bytor2112 Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 "While many factors promote weight gain, soft drinks are the only food or beverage that has been shown to increase the risk of overweight and obesity, which, in turn, increase the risk of diabetes, stroke, and many other health problems," Michael Jacobson of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which is pushing the idea, said in his testimony. "Soft drinks are nutritionally worthless…[and] are directly related to weight gain, partly because beverages are more conducive to weight gain than solid foods."Oh brother.......Senate Considers Federal Tax On Soda | Political Hotsheet - CBS News Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxel Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 I read this to my roommate. His first reaction: "We are Gestappo! You must be thin!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bytor2112 Posted May 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 Why is the first thought of the government to raise taxes, rather than to cut wasteful spending? What's next a tax on Oreo's and ice cream? How about fruit....it's full of sugar too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravin Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 The only food or beverage? Are the studies to choose from really that thin? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prospectmom Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 how about Learn to spend what you get better. not give us more to misspend Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 People have choices to consume or not to consume. Yes sodas and energy drinks can and do cause weight gain. Yes we do have an obesity problem in the country. It just seems kind of ironic that we want the economy to also improve which means people need to spend money. But yet turn it the other way and tax people to death on items that right now are huge sellers to retailers. Not sure how that would be helping. What about those that have no weight problems? Why should they be taxed on things because of what is considered to be the cause in part to obesity and healthcare problems? Just doesn't seem quite fair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mlbrowninwa Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 Now i'll have to give up my diet coke. Just wait, before long they will find a reason to tax water, air, etc.,etc. This government is just unbelievable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 Ahhh but the article does say that diet sodas would be exempt. So you are safe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarginOfError Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 The Senate isn't considering this very seriously. This is the pet project of a guy in New York (the same place that banned transfats). For some reason they think this kind of thing works. I especially love how "Diet sodas would be exempt." Cause diet sodas are sooo much healthier than regular sodas. It was a Senate committee hearing that was reviewing proposals. You send things to committee hearings to die so that they never make it to the floor. I assure you, the process is working just as it should here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aesa Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 Politcians, they're just SO relevant to the maintenance of our society today. [/sarcasm] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemidakota Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 Oh brother.......Senate Considers Federal Tax On Soda | Political Hotsheet - CBS NewsOne step closer to the grand take over.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prisonchaplain Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 I still remember getting a $25 traffic violation and having to pay $24 tax on it. Soda pop is the new sin tax??? They tried that here in Seattle--local government wanted to tax lattes at 10-cents each. People lost their elections over it, and the proposal was defeated 4:1. This little Doosey could be O'bama's end. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingnut Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 What about those that have no weight problems? Why should they be taxed on things because of what is considered to be the cause in part to obesity and healthcare problems? Just doesn't seem quite fair.And what about those who are overweight and/or obese, but don't drink soda? How does this benefit them, the way it seems intended to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarginOfError Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 I still remember getting a $25 traffic violation and having to pay $24 tax on it. Soda pop is the new sin tax??? They tried that here in Seattle--local government wanted to tax lattes at 10-cents each. People lost their elections over it, and the proposal was defeated 4:1. This little Doosey could be O'bama's end. :-)Hold your horses there. Obama isn’t involved in this at all. This is something a small group of over-zealous health nuts are trying to promote under the guise of “funding the health plan.” It’s the same camp of people who banned trans fats in NYC. I’m aware that Obama isn’t a popular guy around here, but blaming him for things that he isn’t involved in is a little cheap, don’t you think? Besides, a similar proposal was made in NY and fell flat on its face. Not even a state as liberal as NY wants anything to do with this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bytor2112 Posted May 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 Oh, I think it is coming MOE and Obama will surely get the blame.....Presidents always get the blame. He better watch out or the Democratic controlled congress will be his undoing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxel Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 I’m aware that Obama isn’t a popular guy around here, but blaming him for things that he isn’t involved in is a little cheap, don’t you think? No.Obama was/is the cause of the the budget crisis, the nationalization of our economy, the plot of 1981, Bill Gates having so much money, the Vietnamese War, the War of 1812, the French-Indian War, the Civil War, the fact that my computer keyboard is broken, and the bruise on my knee from playing Ultimate Frisbee on Monday. He was the mastermind behind the Black Plague, the Spanish Flu, and the Swine Flu (he's an alchemist, I tell 'ye!).At every major disaster throughout history, we can see Obama's menacing silhouette in the background. Caeser's famous line originally read "Et tu, Obama?", but the Roman-Democrats were able to change it and strike Obama's presence from the history books. He was the Red Death in Poe's famous work; he was the Phantom of the Opera before the Phantom did 'the right thing' (afterward, the Phantom was played by Bob Dole).I'm not paranoid. What are you talking about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Misshalfway Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 Why is the first thought of the government to raise taxes, rather than to cut wasteful spending? What's next a tax on Oreo's and ice cream? How about fruit....it's full of sugar too.Wait.....I thought Obama said he was going to cut wasteful spending. And now he's not. Shocker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prisonchaplain Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 Hold your horses there. Obama isn’t involved in this at all. This is something a small group of over-zealous health nuts are trying to promote under the guise of “funding the health plan.” It’s the same camp of people who banned trans fats in NYC. I’m aware that Obama isn’t a popular guy around here, but blaming him for things that he isn’t involved in is a little cheap, don’t you think? Besides, a similar proposal was made in NY and fell flat on its face. Not even a state as liberal as NY wants anything to do with this. You might have caught my tongue slightly poking out of my cheek on this one, hermano. On the other hand, Obama's in charge. It's his Whitehouse and Congress. If this tax slips through, it'll be an Obama administration decision. I believe he even invoked Truman's "The buck stops here," mantra. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bytor2112 Posted May 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 Envision for a moment if you will.......Nationalized Health Care. Sodas are bad let's tax them, hey candy is awful too...let's tax it, ooh and what about Doritos...nope, tax it, Ice cream, cookies, cake, pies and anything that is deemed detrimental to your health. Maybe we will have a grocery card that scans all of the groceries we buy and will only be allotted certain types and quantities of the various SINFUL items. If we are going to be taxed for things that promote unhealthy lifestyles that may ultimately increase the cost of health care....what about homosexuality? Will it be taxed? If g/l marriage is legalized will a heavy tax be levied? Studies have shown that homosexual sex practices are unhealthy and detrimental to your health. (yeah I know, that could include hetero's too...but work with me). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxel Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 Envision for a moment if you will.......Nationalized Health Care. Sodas are bad let's tax them, hey candy is awful too...let's tax it, ooh and what about Doritos...nope, tax it, Ice cream, cookies, cake, pies and anything that is deemed detrimental to your health. Maybe we will have a grocery card that scans all of the groceries we buy and will only be allotted certain types and quantities of the various SINFUL items. Big Brother just wants to make sure you're healthy so you can live a better life and contribute to the collective more efficiently. Positive individual health is enforceable to maintain the public and environmental good.Join the dark side of eco- and human-friendly government! Darth Gore is waiting for you.If we are going to be taxed for things that promote unhealthy lifestyles that may ultimately increase the cost of health care....what about homosexuality? Will it be taxed? If g/l marriage is legalized will a heavy tax be levied? Studies have shown that homosexual sex practices are unhealthy and detrimental to your health. (yeah I know, that could include hetero's too...but work with me).It seems to me that this (and other 'green' and 'healthy-motivated' policies) is a course determined to be taken by those who would put humanity's role in the history of the planet on the back burner, preferring the beasts of the field to man's destiny. Just as the belief that we can know fundamental truths of life is 'arrogant' to the agnostic, the placing of humanity above the environment in importance is 'arrogant' to the extreme greens.It seems to be some kind of odd self-destructionist agenda. Odd conclusion, I know, seeing as how the tax is supposed to promote healthy living, but the 'big picture' doesn't look good. [/doomandgloom] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hordak Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 Just to put this in perspective A three-cent tax on sodas as well as other sugary drinks, including energy and sports drinks like Gatorade. Diet sodas would be exempt.They opened this door long ago. If they can double the cost of a pack of smokes, 3 cents on pop (soda) shouldn't be to hard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxel Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 They opened this door long ago. If they can double the cost of a pack of smokes, 3 cents on pop (soda) shouldn't be to hard.I was actually wondering about this while reading the article. I talked to my roommates about it; one of them said they didn't have a problem with the cigarette taxes because cigarettes (almost) always harm others and constituted a minor infringement on anothers' property and rights. This seems like a weak case to me though; it also seems to be the argument used to uphold the cigarette tax. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hordak Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 I was actually wondering about this while reading the article. I talked to my roommates about it; one of them said they didn't have a problem with the cigarette taxes because cigarettes (almost) always harm others and constituted a minor infringement on anothers' property and rights. This seems like a weak case to me though; it also seems to be the argument used to uphold the cigarette tax.If that was the case then given the amount of smoking bans/ enacted and number of people quitting over the last 10 years the taxes should be lessened as less people are being harmed.It is all about the money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.