No Cheetos for YOU....CTYankme

[Skul]

This one cracked me up.
Saw the title and knew right away the feces would hit the fan.
I was right for a change.   I owe myself a beer. (no travel money)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1565197

CTyankee  (1000+ posts)      Sun Jul-24-11 04:50 PM
Original message
Bad Food? Tax It, and Subsidize Vegetables
 Take a look at Mark Bittman's OpEd piece in the NY Times today: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24bitt...

And before you get concerned over what will happen to the poor, read his full scenario of making healthy foods more affordable and more ubiquitous and helping our entire population become healthier.

"Simply put: taxes would reduce consumption of unhealthful foods and generate billions of dollars annually. That money could be used to subsidize the purchase of staple foods like seasonal greens, vegetables, whole grains, dried legumes and fruit.

We could sell those staples cheap — let’s say for 50 cents a pound — and almost everywhere: drugstores, street corners, convenience stores, bodegas, supermarkets, liquor stores, even schools, libraries and other community centers."

Bittman offers some staggering information about the costs in the nation's health as a result of the subsidization of bad foods.

"Health-related obesity costs are projected to reach $344 billion by 2018 — with roughly 60 percent of that cost borne by the federal government. For a precedent in attacking this problem, look at the action government took in the case of tobacco."

He makes a very good case. IMO, he is offering a coherent food policy for the U.S. Rather than throwing up our hands and saying nothing can be done, we should take a good look at his thoughtful article.
 

RIGHT OUT OF THE STARTING BLOCK Here we go.

Shandris (716 posts)      Sun Jul-24-11 04:57 PM
Response to Original message
1. Sure thing.
 Right after you subsidize the time and energy needed to prepare everything from scratch every night.

Or here's a novel thought: Why don't you keep your nose out of my pantry and let me eat what the **** I want to, and I'll keep my nose out of yours and give you the same courtesy.

What is it with the authoritarianism? Are you just not ****ing happy until SOMEONE is paying extra for what you don't like? Or we could simply call it what it is: An attempt at 'forcing' vegetarianism.

Gets better.

The Straight Story  (1000+ posts)        Sun Jul-24-11 05:00 PM
Response to Original message
2. What is it with some people wanting to control the behavior/choices of others?
 Or trying to punish/reward them for their choices?

Your body, your choice. Next up - the RW will want a $100 tax on abortions....
 

Say WHAT?

CTyankee  (1000+ posts)      Sun Jul-24-11 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Lordy, what logic, esp. that last bit about abortions...
 Why do you hate taxes? That sounds positively teaparty-ish! 

Oooo, Yankme called the story guy a ..."bagger".

It goes on and on for a bit.
This popped up.

Shagbark Hickory (1000+ posts)      Sun Jul-24-11 05:03 PM
Response to Original message
4. If something is "bad", don't tax it. Ban it.
 Edited on Sun Jul-24-11 05:03 PM by Shagbark Hickory
That's the way I look at it. 

Like maybe...un-needed abortions.
Mind altering drugs.
Cheetos?

[notaDUmmie]

CTYankee is a piece of work...I remember when she was trying to figure out a way to make her neighbors recycle...now she wants to make a "bad food" a luxury by taxing it.  But if it's a luxury, won't the DUmmies then come out for the right of even the poor to have that luxury, so the the non-DUmmies (AKA taxpayers) will have to pay twice?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1565197

CTyankee  (1000+ posts)      Sun Jul-24-11 04:50 PM
Original message
Bad Food? Tax It, and Subsidize Vegetables
 Take a look at Mark Bittman's OpEd piece in the NY Times today: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24bitt...

And before you get concerned over what will happen to the poor, read his full scenario of making healthy foods more affordable and more ubiquitous and helping our entire population become healthier.

"Simply put: taxes would reduce consumption of unhealthful foods and generate billions of dollars annually. That money could be used to subsidize the purchase of staple foods like seasonal greens, vegetables, whole grains, dried legumes and fruit.

We could sell those staples cheap — let’s say for 50 cents a pound — and almost everywhere: drugstores, street corners, convenience stores, bodegas, supermarkets, liquor stores, even schools, libraries and other community centers."

Bittman offers some staggering information about the costs in the nation's health as a result of the subsidization of bad foods.

"Health-related obesity costs are projected to reach $344 billion by 2018 — with roughly 60 percent of that cost borne by the federal government. For a precedent in attacking this problem, look at the action government took in the case of tobacco."

He makes a very good case. IMO, he is offering a coherent food policy for the U.S. Rather than throwing up our hands and saying nothing can be done, we should take a good look at his thoughtful article.
 

[notaDUmmie]

CTyankee  (1000+ posts)      Sun Jul-24-11 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. Tell me how Bittman's suggestion inhibits "your body, your choice"?
 Where in the article specifically does he say he wants to limit your right to eat what you want?

In fact, our food subsidy policy now inhibits MY choice to eat fresh foods. MY taxes pay to subsidize food products I do not buy. So if anybody is getting screwed here, it's me...

I sincerely doubt that...

[notaDUmmie]

And it only took an hour and 5 minutes for someone to say just what I knew they would..."the poor deserve to be able to buy junk food too!!!" 

Lyric  (1000+ posts)      Sun Jul-24-11 05:55 PM
Response to Original message
42. So real, practical freedom should only belong to the wealthy?
 Because that's what the actual result will be. Oh sure, THEORETICALLY anyone could choose to pay more for the privilege of eating those things--but we don't live in a theoretical world. We live in a real one. The actual, practical end result is that the freedoms of the working class would be smothered, while the wealthy continue to gorge themselves on anything they want. Kind of like how both the poor AND the wealthy are forbidden to sleep under bridges; only one of those groups would actually be AFFECTED by such a law, and as usual, it's the poor.

I don't like social engineering via taxes.

[Carl]

Take from him/her (tax) and give it to me is all the left want.
When it affects them they have a meltdown.

[notaDUmmie]

Lucky for the DUmmies that this country doesn't tax stupidity, or none of them would have a pot to pee in.

[jukin]

Yes, somehow the only thing that goes up when taxed is investment and business activity. Otherwise everything else follows the rule of taxing decreases an activity and subsidizing increases an activity.

[sybilll]

Taxes on unhealthy foods would not help people who are not paying for their food in the first place.  I see the kind of junk in the carts of the EBT users.  They make poor choices, even when the money for the food is free. 

[thundley4]

"Health-related obesity costs are projected to reach $344 billion by 2018 — with roughly 60 percent of that cost borne by the federal government. For a precedent in attacking this problem, look at the action government took in the case of tobacco."

Yeah, government taxes the crap out of tobacco and makes tons of money off it, Then another level of government sues the tobacco companies.  States were supposed to use the settlement money for smoking cessation programs and related health programs, but most states just took the billions of dollars and treated it like any other cash cow.  They would do the same with any taxes raised from unhealthy foods.

[notaDUmmie]

Taxes on unhealthy foods would not help people who are not paying for their food in the first place.  I see the kind of junk in the carts of the EBT users.  They make poor choices, even when the money for the food is free. 

Yep - and think about the threads at DU that asked whether EBT purchases should be limited to healthy foods...the subject causes a near-riot everytime it's broached.

[WinOne4TheGipper]

Taxes on unhealthy foods would not help people who are not paying for their food in the first place.  I see the kind of junk in the carts of the EBT users.  They make poor choices, even when the money for the food is free. 

Using food stamps, you can buy all of the junk food you want tax free.  So who does this end up hurting?  Those who work for a living and still want something that tastes good.

[Skul]

Yep - and think about the threads at DU that asked whether EBT purchases should be limited to healthy foods...the subject causes a near-riot everytime it's broached.

I wandered back into the house, thinking about posting much the same thing.

[dandi]

Lyric  (1000+ posts)      Sun Jul-24-11 05:55 PM
Response to Original message
42. So real, practical freedom should only belong to the wealthy?
 
I don't like social engineering via taxes.

Then quit voting for democrats, DUmbass.

[delilahmused]

Lyric  (1000+ posts)      Sun Jul-24-11 05:55 PM
Response to Original message
42. So real, practical freedom should only belong to the wealthy?
 Because that's what the actual result will be. Oh sure, THEORETICALLY anyone could choose to pay more for the privilege of eating those things--but we don't live in a theoretical world. We live in a real one. The actual, practical end result is that the freedoms of the working class would be smothered, while the wealthy continue to gorge themselves on anything they want. Kind of like how both the poor AND the wealthy are forbidden to sleep under bridges; only one of those groups would actually be AFFECTED by such a law, and as usual, it's the poor.

I don't like social engineering via taxes.

But...but...but, this might be a way to make all your socialist dreams come true...kill off the the rich through obesity related diseases, give their money to the government...problem solved!

Cindie