Send Us Hatemail ! mailbag@conservativecave.com
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Atman (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-23-09 08:48 PMOriginal message "No tax on 'juice drinks' and sodas." The ads seem to run mostly on cable news shows, though I don't really know. I only watch (or have on in the background while getting ready for work) some of "Morning Joe" and hopefully KO in the evening, but I'm not into the sitcom/reality tv/crime drama thing. Or network TV in general -- I'm just not a big tv guy. But in the brief time commercial television is on in my house, those soda tax commercials seem to be in fairly heavy rotation.I'm curious...what do DUers think about a tax on soda and "juice drinks?" I put juice drinks in quotes, because it is a specific category of beverage, and should not be confused with JUICE, wbich is the actual squeezins' of a fruit or vegetable. For example, Ocean Spray Cranberry Juice or Sunny Delight are NOT "juices." They are "juice drinks," because they actually are made up of water and a whole bunch of crap created by food engineers (including HFCS), and they happen to contain some cranberry or citrus juice. In fact, most of the "juice" in your juice aisle isn't really juice. Hi-C is another classic example. All of this stuff is bad, but confusion is what I am pretty sure what the ad agency was going for when they tried to pass off "juice drinks" as just one of those "simple pleasures" that don't do anyone any harm. Except they do. They cause disease and obesity, and that in turn causes higher health care bills for all of us. I know how the word game is played, because I work at a political advertising agency. We do this type of stuff all the time (only for Dems and progressive causes, though!).Basically, it's a tax on soft drinks containing High Fructose Corn Syrup, which is just fine by me. HFCS is a horrible food ingredient with many demonstrated and suspected health ramifications, from obesity to diabetes. Is anyone actually calling their congressman about this? Is anyone really concerned about a tax on HFCS-containing sodas and fake juice? Inquiring minds want to know.
Atman (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-23-09 11:16 PMResponse to Reply #66 69. You know what? SO THE **** WHAT? We're not saying "Tax information which could make people smarter." We're not saying "Tax library books." We're not saying "Tax home gardens." We're talking about a nasty, disease-causing, no-nutrition, high-calorie, worthless p.o.s. product. Look, I drink "soda." If, by "soda" you include diet. I'm torn enough about aspartame vs. Splenda vs. stevia vs. sucrose. But at least they aren't making me fat and diabetic...with heart disease. The point is, so the hell what if it costs poor people more? Their use of the shit in the first place costs all of us more because these are usually the same people without decent health care in the first place. So we pay for their care when their hearts explode or their diabetes takes a limb and they show up in the ER because they can't afford a regular doctor. If making a 2 liter bottle of Coke cost the same as a pack of cigs would curb soda drinking, SO WHAT? DO IT! Stop using the "regressive" fallback. It's a non-starter. It ignores the bigger issue.Now, if you could tax the use of "quotation marks" in one post, I'd have the deficit damned near paid off!
Atman (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-23-09 09:05 PMResponse to Reply #12 16. So are taxes on alcohol and tobacco regressive? They're generally extremely high taxes. And poor people drink and smoke, too. Should we eliminate those taxes so that the poor can get sclerosis of the liver and emphysema without the undue burden of taxation? I bet all of these people have great health care coverage, too. Uh, okay, maybe not.
Atman (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-23-09 09:08 PMResponse to Reply #15 17. That's the commercial I'm talking about. And that was my first reaction, too. If you're "trying to feed your family," you shouldn't be buying these laboratory-created Frankendrinks, which offer absolute NO nutrition, but lots of empty calories. If you're concerned about "feeding your family," learn what the **** it is you're feeding them.
Atman (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-23-09 09:16 PMResponse to Reply #20 28. Yes, but theoretically, so would the incidences of disease caused by HFCS... ...and consequently, the cost of care would drop accordingly.It's all theory at this point. But what are our options? We KNOW HFCS causes all sorts of maladies. What is the worst that could happen if we tax them and put the money toward current health care issues?
Atman (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-23-09 09:33 PMResponse to Reply #34 43. You know, the two aren't mutually exclusive. The high cost of health care is certainly not attributable to soda drinkers, and I think it is a rather absurd stretch to say that that was the case I was making. The insanely high cost of health care is the result of many factors, insurance industry and pharmaceuticals being among the many culprits. But there can be no denying that our nation's terrible eating habits -- created, in large part, by mass-marketing, highly-processed Frankenfoods -- contribute the the total health care picture. The people most likely to consume this crap food, tend to be the very same people who have no regular health care and rely upon the ER as their doctor. It is a vicious cycle that the insurance and pharma industries (have you seen all the ads for fancy iPod-like monitors for diabetics?) profit handsomely from, while the processed food industry keeps feeding them new customers.
Atman (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-23-09 10:55 PMResponse to Reply #62 64. I think the corn lobby is bigger and more powerful than the poor non-voting lobby. Sad to say, but that probably sums it up.
Atman (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-23-09 11:22 PMResponse to Reply #68 71. When I drink "soda" it's always diet. I agree with a tax on that stuff, too. I just can't drink full-sugar soda. It's like drinking a bottle of maple syrup...don't know how anyone can stomach the stuff. But I realize the artificial sweeteners used in mass-market diet drinks are full of dangers all their own. I don't have a problem taxing such beverages and putting the money toward research into determining the long-term risks/benefits of their use. But that's just me...a crazy liberal.
I have an idea......tax stupidity....it's the cause of all our problems.
The fundamental problem with that is that stupid people tend to not have enough money to make it really worthwhile.
