AARP.org Ritter's plan to tax soda and candy gets cheers, jeers

are you trying to say that coke is healthy? or are you arguing about a slippery slope?

 

Slippery slope. High fat items are next. Plus the question is "who chooses what is healthy". It is not cut and dry. I think that rice, corn, wheat, and sugar are bad for you. Others think that red meat is. Who decides? Diet is as poorly understood and as changing as climate science.

 

sure, but no one (of any significance) is talking about these foods. highly processed sugars and trans fats are being discussed. there is little debate that they are "bad". they tax alcohol and cigarettes and those arent available to kids. taxing sodas and candy and particularly removing them from schools will benefit our children and our country.

 

i dont think they are "bad". i love those foods and think they are great. they are just not meant to be the primary part of your diet. we should think of these processed foods the same way we think of cupcakes or apple pie. they are nice, but you shouldnt eat them 4 times a day.

removing them from schools is good. taxing them is stupid. some people eat these things as part of a perfectly healthy diet.

we have to stop thinking that the government has to manage every tiny damn detail of our lives.

 

I beg to differ that no one is talking about other foods. They are not attacking McDonalds because of highly processed sugars and trans fats. They are hitting them for the processed grains and red meat (which in combination are in fact very bad).

As far as removing them from schools, let my school decide... not the Federal government. Schools in Texas have changed rules regarding what is allowed in schools and the rules are strange. They rule out many things but allow 100% fruit juice (which some of them are just as bad as sodas). I think that making the rules from the State government is still too far removed. Let my school decide.

 

tough choices have to be made, well, should be made. clearly a large % of our population either dont care, are too stupid, or cant control themselves and our country suffers. so the gov does have manage the population or suffer the consequences. which is worse? im sure you wont disagree that fed subsidies on hfcs contributes to child and adult obesity and that the obesity has a huge cost to society. i have no problem with the gov nudging the population a certain way. i disagree with prohibition but not sin taxes.

i havent heard talk from anyone that can actually do anything about other foods. new york banned trans fats so McDs had to adjust. i havent heard that McDs is banned anywhere from selling processed grains and red meat.

great. so only kids that have educated parents will not be tempted incessantly by crap in school.

yes, all juices are not created equal. most have fewer calories, less fructose and are less sweet. sweeter things lead to more calorie consumption. you are right that some juices are bad---apple juice has a lot of fructose. stick with citrus juices. certainly, kids drink too much juice, too.

 

thats their right! i dont come to your house and force you to run your fat ass around the block do i? i bet it would be best for you if i did, right? i mean, you would be fitter, right? you might be too stupid to realize yourself that you need to lace up the running shoes 3 times a week.

this all ignores the idea that what is best for you and what you want to do is be decided upon by you. its lunacy! if you want to eat cheetos and watch two and half men instead of running around your block, so be it!

there are only consequences if the governmetn is paying the health care bills, which they shouldnt be!

YES BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT IS WILDLY INCOMPETENT AT MANAGING THINGS

we simply shouldnt be telling people how to live with taxes. it is none of our damn business what any of us eats or how little they exercise. i am pretty critical of fatties, including myself at times, but that is my private issue, i dont want the damn government playing a part.

 

there is a big difference between "forcing" and adding $0.10 to the cost of a coke.

too simplistic. huge effect on worker productivity too.

 

there is exactly no difference. the government is forcing a punishment on you for living your life the way you like. i drink coke sometimes (ok i drink diet coke, but still). why should i pay the tax? i should be able to drink all the cokes i want, because i exercise. i am not "sinning", so why am i paying the sin tax?

the fact is that it shouldnt matter if i was a lazy fatass anyways, that is not of the government's business.

this same argument is terrible when peopl emake it about cigarettes. but at least cigarettes are genuily terrible and really just bad to do at all. cokes are a nice high calorie thing i like to have if i am kinda tired and can use some sugar and caffeine.

you need to get it through your head that the role of government is not to manage behavior. thats your job.

this is why national health care is a dangerous slippery slope. people use the fact that taxpayers are paying for health care to justify more and more controls.

why do you think everything is your responsibility? can you manage your own weight and health? leave the rest of us alone!

 

pretty much what i was gonna say.

im not sure it should be decided at a federal level, but i have no problem with the state's dept of education mandating their removal. at least until the upper levels.

schools are to educate children. we have too many parents not teaching their children about nutrition at all, and it is left up to the schools to teach. removing candy and cokes from lower levels is just reinforcing that education.

and this is where i am gonna show my age.... back in the day at willard elementary, the only thing you could buy other than a hot lunch was a carton of milk out of the milk machine to go with the lunch mom packed you at home.