Philadelphia new tax on sugary drinks

[jballscalls]

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/20100303_Nutter_expected_to_tax_sugary_drinks__set _trash_fee.html

I thought we weren't going to have any levies or taxes to burden the middle and lower class?? well guess who consume the most sugary drinks?

[PhantomOnTour]

Don't drink sugary drinks then.

[jballscalls]

Don't drink sugary drinks then.

just another freedom your going to have to pay extra for. I'm so glad that nanny gov't tells me what i can eat, drink, smoke etc

[PhantomOnTour]

just another freedom your going to have to pay extra for. I'm so glad that nanny gov't tells me what i can eat, drink, smoke etc
They're not telling you what to drink, they're just telling you it's gonna be more expensive to drink it.
Now, if they threw an extra tax on baby formula....

[jballscalls]

They're not telling you what to drink, they're just telling you it's gonna be more expensive to drink it.
Now, if they threw an extra tax on baby formula....

it's not their role to tell me it's going to be more expensive. the soda companies should decide on price, not the gov't

[PhantomOnTour]

Perhaps you should drink some of that Government Soda!

But seriously Jball, a small tax on soda isn't the worse thing our gov't has done lately....not even close. IMO it's not a big deal. It's a sin-tax....boooze, smokes, sodas, beer etc.

[boxcar]

just another freedom your going to have to pay extra for. I'm so glad that nanny gov't tells me what i can eat, drink, smoke etc

When ObamaCare passes, there won't be anything for which the state will not be able to impose its will upon us. The state will mandate what we can buy, sell, eat, drink, our energy consumption, etc., etc. This is the bad news. The good, though, is that statists will still tell us that we're still a free nation. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Perhaps you should drink some of that Government Soda!

But seriously Jball, a small tax on soda isn't the worse thing our gov't has done lately....not even close. IMO it's not a big deal. It's a sin-tax....boooze, smokes, sodas, beer etc.

So, going by your logic, it's now a "sin" to eat sugar? Next, it'll be a sin to eat too much salt?

Since you're so pro-state and anti-freedom, maybe you'd be good enough to draft your ideas of a State Bill of Rights for us. What Rights should the state have and what individual liberties of the people should be revoked, in your opinion?

Boxcar

[DJofSD]

To really screw things up takes a government. On one hand, the sugar industry is subsidized, while on the other, products using it are taxed.

I wonder: would it not be better to eliminate the subsidies and let the free market determine what happens? Or, does that not jived with the ever increasing encroachment of the federal government into every aspect of our lifes?

[PhantomOnTour]

When ObamaCare passes, there won't be anything for which the state will not be able to impose its will upon us. The state will mandate what we can buy, sell, eat, drink, our energy consumption, etc., etc. This is the bad news. The good, though, is that statists will still tell us that we're still a free nation. :rolleyes:

Boxcar
Sin-tax is a term used here in Louisiana for bills that tax beer, alcohol, gambling. Sorry for the misinterpretation....no, soft drinks arent a sin but i used the term because the tax is similar.

When the state "mandates what we buy, sell, eat etc..." will we look back at the Philly Sugar Tax of 2010 as the place where we shoulda drawn the line? Really? Oh, and by the way, the state will NEVER mandate such things....its just the slippery slope alarmism some folks love so much.

[ArlJim78]

nanny state government will continue to feed on itself, step by step controlling and regulating and taxing everything under the sun. it will not stop on it's own, like in the movie The Blob, it will continue to feast on your freedoms and grow ever larger. the only thing that will contain it is the next revolution.

[boxcar]

Sin-tax is a term used here in Louisiana for bills that tax beer, alcohol, gambling. Sorry for the misinterpretation....no, soft drinks arent a sin but i used the term because the tax is similar.

When the state "mandates what we buy, sell, eat etc..." will we look back at the Philly Sugar Tax of 2010 as the place where we shoulda drawn the line? Really? Oh, and by the way, the state will NEVER mandate such things....its just the slippery slope alarmism some folks love so much.


How long has your head been buried in the sand? What is ObamaCare about? Will not all be be taxed and forced to have insurance? :bang: :bang: (You really need to get out more.) Even the moronic politicians (including your beloved messiah) tried to lamely justify the mandate by comparing health care insurance to auto insurance. :bang: :bang:

And what do you think Cap n' Trade will be all about? We will be taxed on our energy consumption -- no doubt a progressive tax based on each person's consumption. Again, this would be another example of the state controlling and regulating what we buy and use through the pernicious and coercive tax system. And from what I've heard there might even be energy-based requirements that will need to be met before a homeowner can sell his home.

And no, that line that you mentioned should have been drawn a very long time ago beginning with the creation of a central bank, the income tax system, the New Deal, etc, etc.. It's a little late now to be drawing any lines. For nearly a century we've been inching closer and closer to socialism, and now the final nail is all set to be driven into the coffin of Individual Liberties with BO's Raw Deal.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

nanny state government will continue to feed on itself, step by step controlling and regulating and taxing everything under the sun. it will not stop on it's own, like in the movie The Blob, it will continue to feast on your freedoms and grow ever larger. the only thing that will contain it is the next revolution.

If ObamaCare passes, high up on BO's agenda will be the creation of his "civilian" security force that he wants to be as powerful and as well armed as our military. This, too, was a campaign promise of his. The government will want to come for our guns, and I believe their plan is to goad us us into using them and use that as the excuse to confiscate them -- most especially if the SC rules in favor of the people re the Second Amendment with respect to a case involving Chicago's highly restrictive gun laws. If you think BO was teed off at the political free speech ruling, he'll have a cow over this next one, which would probably be another 5-4 decision.

Boxcar

[lamboguy]

this is the smartest move i have ever seen in my life, only thing is if it was up to me a would double the tax and maybe tripple it.


sugar is the worst possible drug you can stick in your body, and it is the very most addictive. if you get rid of sugar you won't need obama care. the guy that dreamt this one up is pure genius and i am serious.

[Tom]

The King of England put a 3 cent tax on tea and they started shooting at him.
Where is that American spirit today?

[boxcar]

this is the smartest move i have ever seen in my life, only thing is if it was up to me a would double the tax and maybe tripple it.


sugar is the worst possible drug you can stick in your body, and it is the very most addictive. if you get rid of sugar you won't need obama care. the guy that dreamt this one up is pure genius and i am serious.

So...you don't see anything morally wrong with the state cashing in and capitalizing on our human frailties?

Furthermore, why is it the state's business what we eat? What we put into our bodies?

If the government was so interested in our health, why doesn't it launch a massive education campaign to educate consumers instead of taking advantage of us?

What's next: The taxing of vitamins and supplements because they're not under government control yet? Will the state tax us on those, too, to discourage and dissuade us from using them?

Boxcar

[ArlJim78]

this is the smartest move i have ever seen in my life, only thing is if it was up to me a would double the tax and maybe tripple it.


sugar is the worst possible drug you can stick in your body, and it is the very most addictive. if you get rid of sugar you won't need obama care. the guy that dreamt this one up is pure genius and i am serious.
so you're all for government making decisions as to what is good or bad for you and taxing accordingly? I assume your enthusiasm for these types of taxes will not be as strong when they decide to come after aspects of your lifestyle or things you consume that "someone" has determined are detrimental?

there are many people that consider horse racing bad, unethical, immoral, and I'm sure some of those people would like to tax it out of existence. are you okay with that too?

its great that you feel healthy by eliminating sugar and most likely it is a good thing, but please leave me out of your lifestyle choices by requesting that government force me to pay more for my softdrinks. I get why you might think sugar is a bad thing to consume, I don't get why you want to tax others who are willing to take the risk and drink sugared drinks.

[lamboguy]

So...you don't see anything morally wrong with the state cashing in and capitalizing on our human frailties?

Furthermore, why is it the state's business what we eat? What we put into our bodies?

If the government was so interested in our health, why doesn't it launch a massive education campaign to educate consumers instead of taking advantage of us?

What's next: The taxing of vitamins and supplements because they're not under government control yet? Will the state tax us on those, too, to discourage and dissuade us from using them?

Boxcar
the whole system stinks, you know that better than anyone here. i am dealing within the system. they advertise to put bad sugar products in your body, and then you get sick, and then you can't afford the stupid rotten healthcare, so now they find a reason to sink you for more money to go directly into the pockets of large corporations and financial institutions in the name of healthcare. you got it, the whole deal stinks to high hell.

you don't even have to break it down between liberal's, conservetives, republican's or democrat's, they are all equally evil. you can come on here and rant how great consevetism is or how bad liberalism is, but deep in your heart you know they both suck.

[ArlJim78]

It occurs to me that watching too much TV is not healthy, for your mind or your body. I want to see a tax on excessive watching of TV. It can be calculated directly on your cable bill, they know how much your TV is on. anything over 3 hours per day should be taxed heavily.

[ArlJim78]

the same goes for using your computer. that should be taxed because we all know it is not healthy to stare at the screen all day.


let's have a large computer usage tax.

Its a great idea.

[LottaKash]

What's next: The taxing of vitamins and supplements because they're not under government control yet? Will the state tax us on those, too, to discourage and dissuade us from using them?

Boxcar

Boxcar, it's funny that you should say that, as just recently, Sen. John McCain has introduced a bill, that will severely hamper and perhaps eliminate many good sources of the nutrients that we are so sorely lacking in our bodies, due to the the "modern western diet" that somehow passes for good food and nutrition...What is next ?

You can read about it here..... http://www.prisonplanet.com/mccain-bill-threatens-access-to-vitamins-and-supplements.html

best,

[ArlJim78]

the sun causes skin cancer. the greatest thing we could do is collect a tax at the beaches. I say every person going to the beach should have to pay a $5 tax to help cover the cost of treating skin cancer.

[NJ Stinks]

When ObamaCare passes, there won't be anything for which the state will not be able to impose its will upon us. The state will mandate what we can buy, sell, eat, drink, our energy consumption, etc., etc. This is the bad news. The good, though, is that statists will still tell us that we're still a free nation. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

I think maybe our conservative friends have trouble understanding the meaning of the term " a free nation". It doesn't mean everything is free. :jump: It means we remain independent of any other country by paying the price in whatever way necessary to remain independent.

If Nutter raised taxes on businesses, conservatives would bitch. So Nutter taxes everyone in a "flat tax" sort of way and you still bitch.

P.S. I don't like picking out one thing - like sugar - to tax. At least everybody has to have their trash picked up.

[DJofSD]

What's next: The taxing of vitamins and supplements because they're not under government control yet? Will the state tax us on those, too, to discourage and dissuade us from using them?

McCain already has this covered. He's got a bill to bring that entire industry under the control of the FDA.

[boxcar]

the whole system stinks, you know that better than anyone here. i am dealing within the system. they advertise to put bad sugar products in your body, and then you get sick, and then you can't afford the stupid rotten healthcare, so now they find a reason to sink you for more money to go directly into the pockets of large corporations and financial institutions in the name of healthcare. you got it, the whole deal stinks to high hell.

you don't even have to break it down between liberal's, conservetives, republican's or democrat's, they are all equally evil. you can come on here and rant how great consevetism is or how bad liberalism is, but deep in your heart you know they both suck.

Nice attempt at deflection. Answer my questions, why don't you?

And let me take this a step further: If the state is taxing sugar for our safety -- out of its concerns for our health -- if this is the government's true motive, why not just outlaw sugar, and be done with it? The state has no problem imposing its will upon the people, so why not take this course of action? Or could it possibly be that the state's true, ulterior motive is less than honorable and a wee bit selfish and they would never ban sugar for the same reason it won't ban tobacco? Are you okay with this immoral attitude, also?

Boxcar

[boxcar]

McCain already has this covered. He's got a bill to bring that entire industry under the control of the FDA.

And McCain has wee bit liberal bent, too, doesn't he?

There's no end to this. These liberals want to create hell on earth for us Americans.

Boxcar

[DJofSD]

I think maybe our conservative friends have trouble understanding the meaning of the term " a free nation". It doesn't mean everything is free. It means we remain independent of any other country by paying the price in whatever way necessary to remain independent.


I think our liberal friends have trouble understanding the meaning of the term "a free nation." It means more than sovernty. It means free to choose and to not have my choices reduced or eliminated by an act of the government. Things like freedom of speech, especially political, freedom to travel and freedom of association, and, the ability to raise our families the way we see fit and not be told by the state how to do it. It also means being able to just say no -- no to all of the crapola like health care reform.

[DJofSD]

And McCain has wee bit liberal bent, too, doesn't he?

There's no end to this. These liberals want to create hell on earth for us Americans.

Boxcar

Yep. He reminds me of one of my brothers -- a closet liberal.

[LottaKash]

the sun causes skin cancer. the greatest thing we could do is collect a tax at the beaches. I say every person going to the beach should have to pay a $5 tax to help cover the cost of treating skin cancer.

Any overexposure to "radiation" of any type, including the sun, will cause cancer....The trouble is, the chemical companies would have us buy into the idea that sunscreen somehow lowers the "cancer risk"....Not only does "sunscreen" inhibit the bodies ability to make "Vitamin-D", a nutrient that modern western man is severely lacking in, but the chemicals contained in the sunscreeen "cause" CANCER....

Funny how, the miracle "cancer-curers" would have you think that by giving you "cancer causing radiation" will somehow make your cancer go away.....

We are being duped.....

[Steve 'StatMan']

P.S..... At least everybody has to have their trash picked up.

Might be a big increase in dumping and littering, and people ditiching their trash in commercial/residential complex dumpsters, as more people increase their efforts to secretly get rid of things and avoiding the tax. We frequently had a problem in my old condo complex, near the expressway, where strangers appearently put trash in our dumpsters. Plenty of people empty their inside car trash in the garbage containers at the drive-thru restuarants.

I'm reading 'sugary' drinks. Would this apply to diet drinks? What about fruit juices and fruit drinks? "Energy Drinks"? Coffee? Kool-aid? Will people switch their choices to avoid the tax? I drink a lot of diet soda, for the caffine, I'm not a coffee drinker. Would I be able to avoid the tax by learning to drink coffee? [I'm not in Philly, won't affect me, but might in other ways. I just moved to Chicago and I remember talk about a beverage tax or a tax on bottles - all the millions of water bottles, soda cans, etc. Not a refundable deposit like in some states. The aim is tax revenue generation vs. anti-littering.

[lamboguy]

government does nothing right. they are just an extension of the privilaged few who can take down the weak. no deflection.

[johnhannibalsmith]

While we're all for good ideas to coerce behavior for the "greater good" and remedy all domestic problems - how about taxing Mexican phone cards, bright yellow snakeskin boots, and small plastic combs and I'm sure we will make great progress towards fixing the illegal immigration problem... :rolleyes:

[Steve 'StatMan']

I propose we tax all those who imposed taxes on us in the past - prior to this proposal of course!

[ArlJim78]

nothing I see is more dangerous then the many people who chose to talk or text while driving. they are killing themselves and others and are a menace to society. I'm calling for government to step up and place much much higher taxes on PDA's and cell phones to discourage their use. of course i don't use either device so it doesn't effect me, all the better though. those other people doing these wreckless things are the ones I want to see paying higher taxes.

[johnhannibalsmith]

nothing I see is more dangerous then the many people who chose to talk or text while driving. they are killing themselves and others and are a menace to society. I'm calling for government to step up and place much much higher taxes on PDA's and cell phones to discourage their use. of course i don't use either device so it doesn't effect me, all the better though. those other people doing these wreckless things are the ones I want to see paying higher taxes.

There you go... how can we possibly start with smokes and booze and soda when you have these miscreants gabbing away on the shoulder, then the median, then the shoulder... :ThmbUp:

[illinoisbred]

A couple saturday mornings ago I went to a health club and saw people running around an indoor track while talking on cell phones. C'mon,who or what is that important on a saturday morning. Either exercise or talk on the phone.Lets tax these people, lets tax them a lot!

[NJ Stinks]

I think our liberal friends have trouble understanding the meaning of the term "a free nation." It means more than sovernty. It means free to choose and to not have my choices reduced or eliminated by an act of the government. Things like freedom of speech, especially political, freedom to travel and freedom of association, and, the ability to raise our families the way we see fit and not be told by the state how to do it....

Good response! :ThmbUp:

[lamboguy]

they are all great responses, any of these response i can't argue with. if you reason with the whole deal you can turn and twist any valid opinion and make sense of it. this is what liberalism and conservetism is all about

[PhantomOnTour]

How long has your head been buried in the sand? What is ObamaCare about? Will not all be be taxed and forced to have insurance? :bang: :bang: (You really need to get out more.) Even the moronic politicians (including your beloved messiah) tried to lamely justify the mandate by comparing health care insurance to auto insurance. :bang: :bang:

And what do you think Cap n' Trade will be all about? We will be taxed on our energy consumption -- no doubt a progressive tax based on each person's consumption. Again, this would be another example of the state controlling and regulating what we buy and use through the pernicious and coercive tax system. And from what I've heard there might even be [energy-based requirements that will need to be met before a homeowner can sell his home.

And no, that line that you mentioned should have been drawn a very long time ago beginning with the creation of a central bank, the income tax system, the New Deal, etc, etc.. It's a little late now to be drawing any lines. For nearly a century we've been inching closer and closer to socialism, and now the final nail is all set to be driven into the coffin of Individual Liberties with BO's Raw Deal.

Boxcar
My beloved messiah? Come again...you clearly dont read many of my posts. I am just speaking of a tax on sugar drinks in Philly and you have taken it back to the New Deal, income tax etc....slow your roll Box. IMO this is a clear example of mountain outta molehill. Your distrust/dislike/disapproval/disgust of Pres Obama has forced you to scream bloody murder at everything that happens under his admin. It has also forced you to do the same to everyone who doesnt see it like you. I know this because I speak from experience. I have read your insults.
The last excerpt I highlighted says it all doesnt it? You HEARD there MIGHT BE...well I guess you accept that as fact huh?

[JustRalph]

it's not their role to tell me it's going to be more expensive. the soda companies should decide on price, not the gov't


The most salient point in the thread


The market should choose..............without interference

[lamboguy]

if the government can make smoking pot, shooting heroine, snorting cocaine and taking narcotics illegal, why can't they make sugar illlegal? its just as bad for your body as the above. you guys seem to have no prblem with the controled substances being illegal. sugar poses just as much a danger as the other things listed. why is sugar so bad? because if you are addicted to it you are now a menace to healthcare. the republicans and democrats are telling us that the healthcare system is broken. sugar is the main reason for this.

[DJofSD]

if the government can make smoking pot, shooting heroine, snorting cocaine and taking narcotics illegal, why can't they make sugar illlegal? its just as bad for your body as the above. you guys seem to have no prblem with the controled substances being illegal. sugar poses just as much a danger as the other things listed. why is sugar so bad? because if you are addicted to it you are now a menace to healthcare. the republicans and democrats are telling us that the healthcare system is broken. sugar is the main reason for this.

You come across as some one that's been using some of those illegal substances.

[johnhannibalsmith]

if the government can make smoking pot, shooting heroine, snorting cocaine and taking narcotics illegal, why can't they make sugar illlegal? its just as bad for your body as the above. you guys seem to have no prblem with the controled substances being illegal. sugar poses just as much a danger as the other things listed. why is sugar so bad? because if you are addicted to it you are now a menace to healthcare. the republicans and democrats are telling us that the healthcare system is broken. sugar is the main reason for this.

I always figured that Elvis really died of a Zagnut overdose.

[lamboguy]

You come across as some one that's been using some of those illegal substances.i don't use a thing. and i take it that you must think i am soft as a grape, or when god dealt out the cards he left a few of them out.

if you really think that, then i would suggest you look at the mirror

[DJofSD]

You equate sugar to some very powerful drugs. I think you are wrong.

[lamboguy]

You equate sugar to some very powerful drugs. I think you are wrong.not only are you correct, i make sugar worse than most of the illegal drugs.i certainly think that sugar is alot worse then marijuana.

i suppose you are going to say that one that takes marijuana can endanger other's by incapacitating the user like alcohol. i will agree with that. but i would think that over abundance of sugar creates more problems for human bodies than marajuana. marajuana is no good for humans, and neither is to much sugar.

[JustRalph]

I always figured that Elvis really died of a Zagnut overdose.

only if that Zagnut got lodged in his GI Tract. He had serious GI problems and was hospitalized not long before that last bowel movement that took him to the sky. Between that and the drugs making him weak.........it's pretty easy to see why the King went to his resting place so early.

[lamboguy]

only if that Zagnut got lodged in his GI Tract. He had serious GI problems and was hospitalized not long before that last bowel movement that took him to the sky. Between that and the drugs making him weak.........it's pretty easy to see why the King went to his resting place so early.
good one ralph

[Robert Goren]

I drink a lot of Pepsi, but I am not going to war over this. Like everyone use to tell me back when I had a 3 pack day habit, If you don't like the tax increase on cigarettes, "QUIT". Eventually I did, but not because of any tax. JMO

[boxcar]

I think maybe our conservative friends have trouble understanding the meaning of the term " a free nation". It doesn't mean everything is free. :jump: It means we remain independent of any other country by paying the price in whatever way necessary to remain independent.

Why is the U.S. called the "leader of the free world"? Why do people want to come to America in droves to settle here -- legally or illegally? The Biil of Rights are to protect whose freedoms? Whose power did the Founding Fathers limit: The people's or the government's? Power lies predominantly with the people or with the government? Why is it that only the U.S. is called and noted as being the Land of Opportunity? You really need to take some American history courses. America is considered a free nation because the people have more individual liberties here than in any other country on the planet. The U.S. is without equal, which is why we're so hated and so envied. We are the freest nation in the world because of all the individual liberties we enjoy and that are guaranteed to us in the U.S. Constitution.

According to your definition of a "free nation", you'd feel right at home in Russia, China, North Korea, etc. All these countries are independent of other countries. I'll gladly buy you a one way ticket to one of these "free" countries of your choice. Just let me know.

Boxcar

[Robert Goren]

Why is the U.S. called the "leader of the free world"? Why do people want to come to America in droves to settle here -- legally or illegally? The Biil of Rights are to protect whose freedoms? Whose power did the Founding Fathers limit: The people's or the government's? Power lies predominantly with the people or with the government? Why is it that only the U.S. is called and noted as being the Land of Opportunity? You really need to take some American history courses. America is considered a free nation because the people have more individual liberties here than in any other country on the planet. The U.S. is without equal, which is why we're so hated and so envied. We are the freest nation in the world because of all the individual liberties we enjoy and that are guaranteed to us in the U.S. Constitution.

According to your definition of a "free nation", you'd feel right at home in Russia, China, North Korea, etc. All these countries are independent of other countries. I'll gladly buy you a one way ticket to one of these "free" countries of your choice. Just let me know.

BoxcarIt is it is a good thing that it is a new month because here I am agreeing with you again. But price for those individual liberties is not free. It is paid for with the blood of our troops who defend us against foreign tyrants and policemen who protect us from home-grown thugs.

[boxcar]

My beloved messiah? Come again...you clearly dont read many of my posts. I am just speaking of a tax on sugar drinks in Philly and you have taken it back to the New Deal, income tax etc....slow your roll Box. IMO this is a clear example of mountain outta molehill. Your distrust/dislike/disapproval/disgust of Pres Obama has forced you to scream bloody murder at everything that happens under his admin. It has also forced you to do the same to everyone who doesnt see it like you. I know this because I speak from experience. I have read your insults.
The last excerpt I highlighted says it all doesnt it? You HEARD there MIGHT BE...well I guess you accept that as fact huh?

Here's what you wrote earlier:

Sin-tax is a term used here in Louisiana for bills that tax beer, alcohol, gambling. Sorry for the misinterpretation....no, soft drinks arent a sin but i used the term because the tax is similar.

When the state "mandates what we buy, sell, eat etc..." will we look back at the Philly Sugar Tax of 2010 as the place where we shoulda drawn the line? Really? Oh, and by the way, the state will NEVER mandate such things....its just the slippery slope alarmism some folks love so much.

As you can see, the above post wasn't one of your better ones. First you brought up the dumb subject of drawing lines and connecting that with the "Philly Sugar Act". :rolleyes: Then you denied that the state will ever mandate what we must buy or sell, so I'm thinking you must have arrived in your space pod just a day or two ago because you're clueless what ObamaCare is all about.

And, yes, I heard some pretty nasty things will be included in the Cap and Trade bill -- and my sources are usually pretty good. Time will tell on that one...so stay tuned.

By the way...for your info: This is how liberals build their mountains. They start small -- with little molehills. Only the ignorant or unwary are unaware of this little fact. The strategy is known as Incrementalism. We have not arrived on the precipice of ObamCare overnight. It took us a bunch of decades to get here -- one little molehill at a time, as it were. :rolleyes:

Boxcar
P.S. Have a safe flight back to your home planet wherever that may be.

[boxcar]

It is it is a good thing that it is a new month because here I am agreeing with you again. But price for those individual liberties is not free. It is paid for with the blood of our troops who defend us against foreign tyrants and policemen who protect us from home-grown thugs.

And a revolution, don't forget. What or who protects us against tyranny?

Boxcar

[lamboguy]

And a revolution, don't forget. What or who protects us against tyranny?

Boxcarthis topic started because some mayor had a shortfall in his city budget and was trying how to figure the best and fastest way to fleece people out of their money so he could run his city. that mayor could give 2 flying hoots about people that kill themselves by over eating sugar. they can all die and go to heaven as long as he collects the tax money.

i argued that it was a good idea from a health standpoint. we have already lost alot of our rights and privacy. have you ever heard of the patriot act, that is what it is designed for. all i want is for people to stop over-eating sugar. if they do it on their own without getting taxed, that is fine with me. in my mind if people consume less sugar this country becomes a better place. since the lawmakers in this country are all hypocritical i thought taxing sugar was a good thing. they tax you to death already on alcohol and cigarettets. why not sugar? there are more people hooked on sugar than cigarettes. the government will collect even more money and keep people broke at the same time.isn't that the basic idea of government these days? your government coulld care less about your freedom or rights. they sacrifice you and your family for those that get them elected. probably the only reason why sugar is not taxed is because the people that benefit from the population killing themselves with it are big contributors to political campagn's on both sides.

[newtothegame]

[QUOTE=lamboguy]this topic started because some mayor had a shortfall in his city budget and was trying how to figure the best and fastest way to fleece people out of their money so he could run his city. that mayor could give 2 flying hoots about people that kill themselves by over eating sugar. they can all die and go to heaven as long as he collects the tax money.

i argued that it was a good idea from a health standpoint. we have already lost alot of our rights and privacy. have you ever heard of the patriot act, that is what it is designed for. all i want is for people to stop over-eating sugar. if they do it on their own without getting taxed, that is fine with me. in my mind if people consume less sugar this country becomes a better place. since the lawmakers in this country are all hypocritical i thought taxing sugar was a good thing. they tax you to death already on alcohol and cigarettets. why not sugar? there are more people hooked on sugar than cigarettes. the government will collect even more money and keep people broke at the same time.isn't that the basic idea of government these days? your government coulld care less about your freedom or rights. they sacrifice you and your family for those that get them elected. probably the only reason why sugar is not taxed is because the people that benefit from the population killing themselves with it are big contributors to political campagn's on both sides.[/QUOTE)


Ok...so I understand your arguement about the sugar....And, what I understand is this tax is CRAZY. I don't see it as being about sugar as is claimed. If it was about sugar, where is the tax on candy bars?? Where is the tax on bakeries? The list goes on and on....There are many many products which use sugar....
Why soda's???
Makes ya wonder what's really going on here......
I just don't see it as against "sugar"...

[lamboguy]

[QUOTE=lamboguy]this topic started because some mayor had a shortfall in his city budget and was trying how to figure the best and fastest way to fleece people out of their money so he could run his city. that mayor could give 2 flying hoots about people that kill themselves by over eating sugar. they can all die and go to heaven as long as he collects the tax money.

i argued that it was a good idea from a health standpoint. we have already lost alot of our rights and privacy. have you ever heard of the patriot act, that is what it is designed for. all i want is for people to stop over-eating sugar. if they do it on their own without getting taxed, that is fine with me. in my mind if people consume less sugar this country becomes a better place. since the lawmakers in this country are all hypocritical i thought taxing sugar was a good thing. they tax you to death already on alcohol and cigarettets. why not sugar? there are more people hooked on sugar than cigarettes. the government will collect even more money and keep people broke at the same time.isn't that the basic idea of government these days? your government coulld care less about your freedom or rights. they sacrifice you and your family for those that get them elected. probably the only reason why sugar is not taxed is because the people that benefit from the population killing themselves with it are big contributors to political campagn's on both sides.[/QUOTE)


Ok...so I understand your arguement about the sugar....And, what I understand is this tax is CRAZY. I don't see it as being about sugar as is claimed. If it was about sugar, where is the tax on candy bars?? Where is the tax on bakeries? The list goes on and on....There are many many products which use sugar....
Why soda's???
Makes ya wonder what's really going on here......
I just don't see it as against "sugar"...the mayor that wants to tax this soda jsut wants money, he wants you to drink more soda, not less. he's not interested in your health, just money. by accident he stumbled on something else though. sugar is the reason why lots of people are sick, if people eat less sugar then there will be less of a strain on the healthcare system. it is my opinion that sugar can be traced to alot of the world's problems in many different ways. maybe someone read these posts today and gave this some thought and decided to cut out the intake of sugar in their bodies, to me that would be good.

[newtothegame]

[QUOTE=newtothegame]the mayor that wants to tax this soda jsut wants money, he wants you to drink more soda, not less. he's not interested in your health, just money. by accident he stumbled on something else though. sugar is the reason why lots of people are sick, if people eat less sugar then there will be less of a strain on the healthcare system. it is my opinion that sugar can be traced to alot of the world's problems in many different ways. maybe someone read these posts today and gave this some thought and decided to cut out the intake of sugar in their bodies, to me that would be good.

So again I ask...why not candy bars....why not cakes...ANYTHING SUGARY????
Why sodas in particuliar???

[lamboguy]

[QUOTE=lamboguy]

So again I ask...why not candy bars....why not cakes...ANYTHING SUGARY????
Why sodas in particuliar???good question, when i initially saw the article i thought the mayor had a good idea because the government taxes all these things that do bad things to people. sure cakes, bread, potatoes and plenty of other things are the same as soft drinks.the same results happen to human bodies from all the above when you overeat those things. but i guess its time for government to step away from making personal decision's. they tell you to eat balanced diets with plenty of sugar in it and then taxing you for doing what they tell you to do. the government is involved in to many personal decisions already. we have a government that is supposed to protect the borders and protect the citizens from outside interests. they seem to be doing a poor job of that these days.

i feel that sugar is terrible for you, taxing soft drinks or any other sugar product in the context that the mayor came up with doesn't make sense. government decided they need to take hold of the healthcare system, i just pointed out that if people ate less sugar there might not be a problem with the healthcare system

[Tom]

[QUOTE=lamboguy]

So again I ask...why not candy bars....why not cakes...ANYTHING SUGARY????
Why sodas in particuliar???

Just a start. More will follow. Much more.
The whores are just getting started.
Obama's fishnets and spiked heels are due any day now.
Slap a little lipstick on that pig and bend over.

[lamboguy]

[QUOTE=newtothegame]

Just a start. More will follow. Much more.
The whores are just getting started.
Obama's fishnets and spiked heels are due any day now.
Slap a little lipstick on that pig and bend over.
i think you are just starting to warm up

[boxcar]

[QUOTE=newtothegame]good question, when i initially saw the article i thought the mayor had a good idea because the government taxes all these things that do bad things to people. sure cakes, bread, potatoes and plenty of other things are the same as soft drinks.the same results happen to human bodies from all the above when you overeat those things. but i guess its time for government to step away from making personal decision's. they tell you to eat balanced diets with plenty of sugar in it and then taxing you for doing what they tell you to do. the government is involved in to many personal decisions already. we have a government that is supposed to protect the borders and protect the citizens from outside interests. they seem to be doing a poor job of that these days.

i feel that sugar is terrible for you, taxing soft drinks or any other sugar product in the context that the mayor came up with doesn't make sense. government decided they need to take hold of the healthcare system, i just pointed out that if people ate less sugar there might not be a problem with the healthcare system

So, is tobacco bad! But shouldn't people have the choice to decide if they want to abuse their bodies? Shouldn't people have the right to choose what they want to put into their own bodies. Women have choices over their bodies. They have the right to decide what comes out of their bodies! If they so choose, they get to murder the unborn in the name of the sanctity of their own bodies! If they have the right to do that, why doesn't someone else have a right to OD on soda, if he wants to?

We're rapidly approaching living under a Stateocracy. The only difference between a Stateocracy and a Theocracy under Christianity is that the former is utterly wicked and depraved, whereas the latter would promote virtue, goodness and holiness.

Boxcar

[castaway01]

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/20100303_Nutter_expected_to_tax_sugary_drinks__set _trash_fee.html

I thought we weren't going to have any levies or taxes to burden the middle and lower class?? well guess who consume the most sugary drinks?

Philadelphia's mayor is probably tired of hearing every year how Philly is America's fattest city...of course they're going to have to ban cheesesteaks before they get anywhere on that...

[46zilzal]

Philadelphia's mayor is probably tired of hearing every year how Philly is America's fattest city...of course they're going to have to ban cheesesteaks before they get anywhere on that...
If he ever visited Roseburg, Oregon he would easily relinquish that title...

[boxcar]

Philadelphia's mayor is probably tired of hearing every year how Philly is America's fattest city...of course they're going to have to ban cheesesteaks before they get anywhere on that...

Ezekiel Emanuel (Rahm's commie brother) said recently that overweight people are a burden to society. Stay tuned for an upcoming announcement on a Federal Fat Tax. (I'm serious, by the way.)

Boxcar

[johnhannibalsmith]

And then shortly thereafter, a thin tax.

[Tom]

Then a just right tax.
The Goldilocks Tax.

[jballscalls]

If he ever visited Roseburg, Oregon he would easily relinquish that title...

now that you mention it, everytime i've driven through there the only things i've seen is fast food restaurants!

fattest city is one of those things that lots of places lay claim too, just like i've heard of 8 different cities that are the meth capitals of the world