remember, kids, Discrimination starts with a (D)

[Troglodyte]

I have loved junk food my whole life and I am 185 pounds. Take your junk food tax and stick it up your cake hole. I kind of enjoy personal freedom myself. If I wanted a tyrannical government telling me what I am allowed to eat, I'd move one of the many ****** places around the globe where I don't have personal freedom. Yay America! .

I love it too, but if people are going to make themselves sick with it, they should have to pay for it.

 

[ark steel]

You know, the alternative to adoing thousands of pages of legislation and regulations to tax whatever food you want to define, would be to stop making everyone else pay for the Healthcare for whatever you do to yourself. ...

 

[ark steel]

Want to know the first new industry that pops up after the junk food tax? Mental health diagnosis of a great number of people who can't help but eat junk food. can't tax those people extra, they can't help it.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

I have loved junk food my whole life and I am 185 pounds (at 6'2"). Take your junk food tax and stick it up your cake hole. I kind of enjoy personal freedom myself. If I wanted a tyrannical government telling me what I am allowed to eat, I'd move one of the many ****** places around the globe where I don't have personal freedom. Yay America! .

Same here. We should get a tax credit.
(54 years old, look 10 years younger, 6'1" 185 lb, 42" chest, 34" waist, bench press 305 lb, drink beer, breakfast at the donut shop almost every day.)

 

[Rod Farva]

I have freakishly huge biceps and owe it all to iced honey buns. Don't tax me bro.

 

[hamster]

All of this food talk is making me hungry,

 

[Ron Burgundy]

I have freakishly huge biceps and owe it all to iced honey buns. Don't tax me bro.

Until Foursquare wrecked their app by adding Swarm, I was Mayor of the gym, the donut shop, and two bars.
I don't see why I should be taxed just because I don't get fat.

 

[DBS1970]

You know, the alternative to adoing thousands of pages of legislation and regulations to tax whatever food you want to define, would be to stop making everyone else pay for the Healthcare for whatever you do to yourself. ...

Well there is that.

Also we could shrink government to the 18 things that the Constitution mandates, eliminate all the crimes on the books that don't have a victim and get the government out of peoples lives in general so that it doesn't need to collect so much in taxes. The Neo-Socialists always miss the point that it isn't really the governments business or any ones business but the individual if they are fat.

 

[Troglodyte]

The Neo-Socialists always miss the point that it isn't really the governments business or any ones business but the individual if they are fat.

When the government taxes people to pay for Medicaid and disability, it most certainly is the people's business. Taxing junk food is a far more equitable way to pay for it if IMO.

 

[Vader]

When the government taxes people to pay for Medicaid and disability, it most certainly is the people's business. Taxing junk food is a far more equitable way to pay for it if IMO.

You do realize that when food prices go up the government will have to adjust the amount it pays out in food stamps, disability, SSI etc...? You're just moving money around from one part of the general fund to another and taxing HEALTHY people that aren't on those programs to pay for it. Talk about equitable.

 

[Rod Farva]

More unaccountable bureaucrats making more decisions on how to take more of my money to take care of those who don't or won't. I don't see a problem here.

 

[DBS1970]

When the government taxes people to pay for Medicaid and disability, it most certainly is the people's business. Taxing junk food is a far more equitable way to pay for it if IMO.

You do realize that it isn't a legitimate function of the government to do any of that right? 18 things spelled out in the Constitution none of them authorizes Medicade or Disability.

 

[Troglodyte]

You do realize that when food prices go up the government will have to adjust the amount it pays out in food stamps, disability, SSI etc...? You're just moving money around from one part of the general fund to another and taxing HEALTHY people that aren't on those programs to pay for it. Talk about equitable.

Not really. Even if the government wasn't smart enough to account for that, food prices would go up only to the extent that your food bill consists of junk.

If you put a 15% tax on junk food and junk food makes up 20% of your bill, your total food cost goes up 3%. If junk food makes up 80%, your food bill goes up 12%.

 

[Troglodyte]

You do realize that it isn't a legitimate function of the government to do any of that right? 18 things spelled out in the Constitution none of them authorizes Medicade or Disability.

Yes, but they do. Given that, let's be smart about how it's funded.

 

[DBS1970]

Yes, but they do. Given that, let's be smart about how it's funded.

Do you think it would be better to stop the government from doing that stuff and then we wouldn't have to worry about how it was funded?

 

[oneforthebus]

Ha! Do you know the definition of objective? Numbers are objective.The nutritional content is in numbers. Some of the content (unsaturated fats, protein, fiber, vitamins and minerals) is good, some content (saturated fat, trans fat, sugar) is bad. And the nutritional value of a food or beverage depends on the balance of the two.

It's really not a matter of opinion that salmon is healthy and Mountain Dew is junk.

18 healthy foods that get a bad rap

http://www.livestrong.com/slideshow/1005844-foods-bad-rap-actually-good/#slide=2

10 so-called health foods that aren't

http://www.prevention.com/food/healthy-eating-tips/10-so-called-healthy-foods-arent

7 bad foods that are actually good for you

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...good-for-you/2012/05/22/gIQA7EsiiU_story.html

12 junk foods that are healthier than you think

http://nutrition.answers.com/healthy-foods/12-junk-foods-that-are-healthier-than-you-think

That's in about 30 seconds of looking.

Yes, we all know that Mountain Dew is probably not good for you and salmon probably is (although some would debate that due to mercury levels, but I digress)

The point is there are thousands of food choices...what causes one person to gain weight may be perfectly ok for someone else. It's all about our overall diet and lifestyle. Nobody can point to any one or 10 or 100 foods and say "That's what's causing obesity". It's very possible to eat nothing but so-called "healthy" foods and be obese, if you eat enough of them. It's very possible to eat some junk food in moderation and be at a healthy weight (my 3 kids and I are living examples of this).

I do not need the government to tell me what to eat and what not to eat, and I certainly don't need government officials who are often in the pockets of special interests including big food producers, to pick the winners and losers of this debate for me.

Perhaps it's because I have a husband who works in government relations that sensitizes me to the fact that much of what you read and hear in regards to nutrition and food is put out there by PR firms and lobbyists, who are paid solely to influence public opinion and regulatory policy.

 

[ark steel]

Do you think it would be better to stop the government from doing that stuff and then we wouldn't have to worry about how it was funded?

That is crazy talk!!

 

[Troglodyte]

The point is there are thousands of food choices...what causes one person to gain weight may be perfectly ok for someone else. It's all about our overall diet and lifestyle. Nobody can point to any one or 10 or 100 foods and say "That's what's causing obesity". It's very possible to eat nothing but so-called "healthy" foods and be obese, if you eat enough of them. It's very possible to eat some junk food in moderation and be at a healthy weight (my 3 kids and I are living examples of this).

Those articles are nonsense. They show Twinkies and Ho Hos and then mention snack cakes that are high fibre. Those aren't Twinkies and Ho Hos! They mention fried food and then stress healthier oils and moderation. So sautéing in olive oil is healthier than deep frying in lard? No ****! None of it refutes anything I've said.

Ask any PCP or bariatric surgeon and they can quickly identify foods that are causing obesity. Soda. deep fried food, fried snacks, pastries, etc you're the only person I've ever seen suggest its debatable.

Good luck finding a morbidly obese person that eats nothing but healthy foods. Watch any episode of my 600 lb Life and you'll consistently see horrible dietary choices.

 

[oneforthebus]

Those articles are nonsense. They show Twinkies and Ho Hos and then mention snack cakes that are high fibre. Those aren't Twinkies and Ho Hos! They mention fried food and then stress healthier oils and moderation. So sautéing in olive oil is healthier than deep frying in lard? No ****! None of it refutes anything I've said.

Ask any PCP or bariatric surgeon and they can quickly identify foods that are causing obesity. Soda. deep fried food, fried snacks, pastries, etc you're the only person I've ever seen suggest its debatable.

Good luck finding a morbidly obese person that eats nothing but healthy foods. Watch any episode of my 600 lb Life and you'll consistently see horrible dietary choices.

No sense arguing with someone who consistently misses the point.

"Foods" don't cause obesity, anymore than alcohol causes alcoholism. The abuse of foods does. Any food can be abused.

 

[Troglodyte]

Do you think it would be better to stop the government from doing that stuff and then we wouldn't have to worry about how it was funded?

That's another argument and a more complicated one. Unless you're willing to start taking kids from their ****-up parents and then shooting the parents in the head, you're likely creating more problems than you're solving.

 

[Troglodyte]

No sense arguing with someone who consistently misses the point.

"Foods" don't cause obesity, anymore than alcohol causes alcoholism. The abuse of foods does. Any food can be abused.

No, you're wrong. Give it up. That's like saying any beverage can lead to alcoholism. If you can prove to me that you gained weight eating nothing but celery and cucumbers, I'll give you my life savings.

 

[oneforthebus]

No, you're wrong. Give it up. That's like saying any beverage can lead to alcoholism. If you can prove to me that you gained weight eating nothing but celery and cucumbers, I'll give you my life savings.

So far, salmon, avocados, celery and cucumbers remain government approved...is that it? Or are there more things the government trusts me to be able to eat? Can you list them all? Give me your opinion on cheese, nuts. orange juice, dried fruit, pasta, meat, applesauce, potatoes, salad dressing, honey, maple syrup...all contain either high amounts of sugar, fat, or carbs...all things that science tells us cause weight gain. Who gets to decide whether they get taxed? You? Based on what, the "everybody knows" criteria?

 

[Vader]

Not really. Even if the government wasn't smart enough to account for that, food prices would go up only to the extent that your food bill consists of junk.

If you put a 15% tax on junk food and junk food makes up 20% of your bill, your total food cost goes up 3%. If junk food makes up 80%, your food bill goes up 12%.

Obviously you don't understand government budgeting, taxation or how increases in social programs work. Let's say family X spends $100 a week in food (paid for by the government). Now you put a tax on junk food. Now they are spending $150 a week ALSO paid for by the government. Guess who pays the extra $50? You either have no concept of how government works or you haven't thought this through very well.

 

[DBS1970]

That's another argument and a more complicated one. Unless you're willing to start taking kids from their ****-up parents and then shooting the parents in the head, you're likely creating more problems than you're solving.

You'd be amazed how people will stop breeding kids they cant afford when you stop subsidizing that behavior with OPM. As for taking kids away from un-fit parents and raising them in foster care where they have a chance of becoming decent productive citizens I'd be all for it. The cost of it on the front end would be way less than the generational costs we are paying now.

 

[Troglodyte]

Obviously you don't understand government budgeting, taxation or how increases in social programs work. Let's say family X spends $100 a week in food (paid for by the government). Now you put a tax on junk food. Now they are spending $150 a week ALSO paid for by the government. Guess who pays the extra $50? You either have no concept of how government works or you haven't thought this through very well.

So you are claiming that monthly food stamp allotments are based on a food price index?