Soda Tax Needed to Keep People Healthy. Har!

Published on October 15th, 2009

Posted by John C Dvorak in Health Care, Politics, medical

Soda Tax Could Shake Up Industry : NPR — When are they going to try and tax air? They’ve already got a fake recycling tax on the cans, why not the soda?

Amid the health care overhaul debate, one big question has been where to come up with about $1 trillion in funding to change the system. One idea that has been suggested is a junk food tax — and, in particular, a tax on soda.Public health advocates say drinking soda is directly linked to obesity, which is partly responsible for skyrocketing health care costs.At the Mace Market in a suburb of Davis, Calif., west of Sacramento, shiny bags of potato chips and candy bars line the shelves. Brightly lit, humming refrigerators are packed with bottles of soda.

Found by John Stec.

66 users responded in " Soda Tax Needed to Keep People Healthy. Har! "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 Breetai said, on October 15th, 2009 at 10:19 am

Cute… just like Cigarette taxes.

why can’t they just come out and be honest. The group of constituents who support this is small enough for us to beat the crap out of so we can do something increases taxes. Lying Government worshiping scumbags.

# 2 brm said, on October 15th, 2009 at 10:23 am

Can we also have a soy tax to fund male boobie-removal surgeries?

# 3 Buffet said, on October 15th, 2009 at 10:28 am

Fat people are lazy and sickening!!

# 4 Guyver said, on October 15th, 2009 at 10:32 am

Didn’t Obama PROMISE he wasn’t going to raise taxes on the poor and middle class? A tax like this would hit the poor and middle class the most.

Or were excise taxes not part of his promise?

People already know drinking soda is bad for you. People already know that eating junk food is not going to make you look like a runway model. Do we really need government to financially penalize people who make well-informed but unhealthy decisions?

I can see it now. The government will take Coca-Cola to court sometime in the future much like they did with the tobacco industry in order to recoup on higher health care costs.

The “victims” in all of this had no idea that drinking soda all day, every day would make you fat or that eating McDonald’s practically everyday will turn you into a disgusting fatbody.

Way to go Government! I hope Coca-Cola and other food products put warning labels on their products stating that sugar consumption may cause obesity in order to cover their own rears.

# 5 The Monster's Lawyer said, on October 15th, 2009 at 10:36 am

But that tattoo makes her look soooo cute! Like a little delicate flower with attitude.

# 6 Benjamin said, on October 15th, 2009 at 10:48 am

This is ridiculous. What is next? Forcing us through taxes to live on tofu? I am going to be pouring my pop in the harbor to protest this tax.

# 7 Somewhiteguy said, on October 15th, 2009 at 10:56 am

I always thought that the rising prices on soda was a tax in itself. I remember when a can of soda was $0.25. The lounge in my office has them for $1.25.
You’d figure people would learn that sodas are bad for you when the main sweetener in the diet sodas causes cancer in mice… granted it’s gallons of soda a day every day of your life… but it still causes cancer.

# 8 freddybobs68k said, on October 15th, 2009 at 10:57 am

Okay – let’s pretend we are going to try and make things better. And our way of doing this is by doing something. Not nothing. Doing nothing or ‘cutting taxes’ aren’t the only two solutions.

If you can accept easily demonstrable points…

1) So as a country we have problems with health. If lots of people are unhealthy (>30% americans are clinically obese) they will make health insurance expensive.

2) To have a good and effective work force you need a healthy workforce.

3) The drinking soda on a regular basis (ie more than once a day) is not good for your health.

Conclusion: It benefits _all of us_ for people who drink soda excessively to drink less. Much like cigarettes or alcohol or drugs or whatever.

So how are we going to sort this? What you got? Nothing?

Taxes are one way (often the easiest way) of making a free market system, automatically change a behavior in a desirable direction, without removing freedom of choice.

So unless you’ve got some better idea, this seems like a good idea – to benefit both the people who are drinking too much soda, and all the rest of us.

You’d think the only people bitching would be soda companies. As I’ve said before companies are there for the service of people, not vice versa.

# 9 LibertyLover said, on October 15th, 2009 at 11:01 am

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents…”

James Madison

Time to get back to the basics.

# 10 soundwash said, on October 15th, 2009 at 11:01 am

of course, they’ll never admit that it’s the artificial sweeteners and HFCS’s that have cause the bulk all
“health” issues.

-s

# 11 RSweeney said, on October 15th, 2009 at 11:05 am

That which is not forbidden will be mandatory.
The nanny state utopia.

I wonder if someone said that homosexual promiscuity should be outlawed or taxed since it leads to the transmission of expensive diseases such as AIDS would NPR be so supportive.

# 12 The Monster's Lawyer said, on October 15th, 2009 at 11:09 am

#11 – Is NPR supporting this? I didn’t see that.

Oh, by reporting you mean supporting. You must be a Faux News gumby.

# 13 LibertyLover said, on October 15th, 2009 at 11:16 am

#8, That has got to be one of the worst logical justifications for the problem I’ve ever read.

The only reason they are looking to raise taxes is because they don’t have the money to fund their pet projects. Welfare programs already account for over half the US budget (of which how much is deficit spending?).

How does it feel to be a tool? Don’t bother answering that. Anybody who would lie about their wife will lie about anything.

# 14 freddybobs68k said, on October 15th, 2009 at 11:22 am

#13 LibertyLover

Ah LibertyLover, you’re nothing if not consistent.

It would only take the merest hint of maturity to move on. You know we can agree to disagree, that’s fine.

Instead you insist on being a child.

Shame.

# 15 Beonarri said, on October 15th, 2009 at 11:23 am

I stopped drinking soda and lost 30 pounds. All of that sugar and carbs do add up to something, and the human body is not supposed to take on that much sugar at any one time.

So, I don’t have a problem with this tax. I don’t drink soda, much like how I don’t drink alcohol or smoke.

# 16 chris said, on October 15th, 2009 at 11:24 am

My favorite tax idea is the “Asshole Tax.” Any cashier would be able to include a 10% surcharge on offending parties.

Instead of a soda tax how about a “Fatso Tax?”

Sorry sir, those double burgers are going to cost you a bit more today.

# 17 Jetfire said, on October 15th, 2009 at 11:35 am

FTA
“In a New England Journal of Medicine article out this month, Brownell and several other public health experts argue that a soda tax could generate a lot of money. Brownell says a penny-an-ounce federal soda tax could generate $150 billion in the next 10 years.”

So at Sam’s Club I can buy 36 12oz cans for $8.88. That comes out to a little over $0.02 an ounce. So they want a 50% tax on Soda.

Why not just have a National sales tax on everything. Since everything is bad for you one way or another.

# 18 stopher2475 said, on October 15th, 2009 at 11:54 am

“Fat people are lazy and sickening!!” said the man with the username Buffet.=P

As for freddybobs68k, what about nonobese people who want soda. We have to get taxed too. Excessive joggers do damage to their joints. There’s a rising trend in sports injuries in youth and baby boomers that have been adding costs to health care too. Should we tax sneakers as well?

# 19 Guyver said, on October 15th, 2009 at 11:56 am

8, 15 the problem with people who prefer government intervention is that this mentality nurtures people not taking personal responsibility for themselves without it.

People know what they should and should not eat. There’s no need to drag everyone else through the mud in order to use government as an instrument of force because some people are not bothered by their overall health or physique.

Thanks but no thanks.

# 20 Chriswsm said, on October 15th, 2009 at 12:03 pm

As long as they reduce tax on food and drink that is considered healthy then all is good. Then again how many obese Americans know how to eat an apple when it is not covered in toffee?

# 21 Mojo Yugen said, on October 15th, 2009 at 12:05 pm

So some of my tax dollars go to supporting the corn subsidy, which leads to incredibly cheap high fructose corn syrup, which leads to cheap soda, which leads to people drink too much of that crap, which leads to obesity, which leads to the government adding more taxes.

So why not just STOP the corn subsidy, which would lead to higher priced soda and less obesity and SAVE me money on my taxes?

# 22 freddybobs68k said, on October 15th, 2009 at 12:17 pm

#21 Mojo Yugen

Well that works too

# 23 LibertyLover said, on October 15th, 2009 at 12:23 pm

#21, If you remove the subsidy, the price of sugar will drop.

It’s the only thing keeping American sugar farmers in business and foreign competition out.

Sugar in the US is already higher than anywhere else in the world.

# 24 freddybobs68k said, on October 15th, 2009 at 12:23 pm

#18 stopher2475

I didn’t suggest it was perfect. Just one way of dealing with it.

If you don’t drink it much it will presumably effect you minimally. If you drink loads it will effect you.

Not perfect – but simple, and simple is good.

#19 Guyver

‘People know what they should and should not eat’

So the problem is education? People just don’t know? Really? Is that like with cigarettes – people just don’t know.

Generally people know. They like smoking continue to do it.

>30% Americans are clinically obese. Perhaps you are clinically obese – I’ve got a 1/3 chance of being right.

So I like Mojo Yugen idea.

Can you do better? Other than do nothing…

# 25 freddybobs68k said, on October 15th, 2009 at 12:25 pm

#23 Liberty Lover

Okay – so what should we do?

# 26 cougar78 said, on October 15th, 2009 at 12:29 pm

I hate they want to tax soda. Granted I don’t drink it and haven’t for 3 years. However, the whole taxing something because it’s not healthy is a load of crap. Here is my issue, they are seriously getting closer to a scenario from the crappy movie Demolition Man. If it’s unhealthy they outlaw it.

So if they tax junk food and soda, what all will that encompass? What if there are products that in moderation aren’t considered unhealthy but the trend in the US is always take/consume too much therefore making it unhealthy. I just think this opens the flood gate for overtaxation. This is the reason people sought independence from England when this country was founded. Yet we are going down that same path with the Government taking more and more liberties with what can be taxed.

# 27 LibertyLover said, on October 15th, 2009 at 12:35 pm

#25, Nothing.

There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government the power to control people’s health, no matter how much that irks you.

# 28 Mojo Yugen said, on October 15th, 2009 at 12:40 pm

LibertyLover,

Have you looked at the label on a can of soda? It doesn’t have sugar in it. It has HFCS. (yes, there are a few small exceptions, but they don’t make enough to count.)

If Coke switched to actually using real sugar I’d imagine that alone would raise the price enough to help anyone growing sugar.

Actually I’d be in favor of a ban of HFCS entirely. I think that would be an effective first step in solving a lot of health problems we have. While sugar isn’t exactly a health food that crap is just poison.

# 29 LibertyLover said, on October 15th, 2009 at 12:46 pm

#28, You are correct. My mistake.

However, I agree all subsidies should be eliminated. But, it won’t cause the price to go up. It will go down for the same reasons as sugar.

There is a reason farmers are told to NOT grow something in exchange for money — it keeps the prices up.

# 30 smartalix said, on October 15th, 2009 at 1:04 pm

They tax cigarettes, right? Same logic.

# 31 LibertyLover said, on October 15th, 2009 at 1:15 pm

#30, Which is BS, as well.

# 32 Breetai said, on October 15th, 2009 at 1:28 pm

#9 LibertyLover

Getting back to the basics would simply require integrity. Government has none.

# 33 LibertyLover said, on October 15th, 2009 at 1:39 pm

#32, Government gets away with it because they give out “free” ice cream.

Seriously, who is going to vote against something if they think they aren’t on the hook for it?

I think getting back to the basics is only going to be possible when everybody has been re-educated on exactly what Liberty is.

# 34 freddybobs68k said, on October 15th, 2009 at 1:47 pm

#27 LibertyLover

Do you believe the >30% of Americans being clinically obese has an effect on you? If so surely more people becoming clinically obese will affect you more, and that is the trend, and a big part of that is soda.

If not I sort of understand where you’re coming from.

That said it seems to me it benefits everybody if the USA as a whole is successful. To do so requires a healthy work force. Not having a healthy population makes health insurance more expensive, people work less and less effectively, and in some cases are unable to work.

Do you believe the USA as a whole would be more successful if there were less clinically obese people?

If so surely it’s in your interest for people to be healthy?

Is you’re point that the success, or lack there of the USA in general, is not important to you, or unachievable because of the Constitution?

# 35 LibertyLover said, on October 15th, 2009 at 2:08 pm

#34, Do you believe the >30% of Americans being clinically obese has an effect on you?

It is irrelevant what I think. It is not my place to tell someone to do something because it will make my life easier.

Is you’re point that the success, or lack there of the USA in general, is not important to you, or unachievable because of the Constitution?

I don’t believe the US is in danger due to obesity. Besides, even if I did, it is up to the States to decide the issue, not the federal government.

Scenario Time:

Do you have the right to personally request that someone you see at a vending machine give you 25 cents so you can send it to the government?

# 36 Beonarri said, on October 15th, 2009 at 2:10 pm

#19
But with billions spent on advertising, people are not told what is good and what is not. They aren’t given the full facts to make a rational decision. Maybe if there were a cigarette style tax on soda, they’d say, “hmm, soda is being taxed like cigarettes, I wonder why.”

And, maybe, just maybe, they’d look into it.

Besides, people have always been told by the government what they can and can’t do. Most the time it’s actually subtle, like safety requirements on automobiles. There is such a thing as too much freedom.

# 37 Jackpa said, on October 15th, 2009 at 2:12 pm

Don’t healthy people live longer and are more of a burden on the health care system?

# 38 Floyd said, on October 15th, 2009 at 2:12 pm

I rarely agree with Liberty Lover.

However, I agree that dropping subsidies on farm products is probably a good thing, especially on high fructose corn syrup (you all may know it as Karo). Maybe the HFCS should be used to make alcohol or something else that’s useful. Maybe that farm land can be used to grow real food that people can eat without a lot of processing…or we can feed most of the surplus corn currently turned into HFCS, to cattle, poultry, and pigs instead. Mmmmm chicken, steak, burgers and pork chops…

The vegetarians can eat the rest.

# 39 qb said, on October 15th, 2009 at 2:44 pm

I don’t care if she’s got the straw pointing out, I wouldn’t drink from it.

# 40 Li said, on October 15th, 2009 at 3:15 pm

I think it would be more efficacious to use positive reinforcement in the form of subsidized healthy food rather than taxing unhealthy food. A lot of these bad food choices are directly rooted in the fact that it costs 10 times more to eat a healthy portion of calories than to eat the same portion of calories from total junk.

# 41 freddybobs68k said, on October 15th, 2009 at 3:34 pm

#35 LibertyLover

‘It is irrelevant what I think. It is not my place to tell someone to do something because it will make my life easier.’

Okay I understand.

How does that apply to say the rules of the road? They make my, and everybody elses life easier. And they are imposed, for a common good. So no rules of the road then either?

‘I don’t believe the US is in danger due to obesity. Besides, even if I did, it is up to the States to decide the issue, not the federal government.’

So if you did think the US is in danger due to obesity – you would be okay with states imposing laws to help curb consumption? Is that purely a constitutional argument – or is there some particular reason/s why it shouldn’t be done federally?

‘Do you have the right to personally request that someone you see at a vending machine give you 25 cents so you can send it to the government?’

As in the legal ‘right’? I don’t know it – it could be prohibited by pan handling laws.

Could I do it? Sure, and the person could choose to do it or not. And frankly all would be fine with the world.

# 42 sargasso said, on October 15th, 2009 at 3:49 pm

In perspective, a trillion is a fraction of the war budget, wouldn’t put an astronaut on the moon, could be printed by the treasury in under a week, and could be levied off foreign car imports and offshore oil imports in under a year.

# 43 noname said, on October 15th, 2009 at 5:11 pm

I don’t drink corn syrup and have no sympathy for those who do.

I say tax the shit out of the ignorant fatso’s.

Let the healthy sit back and enjoy the fruits of fatso’s labor!!!

# 44 LibertyLover said, on October 15th, 2009 at 6:20 pm

#41, How does that apply to say the rules of the road? They make my, and everybody elses life easier. And they are imposed, for a common good. So no rules of the road then either?

Strawman. Traffic laws are consistent and apply to everybody, equally, without affecting their personal property (unless you CHOOSE to break the law, in which case you pay a fine). They are more designed to organize, not control for the sake of control, or to bring in revenue to fund pet projects.

A tax on soda is not consistent. It is a sin tax. Sin taxes are never justified.

Besides, maybe there are fat people who are happy. It’s not your place to tell them to be unhappy.

Is that purely a constitutional argument

Yes. If you want a tax on your soda, talk to your state reps.

Would I support a State tax on soda? I don’t know. I’d have to see the reasoning behind it and how the money was actually going to be used (for instance, is it going to be used to fund a war or keep our troops in 130 different countries or pay for a healthcare system that is already bankrupt or . . .).

Telling people it is for their own good is a lie. The real purpose is to fund a bankrupt system. You know it. Everybody knows it.

Some people just want to believe to strongly, though, that the government can provide “free” health care, they are willing to ignore the obvious.

Do you really believe this tax will stop obesity? If you say yes you are either lying to yourself, lying to me, or have drank too much koolaid.

Prohibition did not work. Taxing soda is a mini-prohibition.

Could I do it? Sure, and the person could choose to do it or not. And frankly all would be fine with the world.

Now what if you had a gun and demanded the 25 cents?

Now you’ve violated his property Rights. This is exactly what you are doing along with a majority of people. You are overpowering him, forcing him to part with his money to fund something YOU want.

Just because YOU or even a majority believe that it is in this person’s best interest, does not give you the Right to take his property.

The founding fathers knew this. They fought long and hard amongst themselves on how to fund a government without taxing people like this.

In the end they settled on apportionment.

Woodrow Wilson fucked everybody with the 16 and 17 amendments and the Fed.

We’re taxed enough. It’s time for it to end.

# 45 Thomas said, on October 15th, 2009 at 7:42 pm

First, LibertyLover is absolutely right in saying that the Federal government should have (as opposed to will do what they want anyway) no authority to tax “soda”. This is not an issue of interstate commerce. This is not a treaty. It is purely to generate revenue. If you don’t like “soda”, then have it taxed in your State.

Second, “soda” is just a carbonated drink. To say that it causes obesity is nonsense. You can choose zero calorie soda or carbonated water. Switching off of HFCS won’t matter either since last I checked your body only cares about calories-in vs calories-out and sugar has calories.

Third, people in this country have seriously lost their way in terms of understanding how power is granted to the Federal government. Read that again: GRANTED to the Federal government. The Federal government has no power other than that which is specifically given to it by the States. The States afford power to the Federal government power; not the other way around.

# 46 deowll said, on October 15th, 2009 at 8:19 pm

Put a tax on corn syrup. The stuff is bad for you and it doesn’t taste good in drinks anyway.

# 47 Uncle Patso said, on October 15th, 2009 at 11:48 pm

This idea makes nothing but sense. When I was a kid, we had soft drinks on special occasions, not every day, not even every week, and the number of obese people was much less. There were one or two “fat kids” in my elementary school classes. Now I see kids carrying around 16 ounce, 20 ounce, 1 liter bottles and most of the kids in my neighborhood are overweight. I see adults carrying those 54 ounce tubs of soft drinks who can barely fit through the convenience store doors to refill them. Airlines and buses are having trouble seating more and more of their passengers. People are injured breaking chairs that used to be big enough for 99.99% of the population. People buy cars based on how many drink holders they have!

Taxing alcoholic beverages to discourage overconsumption is largely non-controversial. Without taxes, a 12 ounce bottle of beer (if you can find one) would cost about eight cents. Taxing highly-sugared (or corn syruped) beverages to discourage overconsumption should be a no-brainer.

– - – - -

Things I have learned from reading Dvorak Uncensored:

* People who care about the overall health of the population are “Lying Government worshiping scumbags.”

# 48 Cursor_ said, on October 16th, 2009 at 1:11 am

Caffeine leads to higher cases of hypertension.
Should we not also tax coffee and tea then?

If we are going to tax booze, smokes and now soft drinks; then caffeine products should also be taxed as they pose health risks.

Of course soft drinks are much easier to manufacture at home than tobacco, caffeine or alcohol. Cola syrup and carbonated water. Or phosphate water if you want an old-fashioned phosphate.

Cursor_

# 49 Hmeyers said, on October 16th, 2009 at 2:33 am

#16 for the win!

# 50 LibertyLover said, on October 16th, 2009 at 5:09 am

I have an even better idea.

I think everybody who truly cares about the health of the country wrt sodas should form their own non-profit, collect donations, and start airing TV ads to discourage the consumption.

Of course, it would mean you would have to work a little harder to get your message out but if you really cared that shouldn’t matter.

# 51 Phydeau said, on October 16th, 2009 at 6:53 am

I think everybody who truly cares about the health of the country wrt sodas should form their own non-profit, collect donations, and start airing TV ads to discourage the consumption.

We did, LL. We formed a big club and we’re paying our club dues to make it happen. Only the club is called “government” and the dues are called “taxes”. If you don’t want to be a member of the club, fine. No one’s keeping you here, you can leave any time. And don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way out to find your libertarian paradise.

BTW, you aren’t allowed to address me until you man up and say what you really think, without the cutesy “have you stopped beating your wife” questions.

# 52 Guyver said, on October 16th, 2009 at 7:43 am

24, No the problem is not with education. People already know that drinking lots of soda is bad for them. I never implied they didn’t know. What’s your point?

51, It’s called sarcasm. Regardless, this tax is just the tip of the iceberg for universal health care. Hopefully more discussion will come of this so people can wake up and smell the coffee and see that they are giving up personal liberties in favor of government control and penalties.

Heck, I just wished the liberals would be more aggressive about it. I would love to see public reaction for any future tax on beef because many liberals whine that eating too much of it is unhealthy and it contributes to “man-made” global warming.

# 53 Phydeau said, on October 16th, 2009 at 8:11 am

#52 It’s called sarcasm.

I don’t think so. Libertarians really believe that. If 100 people band together and raise money for a cause, they’re OK with it. If 300 million people band together for a cause, they hate it. Libertarianism doesn’t scale well.

# 54 Thomas said, on October 16th, 2009 at 11:13 am

#53
Nonsense. When 300 or 300 million band together for a cause, it is citizens consciously choosing to donate their time and/or money to something in which they believe which does not affect anyone not involved. When a minority decides to have the government impose a “sin” tax because of their own notions of “sin”, it imposes their will on everyone. Do you not see the difference between donating and imposing?

# 55 LibertyLover said, on October 16th, 2009 at 11:40 am

#51, “have you stopped beating your wife”

Hmm. I don’t recall ever asking that question or one like it. You seem to be confusing a question where the any answer assumes something and one that doesn’t.

With that in mind, here was the original question:

Would you let 10 strangers die to save your wife?

As you can see, neither answer assumes anything. It is a simple question to determine if one thing or another is true and assumes nothing.

But let’s move on past that for now:

Libertarianism scales just fine. Socialism does not.

For instance, under socialism, the more you give people, the more they want. This money has to come from somewhere and eventually the economy collapses because there is no more money to be taken.

Under Libertarianism, nobody receives anything for free thus the money is not taken by force from anybody else.

We formed a big club and we’re paying our club dues to make it happen. Only the club is called “government” and the dues are called “taxes”.

You are confusing a democracy and a republic.

# 56 LibertyLover said, on October 16th, 2009 at 11:45 am

#54, You might as well give up trying to reason with these guys.

There is a reason why these couch liberals refuse to answer whether they would let 10 people die to save their wives.

Forcing someone else to do something is ok as long as it doesn’t hit close to home. But let the problem show up at their doorstep and they start crying like little girls and scream “NOT FAIR!”

# 57 Guyver said, on October 16th, 2009 at 11:49 am

53, Libertarianism is maximum liberties but not at the expense of someone else.

Therefore Libertarianism is anti-socialism or big government.

Libertarianism scales very well. It’s just compatible with redistribution of wealth.

# 58 Guyver said, on October 16th, 2009 at 11:50 am

Oooops. Libertarianism is incompatible with redistribution of wealth.

# 59 Phydeau said, on October 16th, 2009 at 12:02 pm

In a nation of 300+ million people, we will never have 100% agreement with what the nation should do. That’s why we delegate decision making to elected representatives. But Libertarians complain that somewhere in the government someone is spending money that they personally don’t agree with.

Tough shit. That’s life in a big country. You don’t like it, leave, and create your own little libertarian society where no one has to do anything they don’t want to do. Stone knives and bearskins is what you’ll have, because one of the hallmarks of civilization is compromise. But I don’t expect a libertarian to understand that.

That’s why libertarianism doesn’t scale well.

Forcing someone else to do something is ok as long as it doesn’t hit close to home. But let the problem show up at their doorstep and they start crying like little girls and scream “NOT FAIR!”

There ya go, now, was that so hard? Why don’t you elaborate on that. Tell me what you think libertarians are doing vs non-libertarians. I’ll check back later, gotta run for now.

# 60 Guyver said, on October 16th, 2009 at 1:02 pm

Wanting maximum liberties but not at the expense of someone else is a 2-way street. Fundamentally, socialism is a redistribution of wealth system that has nothing to do with maximum liberties. What’s the point of working hard or making more money when the fruits of one’s labor are put into someone else’s pocket to make life somehow more fair?

Although I do agree we will unlikely ever have 100% agreement on anything with the nation, one thing is clear. The Federal government is growing beyond its enumerated powers. As for complaining that someone is spending money that Libertarians personally don’t agree with, you’re entitled to complain if it’s your money that’s getting spent. Socialists have a hard time understanding where the money comes from it seems. Ownership started somewhere. It’s a little disingenuous to imply the money spent didn’t start off as someone’s own money.

Personally, I would rather the liberals stop doing the dog and pony show and just vote in universal health care. This has never been about needing the votes. This has always been about minimizing voter retaliation in 2010.

# 61 Thomas said, on October 16th, 2009 at 8:12 pm

#59
You still don’t get it. This isn’t about your tax dollars being spent on something with which you disagree. This is the government taxing something of which a minority considers a “sin”. What the government then spends that money is entirely orthogonal to the discussion.

This discussion is about on which areas the government should be permitted to impose upon the citizenry via tax and which they should not. Are you suggesting that there ought to be no limits on which the government can impose a tax? How about we tax liberal websites as they cause an atrophy of the mind? How about we triple the tax on the Prius as they aren’t paying enough in gas tax? How about we tax vegetarian restaurants and Yoga centers? How about we tax Cal Berkeley cause they’re wacky?

Fundamentally, the Federal government is only given power by the States. The Federal government has never been given the power to tax items they deem “unhealthy”.

# 62 LibertyLover said, on October 17th, 2009 at 4:30 am

#59, Forcing someone else to do something is ok as long as it doesn’t hit close to home. But let the problem show up at their doorstep and they start crying like little girls and scream “NOT FAIR!”

There ya go, now, was that so hard? Why don’t you elaborate on that. Tell me what you think libertarians are doing vs non-libertarians. I’ll check back later, gotta run for now.

That made no sense.

#60, Personally, I would rather the liberals stop doing the dog and pony show and just vote in universal health care. This has never been about needing the votes. This has always been about minimizing voter retaliation in 2010.

Although I agree with the rest of your post, I hope they DON’T vote it in. Once it’s there, it will never go away — just continue to morph is another failed government program.

#61, Agreed.

# 63 Guyver said, on October 17th, 2009 at 8:15 am

62, I’m hoping it gets so bad that when the sh1t hits the fan, people will realize that this isn’t really what they wanted.

The liberals are trying to do things nice and slow so most government-educated Americans don’t realize what is happening to them.

Posted by Dvorak on a newer forum: http://tinyurl.com/yz5klqd

# 64 Rick Cain said, on October 18th, 2009 at 2:57 pm

This doesn’t have to do with keeping people thin, it has to do with destroying the independent soda market.

I’m sure coca cola and pepsico are very much for this tax.

# 65 Hyperkinetic said, on October 19th, 2009 at 9:30 am

Fake recycling tax on cans? Only an IDIOT would claim such a thing. It’s a DEPOSIT, and *ANYONE* can redeem them for cold, hard cash, and recover every cent. In my youth I’d spend the day at the beach collecting cans. On average I’d collect between 2-3 large garbage bags of crushed cans, netting $100-$150 for six hours work. All while enjoying a day at the beach to boot.

Fat people cost EVERYONE money by taxing our health care system, using more fuel to get around, etc, etc. I used to drink tons of soda and had the gut to prove it. I’ve sworn off liquid calories and lost the weight. This tax doesn’t affect me, but fat people’s lack of self control does. Tax the soda and let those who indulge pay their own way.

While were at it, eliminate corporate welfare that only benefits the few. Stop subsidizing corn, and HFCS will no longer be cost effective, and it will stop harming the nations health.

# 66 yoda said, on October 21st, 2009 at 4:42 pm

It is not the government’s business what people drink or what people should eat. What’s next, a tax on ice cream, potato chips, hot dogs, fries, candy bars, etc, etc. etc. This is just about making money–nothing else. Isn’t this what made us ticked off King George III? While some people may not know all the facts about soda, they know it is not good for them–jus tlike hey know any junk is not goo for them. The government needs to get out of our personal lives and just leave us alone. By the way, just because people are overweight, does not mean they are unhealthy, and just because people are thin does not mean they are healthy. We need to stop judging people based on their weight.Just because a person is obese does not mean they are lazy! Angst against the obese is simply a more accepted form of bigotry and prejudice! Frankly, the insensitivity of some here is absolutely revolting! I don’t drink soda much at all anymore, but I support anyone’s right to do so, if that’s what they want! It’s not our business to punish people just because they don’t eat like we do! How arrogant can you get! Frankly, ever since Obama came in office, I’ve been worrying about my liberty, and the future of this country, and I agree that some of you need to study about what real freedom is! (and studying up on American History wouldn’t hurt)

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!