Government Regulation Of The United States

It is not the government’s responsibility to manage what we eat. “Government is setting aside whether they have the constitutional authority to regulate what we eat (paragraph 2, source 1).” Government regulating what we eat could stop responsible people that eat healthy from treating themselves. People who have long hours of work rely on fast foods because

This article was to examine how the US government uses dietary guidelines for Americans and how the guidelines were supposed to help us eat and stay healthy. Diet and chronic diseases are sometimes connected. For example, it is proven that nutrient deficiency disease like scurvy can be cured by consuming the lost nutrients. However, it is also shown that some nutrient exposure can cause chronic illness such as energy, fats, sodium dietary fiber, and food exposures, etc. making it difficult to set dietary guidelines. In addition to some nutrient causing chronic diseases, nondietary factors such as stress, lack of exercise, smoking and other environmental factors are linked to causing chronic illnesses (Slavin, 2012).

Most people say that the government’s role, in our diets, is the key for a healthier life. While others may argue that it is freedom of choice to eat whatever we want. However depending on the point of view, the government’s role in shaping what we consume is either a compulsory intervention or a blatant interference on American free will. Even though we hear a good argument on the government controlling our diets, most research show that the involvement of the government on our diets has shown little to no results.

The government should not have a say in the people’s diets. It is their life and they get to choose what decide to put into their bodies. No one needs the government telling them what to eat. Many people eat healthy by choice. Most people, at least in America, are educated well enough to distinguish between what foods are good for us and foods that are not so good for us. So people choose to eat healthy because it fits their active life-style and they enjoy their figure. If someone wants to ruin their life by eating constant junk, then let them. It is their choice. While e government says today that they may only have a say in our diets, tomorrow they will control them. As a whole many people may view themselves as adults, and know that with adulthood

Capture theory is when agency is to act in the public interest but instead acts on the commercial or political concerns of special interest groups that dominate the industry or sector, therefor they are captured for regulation. An industry can benefit from regulation if it can capture the regulatory agency involved. Like government privatization there are advantages like knowing who or what will get affected by it and what needs to change in order for it to work. The regulations that can come from the capture theory can be very beneficial to the business.

Question #1: The government in its duties and responsibilities to its citizen sometimes needs to regulate the behaviors and actions of private citizens or corporation for the common good. Most of the time regulations are designed by statute but the enforcement of the statues are carried out by regulatory agencies like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Election commission (FEC). Regulatory agencies don’t just exist at the federal level either, Federal regulatory agencies like the FDA and FEC carry out federally mandated regulations passed down from Congress of the executive branch but the same principle applies at the State and Local levels as well who have regulations passed down from their individual statehouses and governor's

The United States has slowly conformed to the new ways of the Western policy of democratic socialism in order to achieve equality in the eyes of the law, but with this the necessary regulatory compliance of all citizens must be provided. If all American citizens do agree to abide by the rules implemented by the United States, the freedom that they came here for would be nonexistent, and they would no longer have the ability to truly live the infamous ‘American dream’. The economy is also beginning to move away from the capitalist ways and move toward an ideology of equality among the wealth and incomes of the people, and the only apparent way to achieve

After reading Balko’s essay, “What You Eat is Your Business” Balko argues that should not be government business to determine what people can eat. He argument that “all agitating for a panoply of government anti-obesity initiatives, including prohibiting junk food in school vending machines, federal funding for new bike trails and sidewalks, more demanding labels on foodstuffs, restrictive food marketing to children, and prodding for industry into more “responsible” behavior” which the author argue that is “bringing government between you and your waistline. He claims that “This is the wrong way to fight obesity. Instead of manipulating or intervening in the array of food options available to American consumers, our government ought to be working to foster a sense of responsibility in and ownership of our own health and well-being. Basically, he is saying that we need less public intervention and more personal’s responsibility.

This also means that our political leaders that should be concerned about the effects of regulation. In my opinion, there advantages and disadvantages to regulation. The advantages are the Government should be regulating certain things to make life safer and to make America stronger, and better place to live. The disadvantages are, the government should be regulating with more common sense. What I'm saying is the government should consider the costs and the benefits of what they're regulating. Unfortunately, if the Government does not, Americans run the risk of some kind of regulation that can't be explained by anyone except a bunch of lawyers which is going to cost the taxpayers more

The Declaration of Independence reads, “ We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Whether or not the government should have a say in our diets has become a controversial issue. Some people think that a controlled diet would aid all Americans because of all the processed foods, while others argue that it would negatively affect Americans. The government having a say in our diets would take away these freedoms that are stated in the Declaration of Independence, would make it difficult for the needy to buy these healthy foods because of how expensive these foods are, and since healthy foods aren’t available everywhere, would

Innovations in technology are altering the ability of the government to create a regulatory regime that targets individuals. Technology has outstripped the governments capacity to regulate things. It is too hard for the government to regulate things on the internet. Policymakers are pre-technology; the technology is alien to them. Initial run of porn had to do with mail, technology created the mail system, and mad it obsolete. People access porn through the internet. Courts realize they can not regulate very well but it is a small interest in comparison, child porn. Courts slowly retrenches from regulating speech that has to do with sex. Every time they have a chance to regulate they back up. Obscenity does not equal pornography anymore because the government has so much more regulation to focus on. Court realizes its ability to regulate speech is impossible.

The clock reads 11:39, in a few seconds the most important bell of the day will ring--the lunch bell. This bell sends students rushing to the cafeteria; some students will sit quietly at a table unpacking their lunch from home, others will wait in line to receive a lunch provided by the school. Everyday across America more than 31 million school lunches are served. The majority of these lunches fall under the regulations of the National School Lunch Program. The program, funded and regulated by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), has raised many questions among American citizens. One very important question is whether or not the government should be allowed to regulate/ban certain foods in the nation's school system. The government,

Regulating what the government should control and what they should not was one of the main arguments our founding fathers had to deal with when creating our nation, and to this day this regulation is one of the biggest issues in society. Yet, I doubt our founding fathers thought about the idea that the food industry could one day somewhat control our government, which is what we are now facing. Marion Nestles’ arguments in the book Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health deal with how large food companies and government intertwine with one another. She uses many logical appeals and credible sources to make the audience understand the problem with this intermingling. In The Politics of Food author Geoffrey

The government should not regulate what Americans eat or drink; the consumer should be allowed to make their choices of how they eat and how much they eat. The government should have no control how people eat

There are various government structures in organizations although they are different from one branch of the government to the other. The structures help the government manage its economy efficiently. In the economy a too big to fail firm (TBTF) exists and it is defined as one that its complexity, size, critical functions, and interconnections are in the sense that in case the firm goes into liquidation unexpectedly, the rest of the economy and financial system will face severe consequences. The government provides support to TBTF companies not because they favor them but because they recognize implications for an advanced economy of allowing a disorderly failure outweighs the cost of avoiding the failure. Helping the TBTF firms enable the economy to realize high revenue. Various activities are to prevent their failure. They include providing credit, facilitating a merger, or injecting the capital of the government. The paper addresses the structures of the administration and the concept of too big to fail in financial and non-financial institutions plus the ethics involved with the theory.