect us to go along?

    2) It’s a question of morality and rights, Ash. You truly think they should be put up to a vote? You truly think that if, say, I could get people to vote to steal from you and enslave you, the fact that people voted for the stealing and the enslavement would somehow make it OK?

    3) Have you given away YOUR money, Ash, to help people less fortunate than you? Not other people’s money… but YOURS.

    4) You’ve made big advertisements before on this blog, Ash, of Jesus’ importance to you. Were you being entirely truthful?

    Your own Bible quotations condemn your poltiical ideas, Ash. For example:

    40″The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’

    What did YOU do for your brothers? That is the question. Not: what forms of Obama raping, exploiting and enslaving your neighbors, did you support, for your own personal gain.

    Caesar is government. Caesar socializes medicine. Caesar reassures you that you don’t have to do good works, because he’s doing them for you. I suspect with good reason that, your protestations to the contrary, you believe in Caesar rather more than you believe in Jesus.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 17, 2010 @ 12:19 am - May 17, 2010

  32. So, going back to socialized medicine and summing it up. Here is the lie that you tell yourself, Ash, as you worship Caesar – pretending he is Jesus:

    [It’s] like everyone at the table pooling their lunch money so everyone can have the same amount of food… the group at the table has a written constitution which asks them all to participate in the common welfare… Everybody at the table had an equal vote, and those who wanted to distribute the food equally won.

    And now for the truth. It’s a fat, lazy bully pointing a gun at the other kids, most of whom had bought lunch from their own lawn-mowing or paper-route earnings. It is theft, of course. The school rules (constitution) say it’s wrong. The bully lies and pretends he is just making things “equal”. Through those lies, and through some arm-twisting, he got a few of the kids to go along. But, polls show that most opposed it – and rightly so. Because the reality is: the bully eats most of the lunch. It isn’t equal… because the other kids wait for lunch, and wait, and wait, until they starve. It isn’t just. It isn’t moral. It isn’t constitutional.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 17, 2010 @ 12:30 am - May 17, 2010

  33. (My last comment for the night – To my friends who didn’t necessarily know I had it in me: My normal practice, unlike some, has been to avoid revealing anything of my religious views on this blog – and especially not to boast about them to try and justify wicked, unconscionable political positions.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 17, 2010 @ 12:47 am - May 17, 2010

  34. We have checks and balances. If the majority voted to enslave you, the Court would vote it down as unconstitutional. If, however, the majority votes through their duly elected representatives to distribute the lunch money, and the Court says it’s constitutional, then it’s a law–and you have to render unto Caesar.

    If our constitution is meant to promote the general welfare, and everyone having access to health care can be considered the general welfare, then it’s perfectly constitutional to mandate that health care, the same way we mandate the funds for the military. Our freely elected representatives have voted it in, expressing the wills of their constituencies. And I’m pretty sure the Supreme Court will find it constitutional.

    So suck it up already.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — May 17, 2010 @ 11:12 am - May 17, 2010

  35. #84:”If our constitution is meant to promote the general welfare, and everyone having access to health care can be considered the general welfare, then it’s perfectly constitutional to mandate that health care, the same way we mandate the funds for the military.”

    Ash, I can’t believe Obama chose Kagan over you.

    The fact that your razor-sharp analysis above actually begins with the premise that “our constitution is meant to promote the general welfare” is a chilling reminder of the hopeless ignorance that terminally infects you and your ilk (ummm, I mean ill-k). The purpose of the Constitution is not to promote “the general welfare” and if that was its purpose then we would already be enslaved by whatever the statists in DC happen to whimsically think is for our own good on any given day. The purpose of the Constitution is actually the polar opposite of what you have described. It doesn’t authorize the federal government to steal from individual citizens and redistribute wealth at its whimsical and “general” discretion–i.e. in the form of freebie healthcare insurance. To put it bluntly, the Constitution more accurately empowers individuals to tell you and the politicians you support to GO FU*K YOURSELVES if for some reason you get the harebrained and immoral idea that confiscating massive amounts of wealth from some individuals to pay for gifts to other individuals is your job. In short, the Constitution doesn’t give a bunch of idiot civil servants the power to decide what’s best for all of us. It makes it clear to those same bureaucrats that they have largely two jobs: (1) defend this country and its citizens from psychotics foreign and domestic; and (2) stay the fu*k out of our business with regard to just about everything else.

    The fact that you reject these concepts makes you an irredeemable, worthless piece of garbage and an immoral, utterly replaceable cog in the machine of tyranny. Get it? You = bad guys. Us = good guys.

    Comment by Sean A — May 17, 2010 @ 12:13 pm - May 17, 2010

  36. Ash,

    Are you a hebrew scholar

    ? I have long since disposed of my set of the Interpreter´s Bible which gives the OT words in Hebrew. I can´t give the exact translation of Deuteronomy 24, but I believe you have inserted your own interpretation ¨alien,¨to justify social programs for the illegals. The KJV uses the word , ¨stranger,¨which is an unknown person, not necessarily of the community. The RSV, which claims to have made a detailed analysis of ancient hebrew, uses the word, ¨sojourner,¨which is a traveler or someone who stays in a place temporarily.

    As many have said, you can justify anything in the Bible I like verse 5 of of Deuteronomy 24, almost makes me want to get married. anewly wed gets to stay home for a year; no work, no military service, just enjoy my bride. Only question is who is supposed to pay the bills and put food on the table? I am more familiar with koine greek and from what I have read, St. Paul is not only gay but by today´s standard a pederast.

    Comment by Roberto — May 17, 2010 @ 12:19 pm - May 17, 2010

  37. So suck it up already.

    Translation – this time, not from bullsh*t to English, but from bullsh*t to German: Arbeit Macht Frei.

    If the majority voted to enslave you, the Court would vote it down as unconstitutional.

    Let’s pray for exactly that outcome, in the case of the unconstitutional, and frankly evil theft and enslavement that are ObamaCare.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 17, 2010 @ 1:29 pm - May 17, 2010

  38. To put it bluntly, the Constitution more accurately empowers individuals to tell you and the politicians you support to GO FU*K YOURSELVES

    To put it precisely, the Constitution promotes the general welfare by LIMITING GOVERNMENT. The power to steal from the People in the name of “sharing” and “equality”, is nowhere part of it.

    To say it yet another way, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. It is a pact to protect life, liberty and property – not a pact to establish any form of fascism, socialism or communism, their opposite.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 17, 2010 @ 1:34 pm - May 17, 2010

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.