I'm 100% for fat taxes on things like fast food.

[Edited on October 13, 2015 at 12:26 AM. Reason : H]

10/13/2015 12:26:17 AM

Why do you always want to make the little guy(antipun) pay more? You should be focused on making the company pay more (or not subsidizing them to pay less) to produce unhealthy foods.

This attitude that people should be responsible for avoiding the traps companies set is absurd when you could simply eliminate the traps.

10/13/2015 12:33:20 AM

1st rule of The Soap Box

10/13/2015 12:57:39 AM

Quote :

"They cause obesity with aggressive sales of unhealthy products (soda etc)"

Quote :

"This attitude that people should be responsible for avoiding the traps companies set is absurd when you could simply eliminate the traps."

So now fat people aren't unhealthy eaters that don't exercise, they are just victims of food corporations?

That's not how this works.

Fast food doesn't "trap" people. People are "trapped" by their own lazy glutinous desire for greasy shit food. When the beached whales unhinge their jaws and tell McDonald's employees to start shoveling McGriddles down their throats, they cause their own obesity.

10/13/2015 11:51:28 AM

Tell that to the world health organization. Tell me, do you know more than them? Are you so smart that you've figured out how every problem is just as simple as personal responsibility? Are you so special that you were able to simply "decide" not to be a victim to any of these atrocities?
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/2/2/who-tighter-economicregulationneededtoreverseobesityepidemic.html

Quote :

"WHO: Governments should regulate fast food to slow obesity epidemic"

The recurring theme seems to be that extremely large numbers of people are "lazy", "glutonous", or lacking "will power". This reveals that there is a lot of "ignorance" regarding these subjects. Its very convenient just to attribute all of our collective societal problems to character flaws. That way, we don't have to accept responsibility for allowing these awful things to happen. This is just poor wisdom, lack of knowledge about how the human body works or intentionally putting others down to feel better about yourself.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23719144

Quote :

"At the neurobiological level, the neural substrates of sugar and sweet reward appear to be more robust than those of cocaine (i.e., more resistant to functional failures), possibly reflecting past selective evolutionary pressures for seeking and taking foods high in sugar and calories."

Do you also disagree with restricting cocaine sales?

Quote :

" “Why Humans Like Junk Food.” I brought him two shopping bags filled with a variety of chips to taste. He zeroed right in on the Cheetos. “This,” Witherly said, “is one of the most marvelously constructed foods on the planet, in terms of pure pleasure.” He ticked off a dozen attributes of the Cheetos that make the brain say more. But the one he focused on most was the puff’s uncanny ability to melt in the mouth. “It’s called vanishing caloric density,” Witherly said. “If something melts down quickly, your brain thinks that there’s no calories in it . . . you can just keep eating it forever.”"

Lays intentionally engineering foods to make people eat too much. Just one example in a universe of billions

Quote :

"Obesity has always existed in human populations, but until very recently was comparatively rare. The availability of abundant, energy-rich processed foods in the last few decades has, however, resulted in a sharp rise in the prevalence of obesity in westernized countries. Although it is the obesogenic environment that has resulted in this major healthcare problem, it is acting by revealing a sub-population with a pre-existing genetic predisposition to excess adiposity. There is substantial evidence for the heritability of obesity, and research in both rare and common forms of obesity has identified genes with significant roles in its aetiology. Application of this understanding to patient care has been slower. Until very recently, the health risks of obesity were thought to be well understood, with a straightforward correlation between increasing obesity and increasing risk of health problems such as type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, hypertension, arthritis and cancer. It is becoming clear, however, that the location of fat deposition, variation in the secretion of adipokines and other factors govern whether a particular obese person develops such complications."

Fast food companies specifically target our innate desire for certain chemicals. Every chain hires chemists to get the most addiction out of each dollar in their junk foods. This is a predatory practice and the least the government could do is mitigate the cost incentive for people to buy fast food. The most they could do is strictly menus like NYC's soda cap (pun).


[Edited on October 13, 2015 at 6:13 PM. Reason : f]

[Edited on October 13, 2015 at 6:23 PM. Reason : k]

[Edited on October 13, 2015 at 6:24 PM. Reason : l]

10/13/2015 6:10:04 PM

I'm very much looking forward to the debate tonight. I'm excited to see what Bernie and Hillary say now that they are finally forced to confront each other.

10/13/2015 6:29:18 PM

^ Well just like other products that are engineered to make one drunk, addicted to cigarettes, etc; I think fast food should also be taxed.

Unless of course you believe we should eliminate the excise tax on cigarettes. While fast food is a bit more tricky, I find the sell of soda black/white. One does not need or have the right to drink soda. Soda is well documented to be a major cause in obesity and other health issues.

Thus soda should not only be barred from purchase with EBT but also slapped with an excise tax. Not only to discourage fatties from sitting at work all day drinking Sun Drop but to create a pool of money that could potentially be used to offset the negative externalities that soda causes with health related issues such as obesity.

[Edited on October 13, 2015 at 6:37 PM. Reason : a]

10/13/2015 6:36:31 PM

I can't believe I'm about to get sucked into a political debate on fast food, but...

In general the less healthy food is, usually the cheaper it is.

To properly feed a family of 4, my best guess is somewhere around $200 each week in groceries. When you're poor you can't spend so much money all at once, so you have to live meal to meal (which is of course more expensive). You can feed a family of four fast food every meal and spend less than $100 per week. But because of food insecurity (not knowing when your next meal is coming) and the fact that greasy disgusting unhealthy food is the most affordable, you end up with an obese lower class.

There are some people (^^^^) who believe that you can have anything if you work hard enough, and people who suffer through poverty, homelessness, addiction, and even obesity clearly deserve it for being too lazy. It's this viewpoint and attitude that keeps things from ever being fixed.

10/13/2015 7:00:48 PM

His line about being tired of hearing about Hillary's emails was solid. Good way to deflect that he is too old to know how "the online" works.

10/13/2015 11:12:05 PM

I also feel like he might be angling for a position in the Clinton administration if he doesn't get the nomination. He's been very careful not to campaign against her the way that he could (and maybe should if he really wants the bid), I could see him being the VP candidate on her ticket.

10/14/2015 1:12:59 AM

Quote :

" To properly feed a family of 4, my best guess is somewhere around $200 each week in groceries. When you're poor you can't spend so much money all at once, so you have to live meal to meal (which is of course more expensive). You can feed a family of four fast food every meal and spend less than $100 per week. But because of food insecurity (not knowing when your next meal is coming) and the fact that greasy disgusting unhealthy food is the most affordable, you end up with an obese lower class. "

While I understand this argument and that there is a not so clear demarcation line for what makes fast food, there is no way I can be convinced that banning fucking soda from purchase with EBT and a fat tax on soda isn't logical and for the betterment of society. In my opinion if we are going to allow soda then we may as well let cigs be bought using EBT.

10/14/2015 1:25:44 AM

Quote :

"Are you so smart that you've figured out how every problem is just as simple as personal responsibility?"

Uhhhh, actually yea this is pretty much my point.

Fat sloths are the reason McDonalds exists, not vice versa. Poor poor fat people, if only the evil fast food companies would stop force feeding them McRibs and forcing them to not exercise.

Defending "infallible victims" who are perpetually oppressed and victimized by nothing other than their own decisions and poor choices... trolling me at my weak spot, well played.

Also, LOL @ the divisive Black Lives Matter question. Instead of "What will you do to help minorities from police brutality" its "Do All lives Matter, or do black lives matter". Lets compete to see who can pay the best lip service to this semantics bullshit straw man hashtag.

[Edited on October 14, 2015 at 1:35 AM. Reason : blm]

10/14/2015 1:32:25 AM

Quote :

"Also, LOL @ the divisive Black Lives Matter question. Instead of "What will you do to help minorities from police brutality" its "Do All lives Matter, or do black lives matter". Lets compete to see who can pay the best lip service to this semantics bullshit straw man hashtag. "

Exactly. There was no good answer they could give for this sound bite and meme social media world.

10/14/2015 8:10:38 AM

^ they all gave good answers to that question o.O

Even Jim Webb.

10/14/2015 11:15:44 AM

When Bloomberg initially did the soda thing a few years ago as Mayor of New York City, my point then was alcohol has a far more negative effect on society than a soft drink (domestic abuse, drunk driving, people killed in drunk driving, policing bars late at night, long-term personal health decline, a sizable number of panhandlers are alcoholics, etc.).

If a person wants to ban soft drinks on the grounds of public health, he or she better ban alcohol first. Anyone that agrees with the former and not the latter is being hypocritical, because you will never be able to convince me that soft drinks are worse for public health than alcohol. Yet for some reason I doubt alcohol bans will happen. Partly because with alcohol we as a society assume if you're above the age of 21 the drinker has a sense of personal responsibility in his or her choices. If you don't believe in the concept of personal responsibility, then it logically follows that you believe in prohibition.

[Edited on October 14, 2015 at 11:27 AM. Reason : /]

10/14/2015 11:20:49 AM

Heart disease is the number 1 killer in America, our diet is definitely a contributor here, including all junk food. Alcohol also contributes to heart disease, but it doesn't make sense that it's a bigger contributor than our diet, and i'm pretty sure there have been studies that correlate cultural diet by country and public health anyway.

We have definitely been marketed unhealthy, but profitable, food though, and this has made us sicker, not sure how anyone can doubt this. Not only is this obivous, but it's what the research has shown.

10/14/2015 11:45:18 AM

has anyone seen any legitimate polls today regarding the debate?

10/14/2015 11:55:38 AM

10/14/2015 12:33:01 PM

^^Does anyone need to? Hillary clearly won. Sanders came across as an old cranky man, shouting all the time. Hillary actually looked human and presidential.

[Edited on October 14, 2015 at 12:33 PM. Reason : .]

10/14/2015 12:33:01 PM

we're 13 months away from the election.

nothing that happens now matters for the Nov 16 election.

The only reason to pay any attention right now is for the lulz.

10/14/2015 12:46:25 PM

^^not trying to see who won but if his numbers changed significantly.

10/14/2015 2:35:11 PM

Quote :

"you will never be able to convince me that soft drinks are worse for public health than alcohol."

Alcohol has some positive health benefits. There is nothing healthy about soda.

10/14/2015 3:19:40 PM

banning either soda or alcohol is a stupid idea. do we really need to turn this into another goddamn polarizing argument?

10/14/2015 3:47:23 PM

Quote :

" Anyone that agrees with the former and not the latter is being hypocritical, because you will never be able to convince me that soft drinks are worse for public health than alcohol. "

I don't think you should ban either, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out soda kills more people than alcohol by an order of magnitude and causes people to have shittier lives because they are stuck on the couch.

Quote :

" The vast majority of the people complaining about the Big Soda ban don't buy big sodas. So the reaction has nothing to do with the products themselves, the rage is on a theoretical level, "I don't want government intruding in my private choices." But they already do this in a gazillion different ways, bigger, more important intrusions. The difference is that those are invisible. You know you can't value the risks in airplane safety or radiation leaks so you trust them to do it, but you think you can value the risks of a soda and hate that they try to do it for you. I know you are thinking, "but I can resist soda; I understand the risks"-- never mind you don't even know the ingredients of soda, the point here is you are starting from you and multiplying by 6 billion. When you say, "personal responsibility!" you are really saying "this is safe enough for it to be a question of personal responsibility." But you must ask yourself the question: how do you know soda is safe enough for them to be about personal responsibility? Because "some other omnipotent entity" allowed them to exist. How do you know that Entity can be trusted? Because it even tries to ban silly things like soda. The system is sound."

10/14/2015 4:17:01 PM

Does Bernie want to ban sodas? what the fuck are you guys arguing about?

10/14/2015 4:22:18 PM

Quote :

"If a person wants to ban soft drinks on the grounds of public health, he or she better ban alcohol first. Anyone that agrees with the former and not the latter is being hypocritica"

Who is discussing the banning of sodas?

I just advocate banning the purchase of soda using ones EBT (aka Food Stamps) benefits car. There is absolutely no nutritional value to soda and poor folks don't need soda to sustain themselves.

My platform is simple. No more buying soda on EBT (much like how alcohol, cigs, and prepared food is banned) and there should be a minor Fat Tax on soda to offset the negative externialities that excessive consumption of soda causes.

10/14/2015 5:02:41 PM

Sin taxes are never well done. The place where the tax is supposed to go (for example, going to healthcare) never happens, it always ends up in a general fund.

Just look at how every lottery ever has gone. Do schools ever really receive the funds?

I'm not entirely opposed to it, but the tax would have to be huge in order for it to actually have a deterrent effect.

Honestly, if we want to help poor people out we should just give them money, not these weird targeted things that are supposed to rope them into buying certain things or modifying their behaviors. They don't work. We could also eliminate huge bureaucratic agencies if we got rid of EBT, housing assistance, etc.

If we just gave everyone a base, fully refundable tax credit of say, $25k (gradually eliminated as you go up in income) that was paid out monthly over the course of the year it would be a hell of a lot more efficient and humane than what we currently do to poor people.

10/14/2015 5:12:03 PM

Re: Sanders being Jewish

Relevance has nothing to do with it. Sanders doesn't mention potentially being the first Jewish president because it's not politically useful (and could in fact be harmful). If religion gave him an advantage, Sanders' campaign would use it.

10/14/2015 6:49:56 PM

^I had this conversation with a group of politically-active Jews last night. Non-Christians don't like it when religion is brought up in campaigns, and we don't want our religion being dragged into it. Social responsibility is a Jewish value but also an American one, so Bernie's Jewish background isn't relevant. The most important part of his background is being the son of an immigrant who lost most of his family in the Holocaust, and so he believes in taking care of all human beings.

The census within our community is split the same way it is for other demographics...the younger folks like Bernie, older ones like Hillary, and the oldest ones are Republican. We all agree that Bernie pushing his Judaism the way Lieberman did would hurt his image, but I don't think he'd use it even if that wasn't the case.

[Edited on October 17, 2015 at 2:59 PM. Reason : -]

10/17/2015 2:58:15 PM

Are there really that many people who would vote for Sanders if only he weren't Jewish? Is there a large progressive neo-Nazi bloc I'm unaware of?

10/18/2015 5:56:51 PM

^Not what I said. Right now most people are unaware of his religious background or don't care because he doesn't seem to care. If he brought his religion to the forefront, he would upset democratic atheists who want religion left out AND democratic Christians who still feel more comfortable with a President with "Christian values."

10/18/2015 6:20:06 PM

Quote :

" Honestly, if we want to help poor people out we should just give them money,"

So they can have 1 week with more lotto tickets and 40 ounces? Part of being poor, besides not having enough money, is perpetually wasting the money that you get.

10/19/2015 2:32:18 PM

^ nope

10/19/2015 2:41:56 PM

Quote :

"Heart disease is the number 1 killer in America, our diet is definitely a contributor here, including all junk food. Alcohol also contributes to heart disease, but it doesn't make sense that it's a bigger contributor than our diet"

There's a reason it's called a beer-belly.

10/19/2015 2:44:45 PM

^Actually, I've heard that's not true about the beer belly:

There's this:

http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/06/13/beer-bellies-are-a-myth/

On the other hand, there's also this:

http://fairfieldmirror.com/Uncategorized/itscalledabeerbellyforareason/

To be honest, I haven't even read either link and I don't even know a damn thing about what we're talking about. Just throwing that out there to be devil's advocate for both sides, I guess.

10/19/2015 4:20:39 PM

Quote :

"Part of being poor, besides not having enough money, is perpetually wasting the money that you get."

Quote :

"^ nope"

It's the truth. It sounds harsh but you really have to help people from themselves. Poor people are generally less educated and intelligent. In rare cases when poor people do come across a lot of money, we hear plenty of stories about how they blow their fortunes quickly (lottery winner, professional athletes).

That is why handouts often only cultivate further dependency. Incentives and direction are necessary for these people, and the government can do that by directing how they get helped rather than just "giving them money".

10/19/2015 5:05:57 PM

His point was more along the lines of "poor people are going to fuck it away regardless, and circumvent whatever controls we have on how to spend the benefits, so we ought to just save the bureaucratic expense of the welfare programs and give them an equivalent amount of cash.

The savvy ones who just need a temporary hand will gain more benefit from the increased flexibility, the rest will continue to fuck it all away just the same, and everyone else could then clearly see it for what it is very starkly: their money being given to other people. It's sometimes a necessary evil, but I think some people would see it differently if it was more directly just dollars taken from them and given to other people.

10/19/2015 10:09:20 PM

Quote :

"His point was more along the lines of "poor people are going to fuck it away regardless, and circumvent whatever controls we have on how to spend the benefits, so we ought to just save the bureaucratic expense of the welfare programs and give them an equivalent amount of cash."

Exactly.

If you believe that people within a society have an obligation to help provide for each other (which is a fundamental tenant of most western social democracies) then it ought to be done in the most efficient way possible.

I'm not a big fan of this ideology from a purely philosophical standpoint, but it's pretty clearly ingrained at this point so let's at least do it in a humane and efficient fashion.

10/19/2015 10:51:20 PM

^^ Yet another jobs program....

https://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2015/02/28/massachusetts-bureaucracy-gets-1-in-13-households-to-come-in-and-beg/

Quote :

"“Many In Mass. Await The Next Blizzard With No Heat” is supposed to be a heartstrings-pulling story about how the government isn’t doing enough to help poorer families in Massachusetts pay for heat. What struck me is how many people had to jump through an extra welfare hoop. The article says “Roughly 200,000 households in Massachusetts qualify for help”. Census data show only about 2.5 million households in the state total. Thus 1 in 13 Massachusetts households has to apply every year to a government-paid worker who will decide whether or not to give them some cash. Note that these workers are different from the ones who decide whether or not to give out food stamps, so if you want food and heat you have to visit at least two offices. And those workers are different from the ones who decide whether or not to give out a free or subsidized house. There will be a separate process, with additional government-paid workers, to get free health insurance. And then there is a separate group of government workers who hand out unrestricted (TANF) cash… Just how many government workers can a poor American support?"

10/20/2015 12:23:59 AM

Well, the poor support none, but the approximately half of us who do pay income tax support shitloads more than are actually necessary.

It's why every time there is a "shutdown" or non-essential federal employees are told not to come in one has to wonder, why the fuck we have so many non essential government workers. The bureaucracy is really good at self perpetuation, it's one of the reasons almost no government program ever gets rolled back once it's been set up. It's also another strong argument against allowing government employees to have unions.

10/20/2015 2:00:28 AM

Oh noes11!!! Self-perpetuating, sub-human government bureaucracies, fueled by unions, are metastasizing and soaking up all our monies111!!!!

http://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-REB-28985

Never mind that federal employment is as low as it's been in decades and that state and local government has maintained about the same %tage of the workforce for a while now (as it should, teachers make up a huge portion of local government, we should expect their numbers to grow with population).

10/20/2015 7:19:09 AM

the problem is that they think that teachers shouldn't be public, they should be privatized

10/20/2015 12:20:50 PM

Quote :

"Poor people are generally less educated and intelligent."

This is why its society's fault. This is where we have failed them.

Quote :

"The savvy ones who just need a temporary hand will gain more benefit from the increased flexibility, the rest will continue to fuck it all away just the same, and everyone else could then clearly see it for what it is very starkly: their money being given to other people. It's sometimes a necessary evil, but I think some people would see it differently if it was more directly just dollars taken from them and given to other people."

terrible logic. poor people are poor because they are uneducated and make bad decisions with money so instead of giving them education, we're just going to give them the money for that education and let them decide what to do with it?

Quote :

"Exactly. If you believe that people within a society have an obligation to help provide for each other (which is a fundamental tenant of most western social democracies) then it ought to be done in the most efficient way possible. I'm not a big fan of this ideology from a purely philosophical standpoint, but it's pretty clearly ingrained at this point so let's at least do it in a humane and efficient fashion"

Theres nothing humane or efficient about letting people make mistakes and letting children become their parents victims.

The humane, efficient way would be to provide all of the necessary goods and services and not hand out money at all.

10/21/2015 2:08:41 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/21/business/the-myth-of-welfares-corrupting-influence-on-the-poor.html?_r=0

10/21/2015 3:11:39 PM

Quote :

"This is why its society's fault. This is where we have failed them. "

If I accidentally drop my cold refreshing can of Natty light, is that my fault, or the fault of society?

10/21/2015 3:38:23 PM

^

It's society's fault for training them to be careless of consequences. It trained them poorly and now you're yelling at them.

10/21/2015 4:05:20 PM

Quote :

"Oh noes11!!! Self-perpetuating, sub-human government bureaucracies, fueled by unions, are metastasizing and soaking up all our monies111!!!!"

We should make people who need help visit 3 separate offices in the snow when they are cold and hungry?

10/21/2015 4:45:33 PM

You don't need to eliminate programs to eliminate bureaucracy. Modernizing programs for simplicity could go a long way. Things could be uberized and run by app at this point. Goods can be delivered directly to people by amazon for example.

[Edited on October 21, 2015 at 6:56 PM. Reason : k]

10/21/2015 6:55:22 PM

Quote :

"It's society's fault for training them to be careless of consequences. It trained them poorly and now you're yelling at them."

How does society "train people to be careless of consequences"???????

If anything, a capitalistic society trains people to stop making stupid decisions or else they will be poor.

10/21/2015 11:52:49 PM

^That last sentence is the most opposite of the truth I have ever read. Capitalist societies train people to BUY BUY BUY by shoving advertisements down their throats at all times.

It trains them to throw away perfectly good products so they can buy new ones.

It trains them to celebrate their religion by buying stuff.

I could go on all day.

10/22/2015 9:28:12 AM