Don't think of it as another tax. Think of it as tough love from Uncle Sam.
That's how Melissa Healy tried to sell Los Angeles Times readers on the notion of junk food sin taxes in her July 27 entry -- "Tough love for fat people: Tax their food to pay for healthcare" -- at the paper's Booster Shots blog:
When historians look back to identify the pivotal moments in the nation's struggle against obesity, they might point to the current period as the moment when those who influenced opinion and made public policy decided it was time to take the gloves off.
As evidence of this new "get-tough" strategy on obesity, they may well cite a study released today by the Urban Institute titled "Reducing Obesity: Policy Strategies From the Tobacco Wars."
[...]
Story Continues Below Ad ↓Key among the "interventions" the report weighs is that of imposing an excise or sales tax on fattening foods. That, says the report, could be expected to lower consumption of those foods. But it would also generate revenues that could be used to extend health insurance coverage to the uninsured and under-insured, and perhaps to fund campaigns intended to make healthy foods more widely available to, say, low-income Americans and to encourage exercise and healthy eating habits.
Yes, you read correctly. Healy envisions a future thinner, fitter America looking back through the history books to see the ever-so-enlightened liberal Urban Institute as the genesis of its fat-free paradise.
Of course Healy never explained the group's liberal political bent in her blog post, which concluded by suggesting that the American public is already sold on fat taxes -- ranging from 10 to 30 percent in order to be effective in behavior modifcation -- levied on "less healthy" foods -- as defined, naturally, by bureuacrats -- and that only self-interested business lobbies are incensed by the notion of fat taxes:
There can be little doubt that lobbyists for the food, restaurant and grocery industries would come out swinging on any of these proposals. But the report cites evidence of a turning political tide for proposals that would hold the obese and other consumers of nutritionally suspect food accountable for their choices. A recent national poll found that 53% of Americans said they favored an increased tax on sodas and sugary soft drinks to help pay for healthcare reform. And even among those who opposed such an idea, 63% switched and said they'd favor such a tax if it "would raise money for health-care reform while also tackling the problems that stem from being overweight."
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Infiltrated by LEFTISTS.
July 28, 2009 - 14:00 ET by maxvoltExcuse me, but I know a lot of skinny twinkie, sugary sweets eaters, this is bogus, only some people have a problem with sugar sweets hurting them.
Also since when is the land of the FREE a place where Government can tell you, or even disuade you from eating what you want? Since when?
I'll tell you when, since we have been infiltrated by Communists, marxists and socialists and live in complete denial that has happened to 99% of the members of the democrat party and 50% of the republican party...its that obvious.
PROOF: The Government has NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to impose any policy or law that makes YOU (WE THE PEOPLE) DEPENDENT UPON GOVERNMENT...ever hear of the Declaration of Independence? have we lost our minds..vote everyone who thinks or speaks like this current crop of LEFTISTS OUT OF OFFICE...lets add them to the unemployment lines.
A recent national
July 28, 2009 - 14:02 ET by motherbeltA recent national poll
found that 53% of Americans said they favored an increased tax on sodas
and sugary soft drinks to help pay for healthcare reform. And even
among those who opposed such an idea, 63% switched and said they'd
favor such a tax if it "would raise money for health-care reform while
also tackling the problems that stem from being overweight."
Some Americans would favor a tax on anything if it would help the government give them benefits paid for by OPM.
That poll is from June
July 28, 2009 - 14:06 ET by lsudolemitebefore a lot of the details of the various gov't health care bills came to light. I wonder if that same poll were taken today what the results would be.
Not only that, ask the same
July 28, 2009 - 14:14 ET by motherbeltNot only that, ask the same people if they would favor a tax on fatty foods to fund, say, light rail or a border fence and see what they say.
I just remembered, was it
July 28, 2009 - 14:05 ET by maxvoltI just remembered, was it the NAZI's in world war II who last tried to create the Master Race? Wasnt that whole ideology found to be completly void of morals and ethics? Now why are we tolerating it here today? Have we become this stupid as a nation that we vote in these diabolical types who steal you liberties from right under your noses as they say "we are just trying to help you"...and you nod your head in a agreement and say...my, how nice of them...i like him/her....pathetic.
Well while we're at it Ms. Nealy
July 28, 2009 - 14:16 ET by lsudolemiteHow about we impose a surtax on top of the federal income tax rates for people with families with 2 or more children? After all, these are just extra people who will be placing an additional burden on the national health care system and aren't needed for replacement birth rates. Let's go even further. Along the same lines, we could give a tax cut to women who have an abortion (excuse me, exercise their right to choose) for their contribution to the system.
Let's also tax the hell out of alcohol since it has no nutritional value and only enables alcoholics in their addiction. Since we're taxing vices, how about a surtax on gambling winnings? Just incredible.
Amen. Any time you hear
July 28, 2009 - 14:18 ET by HockeyKidAmen. Any time you hear the phrases "for the children" or "for the common good", you should immediately grab your wallet and your rifle, 'cause they're coming for your money and your freedom.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
This is impossible to..
July 28, 2009 - 14:08 ET by sam12663... implement. What is a fattening food to some, may not be to others. I, personally, have an issue with carbohydrates, so I control my weight better with a higher protein, low carb Atkins type diet. Would I be taxed more because I tend to eat more meats and cheeses, even though it is the only way I can control my weight? I would like to see this administration try and push this, because they would open themselves up to numerous discrimination suits. Also, alot of those so called 'healthy' non fat/ fat free snacks and breakfast bars are loaded with sugar, so will they be taxed if they are sold as 'healthy'. Have you ever looked at the nutrition facts on a pack of granola? That is some of the highest fat per ounce food available. This is just a crock, and another way to try and control behavior and personal responsibility.
President Obama is nothing more than a lying empty suit; a Hollywood style special effects smoke and mirrors show that has shown itself to be a total fraud.
WAKE UP AMERICA! SAVE OUR CONSTITUTION!
I'll bet any amount you
July 28, 2009 - 14:15 ET by HockeyKidI'll bet any amount you want to name that we won't hear the talking heads or their counterparts in Congress recommending a gay tax anytime soon. But why not? If behavior that creates a public health risk is the target, there should be a huge tax on gays.
But only if the concern is truly for public health...
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Gay tax
July 28, 2009 - 14:40 ET by sam12663The gay community is right up there with the African American community; they have been discriminated against for so long, they will be exempt from all taxes. Lets be real here folks, all of these new taxes, health care proposals, and environmental crap is just a smoke screen for what Obama is really up to; redistribution of wealth and reparations for slavery. This man is a closet racist, as well as a facist, and he hates capitalism just as much as he hates the white man. I hope all of you 'Hopey Changey moderates' that voted for this clueless buffoon enjoy the new America.
As for me, I choose to answer the call to arms, and start the next revolution.
President Obama is nothing more than a lying empty suit; a Hollywood style special effects smoke and mirrors show that has shown itself to be a total fraud.
WAKE UP AMERICA! SAVE OUR CONSTITUTION!
Well the liberals do
July 28, 2009 - 14:18 ET by MidAmericaWell the liberals do believe they can control the earths weather with higher taxes. In fact, just by raising taxes, there isn't any problem they can't fix.
Obesity a problem???
July 28, 2009 - 14:40 ET by IgnatzJFahrquarSome simple rules:
1) Stop overeating. Use portion control. A 1/2 pound hamburger plus a BASKET of fries is not healthy ... nor is a whole bucket of chicken wings.
2) Oh, you just can't control yourself??? Then exercise. Walk, bike, run, lift weights, whatever ... get active. You'd be amazed at how the pounds drop once your metabolism is built up.
3) Fat kids??? Stack all the video game consoles and take a sledge hammer to them. I hate the ole "when I was a kid", but ... When I was a kid, during Summer I was out of the door at 8 am, made a brief appearance for lunch and dinner, and was not back in until the sun went down. To be safe, lockup the room with the computer and confiscate any texting device, too.
Oops. These are practical solutions that don't let the guvmint get their sticky paws in my wallet.
"You should always tell the truth, because if you tell the truth you make it the other person's problem." Sean Connery
I'm sick of people treating healthcare as a "right".
July 28, 2009 - 14:46 ET by WhoIsJohnGaltIf you see it as a "right", then you believe that you have a claim on someone else's labor.
From where I sit, the people who are most in favor of Galactic Healthcare are the ones that know that the only way that they can get their healthcare paid for is by forcing others to pay for it.
Here's a novel idea...YOU pay for YOURS, and I'LL pay for MINE. I'll do just fine on the open market, thank you very much, because I'm not out of control with my personal habits; eating, smoking, drinking, lack of exercise, etc. And if you can't afford health insurance that covers all your ailments, then maybe you need to forego that new car or that big screen TV and scale down or slim down so you can afford coverage.
But if Galactic Healthcare is an out-of-control train that can't be stopped, then yes, tax the things that lead to illnesses that cost the most to treat; cigarettes, soda, chips, etc. As a last resort, but at least you'll get the fatty-fat-fatties to pay for some of their behavior.
Hope and Change my A$$
July 28, 2009 - 14:42 ET by sam12663The gay community is right up there with the African American community; they have been discriminated against for so long, they will be exempt from all taxes. Lets be real here folks, all of these new taxes, health care proposals, and environmental crap is just a smoke screen for what Obama is really up to; redistribution of wealth and reparations for slavery. This man is a closet racist, as well as a facist, and he hates capitalism just as much as he hates the white man. I hope all of you 'Hopey Changey moderates' that voted for this clueless buffoon enjoy the new America.
As for me, I choose to answer the call to arms, and start the next revolution.
President Obama is nothing more than a lying empty suit; a Hollywood style special effects smoke and mirrors show that has shown itself to be a total fraud.
WAKE UP AMERICA! SAVE OUR CONSTITUTION!
A modest diet proposal for government
July 28, 2009 - 14:51 ET by Vivaldi5More likely result: a fatter, more obese government, sucking tax dollars through yet another channel that becomes an entrenched 'untouchable' federal program (like Social Security) which it's unthinkable to ever discontinue. Oh, and expect those revenues to disappear down some bureaucratic rat hole as the fat people who paid additional taxes on foods bad for them find the Obama-created health care commisars telling them, "Sorry, no health care for you, chubby--now please pass away for the good of the State. Next!"
We know government would dearly love to find an excuse to tax us 'for our own good' and to discourage obesity. Now what 'tax' can we devise to discourage an overweight, craving-more, bloated and nearly immobile and sclerotic government, curbing its urge to "pig out" at the endless trough of extorted citizen dollars--to encourage it to be slimmer and trimmer and more efficient?
Funny how Washington never seems to get around to a diet plan like that. Of course since it's mainly hungry pigs doing the designing....
Let
July 28, 2009 - 15:13 ET by jessieHLet the MSM make jokes. Let's see how funny it is when the govt. goes after their caffeine. The next tax will be on starbucks. No taxation without representation!
Wait, I'm
July 28, 2009 - 15:14 ET by TheConservativeChemistWait, I'm confused...
So the tax would discourage people from buying the good...but it would also increase tax revenue? If fewer people are buying it, how is that going to INCREASE revenue?
Only the idiot communists of the Democratic Party could use circular back-asswards logic like this with a straight face...
July 28, 2009 - 15:16 ET by jessieHRemember, back in history, when the brits taxed the tea? How did that work out for them?
As An Ex-Smoker
July 28, 2009 - 15:25 ET by JustAlI just have to say, "I told you so."
Next item, "Guns are a health issue." Mark my words.
Every time I see one of
July 28, 2009 - 15:36 ET by RR GOPEvery time I see one of these things I am reminded of the scene from the 1984 version of Nineteen Eighty-Four where the Winston Smith character has to do calisthenics before the Big Brother screen when he gets up in the morning. Even gets chastised for not bending down far enough and not touching his toes.
At least in Airstrip One they were allowed to smoke.
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 61% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory (yep...approval for Congress now at 39%...do you believe that!?).
Didn't a lot of us say that
July 28, 2009 - 15:44 ET by Chris NormanDidn't a lot of us say that once the health nazi nannies had tobacco beaten down, the next thing they'd do would be to go after overweight people and the food they ate? Didn't the apologists for the nanny mentality say, "Oh, no, there's no slippery slope here. You're just overreacting, as usual". Case closed - these people are control freaks who will never be satisfied until they control everything in people's lives.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
www.cheaptwinkies.ca
July 28, 2009 - 15:59 ET by SickofLibsI am so starting a Canadian Twinkie e-commerce website.
I already signed up Ed Schultz - that alone should get me through the first six months.
And if those Native Americans try to muscle in with reservationtwinkies.us or whatever, I'll be ready.
I don't think taxing food
July 28, 2009 - 16:33 ET by CacciatoI don't think taxing food makes any sense because you have no idea who's actually buying it but I'm fine with the concept of Fat Taxes.
I can think of many instances where it is fair. Two that come to mind are:
1) Normal people have to pay extra money if their luggage is over a certain weight, yet fat people can be as heavy as they want and incur no penalty. That makes no sense to me. Shouldn't the overall weight limit be the same for everyone?
2) A friend of mine works for David's Bridal. They charge tall women extra money for the extra fabric used to make a longer dress, yet they don't charge fat women extra money for the extra fabric necessary to accomodate their girth. This makes no sense to me.
While the idea of taxing food seems ridiculous to me, I do think it's time to stop coddling fat people and start addressing the issue head on. It's not ok to be fat.
It's also none of your
July 28, 2009 - 17:14 ET by fitzfongIt's also none of your concern. If a business wants to charge more for heavier people, it should have the right to do so and face the financial consequences for its policy. If an airline charges extra for fat people, those fat people might be encouraged to shop around to find more competitive airfares. David's Bridal would be making a business decision to charge tall and/or fat people more money for the extra material used for the garments they sell, and it would be within their rights to do so as they would then not be passing on the costs to those who don't use the extra material. Heavier brides can always shop around to get a better deal if David's Bridal chooses to put a "fat premium" on their dresses. But government has no right to confiscate my money for a "service" it pretends to offer me (a "service", by the way, that I don't need or want) and tell me that because my money has been stolen to provide this service I don't want, that I am going to have to live as I'm told to live to protect the "investment" made on "my behalf". SCREW THAT!
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
Fitz, I never said they
July 29, 2009 - 14:46 ET by CacciatoFitz,
I never said they had to do any of those things. I just said if they did, it would be fair.
If private businesses
July 29, 2009 - 20:37 ET by fitzfongIf private businesses wanted to do those things, it would be fine as, rest assured, competitors would have the opportunity to close the market gap. Not so when government runs such an operation...the intention is to leverage and destroy competition to assume control over behavior "for our own good".
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
Pursuing the idea further,
July 28, 2009 - 17:26 ET by Chris NormanPursuing the idea further, we should consider taxing hiking, skiing, and camping equipment to help pay for the search and rescue missions when the "healthy" people get lost or injured in the middle of nowhere.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
"1)Shouldn't the overall
July 28, 2009 - 18:29 ET by ckc1227"1)Shouldn't the overall weight
limit be the same for everyone?"
It is the same. Luggage and people are different things.
"It's not ok to be fat."
Hmm....I think someone just outed themselves.
Don't waste your breath on these people
July 28, 2009 - 18:39 ET by lsudolemiteI've run into my fair share in the past and believe me, they revel in being able to use weight to look down on you, since it's no longer socially acceptable to be a racist or a homophobe. No amount of logic or reasoning will sway these types.
If you truly want to see the epitome of fat hatred, check out Meme Roth the next time she's on Fox News. Why they continue to invite this woman is beyond me, other than a naked ratings grab. She runs some sort of "national" nonprofit that consists of only herself and acts like some sort of health authority (she's not). In her last appearance, she was trying to argue that Obama's Surgeon General pick shouldn't have the job because she's "obese" (she's slightly overweight at most). In a previous appearance she argued Jordin Sparks shouldn't be on American Idol for setting a bad example because she was also "obese" in her highly educated opinion.
ckc, Yes I understand
July 29, 2009 - 14:35 ET by Cacciatockc,
Yes I understand that.
BUT if someone can bring 200 extra pounds of body fat over the normal average weight calculated by the airline to reach their luggage figures, than shouldn't I be able to bring an excess amount of luggage without penalty?
What's the ultimate difference for the airplane if it's 100 pounds of luggage or 100 pounds of fat? Doesn't it still burn the same amount of fuel?
→ Leon
July 30, 2009 - 10:34 ET by Cool ArrowYour fat-hate is shining through.
Hope is an excuse for doing nothing - Rush Limbaugh
Well, why don't you take up
July 30, 2009 - 15:22 ET by fitzfongWell, why don't you take up that question with the airline(s)? Run it up the flag pole and see who salutes. My sense is that the airlines will reject your idea because they'd want to avoid losing valuable market share by offending a segment of their potential customer base (not just overweight passengers, but passengers of all shapes and sizes who might object to a policy that can be perceived as discriminatory).
People are more inclined to tolerate a restriction of luggage weight because it holds everyone to an objective standard and because each passenger can be reasonably expected to be able to follow the objective guidelines. If you weigh over 300 lbs. (whether you be 5'9" or 7'5"), there's not a lot you can do in the moment to decrease your weight...especially for the extremely tall, for whom 300 + lbs. might be at or near an ideal weight). But seriously, if you think you might be able to convince an airline to allow you to carry heavier luggage because you weigh less, go for it. Rest assured, an airline that follows your advice will be cannibalizing itself.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
BS flag!!
July 28, 2009 - 19:25 ET by motherbeltA friend of mine works for David's Bridal. They charge tall women
extra money for the extra fabric used to make a longer dress, yet they
don't charge fat women extra money for the extra fabric necessary to
accomodate their girth. This makes no sense to me.
I call Bull$h!t on that.
Plus-size clothing ALWAYS costs more than regular women's sizes.
Just take a look at any clothing catalogue to see for yourself.
Or, you could just look at this David's Bridal catalogue listing: you can see that this gown in size 0 to 16 costs $699 and size 14W to 26W costs $749. Or This One with a similar price difference of $100
To put it kindly, you know not of what you speak.
A few years ago, two or
July 28, 2009 - 23:30 ET by Seabeach4348A few years ago, two or three, the CDC and the AMA once again moved the goal post for the number of pounds over the prescribed ideal weight on those little arbitrary charts where a person would be considered overweight. It used to be, and I'm not 100% on this figure, let's say 50 pounds. Now it's 25 pounds or so, and instantly this creates hundreds of thousands of "obese" people overnight by default. And I do believe that the CDC and the AMA leans a bit left more than to the right.
MB,You are correct and I
July 29, 2009 - 14:36 ET by CacciatoMB,
You are correct and I was wrong. My apologies for the misinformation. I confirmed with my David's Bridal friend and I had misunderstood her story.
The instance I was talking about has to do with alterations to BRIDESMAID dresses.
Plus sized wedding dresses do carry an additional charge (rightfully so) but that is not the case for Bridesmaid dresses.
I still think my example is a good one. If tall women have to pay extra so should fat women.
It's a pretty simple concept.
<<While the idea of taxing
July 28, 2009 - 23:44 ET by Seabeach4348<<While the idea of taxing food seems ridiculous to me, I do think it's time to stop coddling fat people and start addressing the issue head on. It's not ok to be fat. >>
Isn't this a contradiction? And why do you think "fat people" are "coddled"? "Fat" people generally pay an extra percentage in their health insurance premium based on their weight, so they are already penalized. They've already paid for the perceived extra burden they place on the health care system, so what's your argument there?
Regardless, this is nothing compared to how each and every one of us will be penalized under ObamaCare.
So it's not ok to be fat, Cacciato?
July 29, 2009 - 09:32 ET by misterbee241By whose standards to you make that assumption? I dont know you or any of your physical defects, as you seem to think obesity is, but I gaurantee you this - they came for the smokers, they're coming for the fat people. People like you are next because you're life isnt perfect either - somewhere along the line there is something in your life that will tax the system. When all smokers and fat people are relocated to re-education camps, you'll be next.
I am a free-born FAT American. I'm not asking for you or anybody else to pay for my healthcare and neither you or the government have a right to tell me how to live.
I wonder why I even dignified this bigoted post with a reply.
"I dont need to read a newspaper to know the world's been shaved by a drunken barber."
Walter Brennan, The Colonel, Meet John Doe, 1941
Misterbee, Obesity is not
July 29, 2009 - 14:43 ET by CacciatoMisterbee,
Obesity is not a physical defect and neither is smoking. They are voluntary behaviors that should have consequences associated with them.
Your idea about re-education camps is insane.
Smoking is bad for you, being fat is bad for you. You can do it if you want, but once the negative behavior impacts others, it can be regulated. Why do you have problem with this? Was it fair for all the non-smokers on the airplane to be subjected to smokers back when it was still legal? No.
Elevators have weight limits. Should fat people be allowed on an elevator if it causes the weight to exceed the maximum limit simply b/c everyone has equal rights? I don't think so.
Be fat all you want. I couldn't care less, just means I have a better chance of getting a job and winning a foot race than you. But if your fatness impacts my life negatively, than you can be sure I'll say something about it.
ON a side note, explain how my post is bigoted.
Ladies and Gentlemen
July 29, 2009 - 09:46 ET by BlondeI submit to you proof positive of a prime example of repetitive trolldom.
They can run, but they can't hide. I recognized our old friend Leon almost from Cacc's very first post. It is damn near impossible to disguise phrasing, writing style, spelling peculiarities, and puckishness about certain topics (note Leon's absolute axle-wrapping whenever I post my "better class of troll" phrase).
And here is the coup de grace. Fatties. Leon hated fatties, IIRC he even had a whole Forum thread about fatties.
Ha ha Leon....I knew you couldn't do it....refrain from your fatty prejudice.
Sheesh, fella. Try harder next time, okay?
We need a better class of troll, here. ©
I hope he fails, too.
Blonde, There is no fat
July 29, 2009 - 14:33 ET by CacciatoBlonde,
There is no fat hate at all, I just think that in some instances fat people should have to pay for their fatness.
For instance, I was on Amtrak the other week going to DC and I had a reserved seat next to a fat guy who was literally overflowing into my seat entirely. That guy should have had to buy two tickets.
I think this is entirely fair. No hate here, just simple reality.
I don't care, Leon
July 29, 2009 - 14:35 ET by BlondeTa ta, now.
I hope he fails, too.
Blonde, If you don't care
July 29, 2009 - 14:36 ET by CacciatoBlonde,
If you don't care about me, then why do you continue to respond to me?
It's such a strange phenomenon.
Why
July 29, 2009 - 14:42 ET by BlondeTo show you for the liar and fake you truly are.
Not strange at all, Leon.
I hope he fails, too.
So you DO care. Why
July 29, 2009 - 14:45 ET by CacciatoSo you DO care.
Why pretend you don't?
And by the way I haven't lied about anything.
Hardly, retread
July 29, 2009 - 14:57 ET by BlondeWe need a better class of troll, here. ©
I hope he fails, too.
For Cacc, with love: ( ! )
July 29, 2009 - 15:01 ET by SickofLibs( ! )
It's an emoticon for FAT ASS. Enjoy, and go get 'em!
Some years ago, a fat pant
July 28, 2009 - 16:48 ET by fitzfongSome years ago, a fat pant load in the California State Assembly by the name of Debra Ortiz tried to push for a tax on soda to subsidize a proposed "Childhood Obesity" slush fund. She came with all the smug, know-it-all bluster we've come to expect from the food Nazis, but she was sunk like the Titanic once she tried to promote that idea outside of her left-wing echo chamber. As far as I can tell, she's not been heard from since. The pseudo-scientists behind "The Cancer Project" and "The Center For Science in the Public Interest" (nice euphemisms) occasionally surface with new trial balloon proposals for taxes based on junk science...but once they bring those proposals past their apologists in the media to the general public, these weenies are usually met with the sledge hammer of public rejection, at which point they retreat to their miserable little caves to plot new strategies to deceive people into accepting tax increases. The politician who attempts to get between me and my food/drink/smoke/leisure choices is one who better get used to the taste of fist.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
Yeah! Scapegoat fat
July 28, 2009 - 18:57 ET by NonArabOmarYeah! Scapegoat fat people.
Why don't we tax unwed mothers and gays? Kids born out of wedlock are more likely to become a burden on society. And gays get infected with HIV/AIDS at a higher percentage than the rest of the country, putting a burden on the medical system.
How a mega promiscuity sex tax? STDs and bastard children are expensive on tax payers.
Liberals diverting attention from other social "ills" and finding a way to justify a new tax.
Yes, we live in a nation increasingly populated by lardasses
July 28, 2009 - 19:40 ET by R D HelmSo what? This is the United Stated of America, and as far as I am concerned, you have the God-given, Constitutional right to be a blubberbutt if you want to be.
-Dave
Same logic
July 28, 2009 - 20:58 ET by nadadhimmiSmoking delivers nicotene into the body and it is a mind altering substance as all good liberals know. Barack Obama is a nicotene addict of long standing. Therefore, he is unfit to hold office as his brain function is impaired. Jack Murtha is a fat bastard, therefore should be removed from office as his thought processes lead him toward the self destructive behavior of overeating and that is a form of mental illness. All people that engage in antisocial, self destructive, suspect or anti-socialist behavior must be silenced or imprisoned for the "common good" and "welfare of the State". That's what Gulags are for, comrades.
Same logic
July 28, 2009 - 20:59 ET by nadadhimmiSmoking delivers nicotene into the body and it is a mind altering substance as all good liberals know. Barack Obama is a nicotene addict of long standing. Therefore, he is unfit to hold office as his brain function is impaired. Jack Murtha is a fat bastard, therefore should be removed from office as his thought processes lead him toward the self destructive behavior of overeating and that is a form of mental illness. All people that engage in antisocial, self destructive, suspect or anti-socialist behavior must be silenced or imprisoned for the "common good" and "welfare of the State". That's what Gulags are for, comrades.
Skinny ***** is just mad
July 28, 2009 - 23:12 ET by Cthulhu2012Skinny ***** is just mad because once High Priest Algore's GLOBAL WARMING tm causes an ice age us fat folk are gonna be standin around in the snow sweating in tank tops and shorts watchin her freeze to death.
Why choose the lesser of two evils?
True, True, True!
July 29, 2009 - 07:46 ET by LastKnownOneI wholeheartedly agree!!!!!!!
Oh, let's just have a national weigh-in
July 29, 2009 - 13:13 ET by StarAZLet the skinnies weigh us--demean us, tax twinkies (I don't eat sweets, but others could have a freedom removed)--then yes, there is a part 2. In part 2, all extreme sports are taxed, motorcycles or mountain bikes (don't call them brain buckets for nothing), expensive running shoes that lead to knee and hip replacements, no more rock climbing (why should I pay for your bad judgment?), those Energy Drinks, nope (basically soda with speed). No more full body scans, too expensive and only young "worried well" want them anyhow. Let's see, what else...
This proposal is a "racist"
July 29, 2009 - 14:59 ET by Jack BauerThis proposal is a "racist" tax. I'm surprised Hney Gates hasn't accused the tax of racism yet.
It is clearly established that our African-American brothers and sisters, on average, carry more poundage than other ethnicities. No joke: that is true. Japanese Sumo wrestlers do not count.
This tax is therefore discriminatory.
Sigh....
July 30, 2009 - 10:26 ET by LorraineDon't they ever learn? Increasing the tax on "junk" food will just make people buy less of it, hence, no additional tax money for greedy government.
And smart people will get their junk food anyway by making it themselves. Mix carbonated water with juice for pop, it tastes better anyway. And homemade candy and cookies are hands down better tasting.