“We're not banning anything. It's called portion control,” Bloomberg said Sunday on CBS’s "Face the Nation." “It's a typical way that companies use to and governments use to explain to people what's in their interest and what isn't.”In reality it is not portion control, it is a soda tax. Because people who want more than 16 ounces of soda at a movie theater will purchase two, which will cost them more money. But Bloomberg, who believes in Abortion because government shouldn't interfere with a woman's body...is trying to control what we all put in out bodies.
Bloomberg said residents of the city can still have as much soda as they want, just not in the big containers.The real question should be "Is it the government's business?"
“If you want to have 32 ounces, just buy two 16-ounce cups,” Bloomberg said. “Take them back to your seat. If you want 64 ounces, take four cups back. But what's likely to happen here is you'll take one and probably not come back for the second, but it's totally your choice.
“We're not banning anything, it's called portion control,” the mayor continued. “It's a typical way that companies use and governments use to explain to people what`s in their interest and what isn't. Every food manufacturer and soft drink manufacturer, they have portion control.
"More people will die from the effects of obesity than from starvation, and we've got to do something about this." said the Mommy Mayor. This is going to bankrupt the country. Our medical system cannot handle it. It -- being overweight is the first time it's gone from a rich person's disease to a poor person's disease. We've just got to do something.”Oh so the nation's poor are too stupid to understand being overweight?
As far as bankrupting the country--that's totally wrong. .Jonah Goldberg explained the concept in his book, The Tyranny of Cliches (a must read):
Think about it--nearly every person who dies before they retire saves society money, because that way the government gets to pocket their Social Security and Medicare tax payments without paying anything back out. Moreover, the older you get, the more medical costs accumulate. From a purely actuarial perspective, all of these people...who claim that our health-care system needs to be reformed because our life expectancy is too low (its not) miss the point that if we dramatically increased life expectancy in this country we would lose money on the deal, because that would mean dramatically increasing the length of time old people collect retirement benefits and increasing the number of claims they make on the health-care system.In other words "the state" has no interest in keeping us healthy. The only reason for these rules is that Bloomberg's progressive policies direct him to tell people how to live their lives. That is not what this country is about.