The case for taxing soft drinks

 :: Main :: Social Issues

Go down

The case for taxing soft drinks

Post by TexasBlue on Sun Dec 04, 2011 11:28 am

The case for taxing soft drinks

Roger Feldman
Minneapolis Star Tribune
December 3, 2011


It is time to tax sugar-sweetened, carbonated soft drinks -- known in the Midwest as "pop." A pop tax would promote healthful behavior, reduce medical care costs and raise revenue for Minnesota.

Americans love carbonated soft drinks. Each of us consumes the equivalent of a 20-ounce bottle every day.

This is more than the people of any other country drink -- 10 times as much as the Japanese. (The number includes both diet and sugared soda, but not other sugared drinks.)

Americans' daily caloric intake from sugared soft drinks has increased by 170 percent over the past 20 years. Pop accounts for 11 percent of the total daily calories consumed by the average American woman and 8 percent of the calories consumed by the average man.

Among children, per capita soft drink consumption has increased by 500 percent over the past 50 years, making soda the most commonly consumed beverage.

One might argue that our love for pop reflects Americans' unique tastes, possibly encouraged by beverage industry advertising. But avid consumption of pop is not just an individual choice: It is a public health problem.

Research links pop to obesity, diabetes and heart disease. And according to Prof. Mark Pereira at the University of Minnesota, people who consume two or more sugared soft drinks per week are twice as likely to develop pancreatic cancer as are those who consume no soft drinks.

The link between pop consumption and obesity is especially important, given that 34 percent of adult Americans are obese and another 34 percent are overweight.

Obesity has the same association with chronic health conditions as does adding 20 years to one's age. Americans are literally drinking themselves to death -- with soft drinks.

Obesity is also associated with a 36 percent increase in medical care costs. So the consequences of excess pop consumption show up in higher health insurance premiums and additional Medicaid and Medicare spending.

How would a pop tax work?

First, the government would decide what to tax. I assume the tax would apply only to pop, but some evidence points to a link between diet soda and health problems, so a tax on all carbonated beverages should be considered.

Second, the tax rate would be set. Most pop-tax proposals call for a small tax, such as two cents per 12-ounce can, which would raise the cost of a 12-pack (now $4.80, on average) by 5 percent.

The tax would be imposed at the wholesale level, so it would show up in the "shelf price" we pay at the grocery store or vending machine.

To predict the change in behavior from such a tax, economists use a concept called the "price elasticity of demand," which measures how much consumption of a good changes when its price changes.

The price elasticity of demand for pop is about -1. This means that a 1 percent increase in price would lead to a 1 percent decrease in consumption.

With a 5 percent tax, pop consumption would fall by 5 percent. Evidence also suggests that a soda tax would increase the consumption of substitutes such as reduced-fat milk, juice, tea and coffee.

I estimate that the average Minnesotan (man, woman, and child) drinks about 360 12-ounce cans of pop per year; the tax would cause that to fall to 343 cans. Each of us would pay $6.86 more in taxes, on average, and the state would collect $36 million per year from all 5.3 million of us.

Of course, we are not all average. Pop consumption, like many other unhealthful behaviors, is greater among lower-income groups.

Thus, a pop tax would take a larger fraction of income from poor people. Such taxes are called "regressive" and are often thought to be unfair.

But according to Prof. Kelly Brownell at Yale, a leading expert on obesity and nutrition, the poor are disproportionately affected by diet-related diseases and would benefit most from reduced consumption of unhealthful foods.

A pop tax is among the least coercive methods of changing behavior. Rather than banning pop or restricting access to it, a pop tax nudges consumers to drink less pop.

Would a pop tax overextend the government's power to regulate personal choices, including the choice to make oneself fat?

In fact, people would still have that choice, but the price of pop would for the first time reflect the costs that personal choice imposes on others -- through higher health care spending, lower productivity and other negative effects.

Implementing a pop tax will not be easy. After the state of Washington passed a law in 2010 calling for a temporary two-cent pop tax, the American Beverage Association poured $16.7 million into a recall campaign.

The tax was portrayed as "taxing the shopping cart," and voters overwhelmingly repealed it, 60 percent to 40 percent.

This suggests that pop taxes will not succeed unless advocates can build grass-roots support for them.

To build public support, they might seek to dedicate some of the tax revenue to public health and antiobesity initiatives, so that the tax is not perceived as simply fixing the state's budget problems.

A poll of New York residents found that support for a pop tax jumped from 52 percent to 72 percent when respondents were told that the revenue would be used for obesity prevention.

Subsidizing healthful alternatives to pop also would build support for a pop tax, especially if subsidies bring healthful foods into neighborhoods where they are not available.

About one-half of Minneapolis and one-third of St. Paul are classified as "food deserts" -- areas where entire neighborhoods do not have a grocery store. Pop tax revenue could be used for tax breaks to grocery stores that locate in those areas.

Finally, we need to end government programs that subsidize the production of pop. The U.S. government spends about $20 billion per year subsidizing various crops, depending on prices and crop yields.

About 40 percent of this is paid to farmers who grow feed grains, including corn. Corn, turned into high-fructose syrup, is a major ingredient in pop. The average American consumes 37.8 pounds of high-fructose corn syrup per year.

Beet sugar also receives a small subsidy and is used to make pop. There is simply no reason to continue these costly subsidies.

Some advocates have called for more broadly based tax on all snack foods, or perhaps a "fat tax."

I do not recommend a general "snack tax," mainly because it would be difficult to define what constitutes a snack food.

A fat tax is also questionable. Everyone needs some fat in their diet, and the price elasticity of demand for fat is low. The tax would not lead to significant changes in behavior.

However, a pop tax meets all the conditions that the public should look for. We know how to define "pop."

Pop consumption is associated with health problems and higher medical care costs. And people will cut back their consumption in response to a small tax.

It's time to tax pop.

* * *

Roger Feldman is the Blue Cross Professor of Health Insurance at the University of Minnesota.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“I’m not in favor of fairness. I’m in favor of freedom, and freedom is not fairness. Fairness means somebody has to decide what’s fair.” - Milton Friedman
avatar
TexasBlue




Back to top Go down

Re: The case for taxing soft drinks

Post by TexasBlue on Sun Dec 04, 2011 11:31 am

I'm 100% opposed to this idea. This would open a pandora's box to all sorts of gov't taxation of products that should be chosen and consumed by personal choice. The "lets tax pop" advocates will not stop there if this passes. They didn't with cigarettes.

The tax is also unfair. It taxes the thin person who likes to drink soft drinks, but does nothing to the obese person who feels the need to order a triple patty, layered with cheese and topped with bacon mega-calorie burger. Does the person who makes bad choices in diet cost society as a whole in higher health care costs? Maybe. But if we want any shred of personal choice left, we as a society need to absorb that cost.



Roger Feldman is the Blue Cross Professor of Health Insurance at the University of Minnesota.
And talk about being bought and paid for. More social engineering. The purpose for taxation is to raise revenues not social engineering. A sin tax runs counter to the original intent of the gov't.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“I’m not in favor of fairness. I’m in favor of freedom, and freedom is not fairness. Fairness means somebody has to decide what’s fair.” - Milton Friedman
avatar
TexasBlue




Back to top Go down

Re: The case for taxing soft drinks

Post by Arx Ferrum on Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:07 pm

They tried this in Russell County, Alabama a few years ago. I was living in that area at the time and running a local blog that spent no small sum of effort in shooting this down.

The biggest issue is not whether Cola is good for you. The problem is using the sugar content as an avenue, or excuse, to create another tax. The way it was going to be administered would have been based on the fluid oz per purchase so, a 12-pack had a tax-added cost of about $1.30 and a 2-liter of about 60 cents.

They were going to make a killing off of this and kept the whole thing hush-hush until one of the county commissioners spilled the beans to the local newspaper. And not so surprisingly, the rag sidled up to the soda tax concept with editorials backing the plan.

It was soundly voted down after the public got wind of the actual cost (to them).
avatar
Arx Ferrum




Back to top Go down

Re: The case for taxing soft drinks

Post by TexasBlue on Sun Dec 04, 2011 4:08 pm

What gets me is that the people (of both ideologies) don't actually get a choice in the matter (a vote on the issue). It's usually rammed thru by a big gov't legislature.

I understand the health issue question over this (and other things) but it's ultimately the individual's choice and responsibility.

Of course, others will definitely see things the other way..... those that live and die by gov't.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“I’m not in favor of fairness. I’m in favor of freedom, and freedom is not fairness. Fairness means somebody has to decide what’s fair.” - Milton Friedman
avatar
TexasBlue




Back to top Go down

Re: The case for taxing soft drinks

Post by Guest on Mon Dec 05, 2011 2:38 am

There are so many reasons people are obese but the bottomline is that obesity causes many other diseases which cause a bigger need for health care. People without economic access to gyms and to buying vegetables and other healthy things due to cost effectiveness and the lack of money or food stamps are double whammied with it.


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The case for taxing soft drinks

Post by dblboggie on Mon Dec 05, 2011 8:24 am

This is the kind of victim mentality so prevelant on the left Cookie.

One does NOT need access to a gym to exercise. And there is no cost barrier to eating healthy as been amply proven on any number of cooking shows.

Eating healthy and exercising are PERSONAL CHOICES independent of income.

Unless there is an underlying medical condition (a REAL one), a fat person is fat by CHOICE.

And a tax on sodas will NOT fix a damn thing in that regard.
avatar
dblboggie




Back to top Go down

Re: The case for taxing soft drinks

Post by Arx Ferrum on Mon Dec 05, 2011 12:00 pm

If you take a look back 50 years ago... say, circa 1960 or so, there was no widespread problem with obesity.

The reasons are many but a few that stand out for me are that, first, we simply ate less. You went out to eat only on occasion and the dinners served at home were better for you and fresher than what you could get at an eatery anyway.

Also, buffets were hardly ever heard of except at church socials, etc. You ordered your meal off a menu and what you got was what you ate... unless you added a slice of pie at the end. There were no heaping plates and numerous return trips to the grazing pots.

Burgers were simpler, too. A moderate ground beef patty, sometimes garnished with lettuce and tomato but other times with nothing more than a squeeze of ketchup and mustard. Mom only let you eat this stuff as a special treat. McDonald's was not a food group or ever considered a substitute for a real meal.

And you know what? We walked more. We walked to the store, walked to school, walked to the bus stop to go to work, walked to church and then, took leisurely strolls to neighborhood parks on cement, pedestrian sidewalks.

Remote controls means we don't have to get up to change the channel on our TV and as far as neighborhood parks? Not so much anymore in the modern subdivision with no sidewalks, either.

At work, we may stand a lot but the blue collar workplace migrated to China. Walking and lifting and shoving and pulling and... oh my gawd, sweating, is only found in hot fast food kitchens and when the comfy a/c fails.

We don't live any more... we exist like gelatinous life forms that wallow between feedings. Coca Cola was around for almost a century before our guts outgrew our pants. It's lifestyle, laziness and comfort that has made us what we are today.

avatar
Arx Ferrum




Back to top Go down

Re: The case for taxing soft drinks

Post by dblboggie on Mon Dec 05, 2011 12:27 pm

Quite right Mike!

I grew up in the late 50's and 60's. When I was a kid I spent as little time indoors and seated as possible. I was outside playing with my brothers and my friends. We were outdoors winter, spring, summer and fall. When we weren't playing, we were doing Boy Scouting activities, or we were doing chores in the house, yard and garden.

Our parents didn't allow us to veg out in front of the TV for hours on end (not that there was much for us to watch on the 3 or 4 channels we got on that tiny black-and-white Philco TV).

There were no computers, video games, cell phones or other electronic for us to play with. Our imaginations were our entertainment. Fat kids were a rarity when I was growing up.

And being from a lower middle class family of 8 kids, we NEVER ate out. We grew our own vegetables and those could be found on our dinner table in the summer and fall.

Our country today is so vastly different than the one I grew up in, I can scarcely recognize it.
avatar
dblboggie




Back to top Go down

Re: The case for taxing soft drinks

Post by Arx Ferrum on Mon Dec 05, 2011 12:34 pm

I remember going out and collecting empty soda bottles for deposit. You could get maybe 5 of them and come away with a cold RC and a dill pickle... which was my fav summer time snack. We'd also save up the bottle caps t get into the Saturday matinee for free!

avatar
Arx Ferrum




Back to top Go down

Re: The case for taxing soft drinks

Post by dblboggie on Mon Dec 05, 2011 1:33 pm

Arx Ferrum wrote:I remember going out and collecting empty soda bottles for deposit. You could get maybe 5 of them and come away with a cold RC and a dill pickle... which was my fav summer time snack. We'd also save up the bottle caps t get into the Saturday matinee for free!


Thumbs Up

Wow! That's exactly what I would get as well! RC ruled back in the day. 15 cents would get you a cold 16oz RC and a nickle would get you a candy bar, and a penny would get one of those candy necklaces.

Man have times really changed.
avatar
dblboggie




Back to top Go down

Re: The case for taxing soft drinks

Post by Arx Ferrum on Mon Dec 05, 2011 2:15 pm

Man have times really changed.

I am not a fan of this 21st century.

I guess some of it comes from missing those things that have gone away. I think we did better when we returned things for the deposit because it taught value, a tiny bit of work ethic and our roadsides were a lot cleaner.

I bought an old, black rotary dial phone (circa 1960) back in 2004 and had it refurbished. It works fine... but the local landline services charge more now for that older-type access than they do highspeed internet service.

I miss mechanical points and carbs in vehicles... you used to be able to tune up an older (Ford) car or truck with a screwdriver, adjustable wrench and a match book cover.

*sigh*

I have a 1947 Emerson TV that still works... but needs a new power cord and power tube. I also have a 1947 Domestic (brand) sewing machine in its original cabinet. Some day, I'll load 'em up on ebay but for now, I like them in the hallway Smile

avatar
Arx Ferrum




Back to top Go down

Re: The case for taxing soft drinks

Post by dblboggie on Mon Dec 05, 2011 3:56 pm

Yeah, I know exactly what you mean. There are definitely things that I miss.

I used to have close to 30 "antique" phones, one of them, a Monarch, cathedral-top oak wall phone, the kind you cranked, and when I hooked it up mpto a POTS line, the thing still worked! A 100 year old phone and it still worked!

They just don't make stuff like that anymore.

So sad...
avatar
dblboggie




Back to top Go down

Re: The case for taxing soft drinks

Post by TexasBlue on Mon Dec 05, 2011 4:28 pm

Arx Ferrum wrote:It's lifestyle, laziness and comfort that has made us what we are today.

That's it right there. Plain and simple.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“I’m not in favor of fairness. I’m in favor of freedom, and freedom is not fairness. Fairness means somebody has to decide what’s fair.” - Milton Friedman
avatar
TexasBlue




Back to top Go down

Re: The case for taxing soft drinks

Post by Guest on Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:54 pm

dblboggie wrote:This is the kind of victim mentality so prevelant on the left Cookie.

One does NOT need access to a gym to exercise. And there is no cost barrier to eating healthy as been amply proven on any number of cooking shows.

Eating healthy and exercising are PERSONAL CHOICES independent of income.

Unless there is an underlying medical condition (a REAL one), a fat person is fat by CHOICE.

And a tax on sodas will NOT fix a damn thing in that regard.

When you are obese, getting out and walking in many of the neighborhoods which are depressed because businesses left is NOT an option. No cars to get to the park and no bus money to get there, either.

You've never been poor nor have you any clue about what little income there is for the poor after 30 years of republicans taking from them to give to the rich, have you?

Vegetables cost a LOT more than carbs...breads and cereals. Don't you grocery shop either?
How much do you think a family of 4 averages in food stamps?

The tax COULD provide more food stamps and educational programs IF the democrats were incharge of CONGRESS and the WH

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The case for taxing soft drinks

Post by TexasBlue on Tue Dec 06, 2011 4:04 pm

Cookie Parker wrote:You've never been poor nor have you any clue about what little income there is for the poor after 30 years of republicans taking from them to give to the rich, have you?

Uh oh. I think you just set yourself up with that one. Wait until Dbl responds. I'll leave it at that. lol


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“I’m not in favor of fairness. I’m in favor of freedom, and freedom is not fairness. Fairness means somebody has to decide what’s fair.” - Milton Friedman
avatar
TexasBlue




Back to top Go down

Re: The case for taxing soft drinks

Post by dblboggie on Tue Dec 06, 2011 4:30 pm

Cookie Parker wrote:
dblboggie wrote:This is the kind of victim mentality so prevelant on the left Cookie.

One does NOT need access to a gym to exercise. And there is no cost barrier to eating healthy as been amply proven on any number of cooking shows.

Eating healthy and exercising are PERSONAL CHOICES independent of income.

Unless there is an underlying medical condition (a REAL one), a fat person is fat by CHOICE.

And a tax on sodas will NOT fix a damn thing in that regard.

When you are obese, getting out and walking in many of the neighborhoods which are depressed because businesses left is NOT an option. No cars to get to the park and no bus money to get there, either.

You've never been poor nor have you any clue about what little income there is for the poor after 30 years of republicans taking from them to give to the rich, have you

Vegetables cost a LOT more than carbs...breads and cereals. Don't you grocery shop either
How much do you think a family of 4 averages in food stamps

The tax COULD provide more food stamps and educational programs IF the democrats were incharge of CONGRESS and the WH

Oh my, assuming facts not in evidence. That rules out your having a law background.

Not only was I raised in a poor family, but thanks to the economy going into the tank I have been living in poverty for the last 3 years. And when I say poverty, I mean down to one meal a day, barely covering rent in a cheap dump, and unable to afford some badly needed repairs to my 16-year-old truck. I don't have a flat screen TV, cable or internet (save on my cheap $25/month phone), no washer and dryer or any of the other amenities that many of the so-called "poor" in this country have because I refuse to accept welfare.

So I know exactly what it means to live in poverty.

And you know what? If I needed to, I could get all the exercise I need right in my tiny one-room, barn-conversion apartment.

Excuses are just that, excuses. And a tax on soda won't change a damn thing when it comes to making excuses for bad choices.
avatar
dblboggie




Back to top Go down

Re: The case for taxing soft drinks

Post by Guest on Tue Dec 06, 2011 4:42 pm

dblboggie wrote:
Cookie Parker wrote:
dblboggie wrote:This is the kind of victim mentality so prevelant on the left Cookie.

One does NOT need access to a gym to exercise. And there is no cost barrier to eating healthy as been amply proven on any number of cooking shows.

Eating healthy and exercising are PERSONAL CHOICES independent of income.

Unless there is an underlying medical condition (a REAL one), a fat person is fat by CHOICE.

And a tax on sodas will NOT fix a damn thing in that regard.

When you are obese, getting out and walking in many of the neighborhoods which are depressed because businesses left is NOT an option. No cars to get to the park and no bus money to get there, either.

You've never been poor nor have you any clue about what little income there is for the poor after 30 years of republicans taking from them to give to the rich, have you

Vegetables cost a LOT more than carbs...breads and cereals. Don't you grocery shop either
How much do you think a family of 4 averages in food stamps

The tax COULD provide more food stamps and educational programs IF the democrats were incharge of CONGRESS and the WH

Oh my, assuming facts not in evidence. That rules out your having a law background.

Not only was I raised in a poor family, but thanks to the economy going into the tank I have been living in poverty for the last 3 years. And when I say poverty, I mean down to one meal a day, barely covering rent in a cheap dump, and unable to afford some badly needed repairs to my 16-year-old truck. I don't have a flat screen TV, cable or internet (save on my cheap $25/month phone), no washer and dryer or any of the other amenities that many of the so-called "poor" in this country have because I refuse to accept welfare.

So I know exactly what it means to live in poverty.

And you know what? If I needed to, I could get all the exercise I need right in my tiny one-room, barn-conversion apartment.

Excuses are just that, excuses. And a tax on soda won't change a damn thing when it comes to making excuses for bad choices.

As you did assume facts not in evidence. Show me your facts, I'll show you mine.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The case for taxing soft drinks

Post by dblboggie on Tue Dec 06, 2011 5:02 pm

Cookie Parker wrote:
dblboggie wrote:
Cookie Parker wrote:
dblboggie wrote:This is the kind of victim mentality so prevelant on the left Cookie.

One does NOT need access to a gym to exercise. And there is no cost barrier to eating healthy as been amply proven on any number of cooking shows.

Eating healthy and exercising are PERSONAL CHOICES independent of income.

Unless there is an underlying medical condition (a REAL one), a fat person is fat by CHOICE.

And a tax on sodas will NOT fix a damn thing in that regard.

When you are obese, getting out and walking in many of the neighborhoods which are depressed because businesses left is NOT an option. No cars to get to the park and no bus money to get there, either.

You've never been poor nor have you any clue about what little income there is for the poor after 30 years of republicans taking from them to give to the rich, have you

Vegetables cost a LOT more than carbs...breads and cereals. Don't you grocery shop either
How much do you think a family of 4 averages in food stamps

The tax COULD provide more food stamps and educational programs IF the democrats were incharge of CONGRESS and the WH

Oh my, assuming facts not in evidence. That rules out your having a law background.

Not only was I raised in a poor family, but thanks to the economy going into the tank I have been living in poverty for the last 3 years. And when I say poverty, I mean down to one meal a day, barely covering rent in a cheap dump, and unable to afford some badly needed repairs to my 16-year-old truck. I don't have a flat screen TV, cable or internet (save on my cheap $25/month phone), no washer and dryer or any of the other amenities that many of the so-called "poor" in this country have because I refuse to accept welfare.

So I know exactly what it means to live in poverty.

And you know what If I needed to, I could get all the exercise I need right in my tiny one-room, barn-conversion apartment.

Excuses are just that, excuses. And a tax on soda won't change a damn thing when it comes to making excuses for bad choices.

As you did assume facts not in evidence. Show me your facts, I'll show you mine.

Your honor I object! The reply is non-responsive and argumentative!

Try again kiddo!
avatar
dblboggie




Back to top Go down

Re: The case for taxing soft drinks

Post by Guest on Tue Dec 06, 2011 5:55 pm

dblboggie wrote:

Your honor I object! The reply is non-responsive and argumentative!

Try again kiddo!

You first. Prove this

dblboggie wrote:This is the kind of victim mentality so prevelant on the left Cookie.

One does NOT need access to a gym to exercise. And there is no cost barrier to eating healthy as been amply proven on any number of cooking shows.

Eating healthy and exercising are PERSONAL CHOICES independent of income.

Unless there is an underlying medical condition (a REAL one), a fat person is fat by CHOICE.

And a tax on sodas will NOT fix a damn thing in that regard.

And btw, in discussions, no one is allowed to assume a personal tone. I can say I grew up poor and KNOW for a fact food stamps don't allow you to have enough to buy vegetables and you can't roam your neighborhoods and there we are on a FOX entertainment show saying "Uh, huh", "Ut uh". Not a discussion.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The case for taxing soft drinks

Post by dblboggie on Tue Dec 06, 2011 7:15 pm

Cookie Parker wrote:
dblboggie wrote:

Your honor I object! The reply is non-responsive and argumentative!

Try again kiddo!

You first. Prove this

dblboggie wrote:This is the kind of victim mentality so prevelant on the left Cookie.

One does NOT need access to a gym to exercise. And there is no cost barrier to eating healthy as been amply proven on any number of cooking shows.

Eating healthy and exercising are PERSONAL CHOICES independent of income.

Unless there is an underlying medical condition (a REAL one), a fat person is fat by CHOICE.

And a tax on sodas will NOT fix a damn thing in that regard.

And btw, in discussions, no one is allowed to assume a personal tone. I can say I grew up poor and KNOW for a fact food stamps don't allow you to have enough to buy vegetables and you can't roam your neighborhoods and there we are on a FOX entertainment show saying "Uh, huh", "Ut uh". Not a discussion.

You want me to prove that eating healthy and exercising is possible for the poor???

Are you serious???

I happen to know for a FACT that food stamps provide MORE than sufficient supplemental income to buy healthy foods! I happen to know someone on food stamps, so I'm not buying your unsubstantiated claim that food stamp recipients can't purchase vegetables.

And one needn't "roam" the neighborhood to get exercise. One can, as I said above, exercise at home! There's a whole industry built on it - one that requires zero equipment!

I don't know how I can make it any clearer than that.
avatar
dblboggie




Back to top Go down

Re: The case for taxing soft drinks

Post by Guest on Thu Dec 08, 2011 4:16 pm

dblboggie wrote:
Cookie Parker wrote:
dblboggie wrote:

Your honor I object! The reply is non-responsive and argumentative!

Try again kiddo!

You first. Prove this

dblboggie wrote:This is the kind of victim mentality so prevelant on the left Cookie.

One does NOT need access to a gym to exercise. And there is no cost barrier to eating healthy as been amply proven on any number of cooking shows.

Eating healthy and exercising are PERSONAL CHOICES independent of income.

Unless there is an underlying medical condition (a REAL one), a fat person is fat by CHOICE.

And a tax on sodas will NOT fix a damn thing in that regard.

And btw, in discussions, no one is allowed to assume a personal tone. I can say I grew up poor and KNOW for a fact food stamps don't allow you to have enough to buy vegetables and you can't roam your neighborhoods and there we are on a FOX entertainment show saying "Uh, huh", "Ut uh". Not a discussion.

You want me to prove that eating healthy and exercising is possible for the poor???

Are you serious???

I happen to know for a FACT that food stamps provide MORE than sufficient supplemental income to buy healthy foods! I happen to know someone on food stamps, so I'm not buying your unsubstantiated claim that food stamp recipients can't purchase vegetables.

And one needn't "roam" the neighborhood to get exercise. One can, as I said above, exercise at home! There's a whole industry built on it - one that requires zero equipment!

I don't know how I can make it any clearer than that.

I really am not interested in what you THINK you know..show me the money for a family of four on food stamps and then show me the comparable cost of food.

Show me the industry built on exercising at home....show me the costs then tell me the income for someone who qualifies for food stamps and where in their budget this industry fits.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The case for taxing soft drinks

Post by dblboggie on Thu Dec 08, 2011 9:26 pm

A truly poor family of 4 gets $623/month in food stamp benefits. If one cannot feed a family of 4 a healthy diet on that amount then they have no business being a parent.

Any more questions?

And just to point out the obvious, you keep asking me for "facts" while you present nothing more than opinion.

How about YOU present some facts for a change.

It'd a nice break from your usual DailyKos talking point posts.
avatar
dblboggie




Back to top Go down

Re: The case for taxing soft drinks

Post by Guest on Mon Dec 12, 2011 12:09 pm

dblboggie wrote:A truly poor family of 4 gets $623/month in food stamp benefits. If one cannot feed a family of 4 a healthy diet on that amount then they have no business being a parent.

Any more questions?

And just to point out the obvious, you keep asking me for "facts" while you present nothing more than opinion.

How about YOU present some facts for a change.

It'd a nice break from your usual DailyKos talking point posts.

Yeah, where's your source?


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The case for taxing soft drinks

Post by dblboggie on Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:32 pm

Cookie Parker wrote:
dblboggie wrote:A truly poor family of 4 gets $623/month in food stamp benefits. If one cannot feed a family of 4 a healthy diet on that amount then they have no business being a parent.

Any more questions

And just to point out the obvious, you keep asking me for "facts" while you present nothing more than opinion.

How about YOU present some facts for a change.

It'd a nice break from your usual DailyKos talking point posts.

Yeah, where's your source


I'm done playing your "prove it" game.

It was YOU who claimed, without substantiation I might add, that a family of 4 could not eat healthily on food stamps.

PROVE IT!
avatar
dblboggie




Back to top Go down

Re: The case for taxing soft drinks

Post by Guest on Tue Dec 13, 2011 4:55 am

dblboggie wrote:
Cookie Parker wrote:
dblboggie wrote:A truly poor family of 4 gets $623/month in food stamp benefits. If one cannot feed a family of 4 a healthy diet on that amount then they have no business being a parent.

Any more questions

And just to point out the obvious, you keep asking me for "facts" while you present nothing more than opinion.

How about YOU present some facts for a change.

It'd a nice break from your usual DailyKos talking point posts.

Yeah, where's your source


I'm done playing your "prove it" game.

It was YOU who claimed, without substantiation I might add, that a family of 4 could not eat healthily on food stamps.

PROVE IT!

You claimed they could...and survive quite well at a gym.

Code:
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/profileind.jsp?ind=26&cat=1&rgn=16

The national average per person benefit for foodstamps is $133.79/month.

That's about $42 per week.

How's that going to translate into lots of fruits and vegetables?

All in all, the amount given is about $200.00 less than you stated. You provide the three meals a day....

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The case for taxing soft drinks

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

 :: Main :: Social Issues

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum