cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:58 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:43 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2019 9:51 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2019 6:14 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2019 12:01 pm
jhu72 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2019 11:20 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2019 5:57 pm
CU77 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2019 4:43 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 8:01 pm
Now, "class traitor"...I doubt many actually think that about him, but, hey, cradle and PB and tech keep telling me awful whack job the 'left' is, so maybe they've been right all along?
Yeah, "class traitor" is a very far-left view, maybe 1 or 2% of all voters. But anti-billionaire views are quite common on the left, whether self-made or not is irrelevant. E.g., recent tweet from Warren: "One billionaire calls another billionaire and asks him to run for president—I'm shocked! Here's the deal: Companies like Amazon have too much power, and billionaires like @JeffBezos and @MikeBloomberg should pitch in so that everyone can succeed."
Yeah, but Bloomberg can chew her up on the facts.
$38 Billion in philanthropy so far, "so that everyone can succeed".
... And quite 'self-made'.
Frankly, I think it would be quite interesting to see a guy like him chew her up on this.
Anyone who thinks entrepreneurs like him are the problem with society need a bit of an education on it.
It's not as if Bloomberg isn't in favor of taxing rich folks more...it's the mechanisms to do so that he's going to be credible about explaining.
But he'll definitely take a bunch of incoming for having been so successful, so wealthy...but that is going to turn off the bulk of the Dems who disagree.
Most Dems, like most R's, actually believe in success, particularly entrepreneurial success.
I'm not so sure that Biden will be as effective in that regard, nor Pete or Amy.
So long as there are billionaires, Mike Bloomberg is an example of one to be emulated. If Trump is in fact a billionaire he is an example of one not to be emulated.
Unless you happen to like salt on your food... Even worse yet, put down that big gulp pilgrim.
When we look at our health care costs associated with diabetes and heart disease, metabolic disorders, some cancers, and more, we see that about 50% of all costs are driven by these chronic diseases, particularly with regard to poor nutritional choices. That's right, 50%, according to the CDC, could be prevented through better nutrition, another 20+% through exercise. Huge #'s. Biggest factor in why the US has so much higher healthcare costs than other developed countries (higher drug costs big other factor).
When we also realize that, unlike other countries, we provide big tax subsidies to sugar production (corn especially), we can better understand how we're so out of whack. Add to this that in rat studies sugar withdrawal was worse than cocaine withdrawal, and we have to wonder what the heck we're doing with our public policy incentives. And this is a problem that is worse with less affluent populations, whether urban or rural. It's a killer and a huge drain on the healthcare system of Medicaid and Medicare.
I'm not so sure the big gulp idea was the ideal way to attack the problem, but on a very local basis (instead of federally) there are only a few levers that can be pulled in public policy that could incentivize less rapid and heavy sugar intake. Taxing sugary drinks, limiting sizes, is a way to reduce total sugar intake by a local population. Not eliminate, just incentivize lower, and generate revenues to pay the costs of caring for folks with diabetes etc.
This is actually being done in Mexico now, funded by Bloomberg, with very good results.
IMO, the smarter federal way is to tax, not subsidize, sugar production, especially refined sugars and to instead subsidize fresh produce and healthy food access. Way better bang for the buck of federal intervention, and without denying freedom of choice altogether.
This is what I mean by a smarter 'conservative' approach to public policy.
All good intentions but you are taking away an individuals right to do with their body what they will. Educating folks about nutrition and making good choices is all well and good. My simple rule of thumb has always been all things in moderation. I love cheeseburgers and I will have them maybe 2 or 3 times a month. I don't drink sugary drinks and I work in that business. My biggest weakness is the apple fritters at my favorite donut place. I usually have one every Friday on the way to work. I won't even mention my all time favorite food... pizza with pepperoni. I would eat it every night if I could get away with it. We order a pie probably once or twice a month.
My niece who is a health fanatic has her own weakness, multiple scoops of the highest butterfat content ice cream she can find. When the government starts mandating we do something out of good intentions, it just does not go over well with most people. How many moms have lectured their kids to no end to eat your broccoli, it's good for you. Then they dress it up with melted cheddar cheese. IMO this should start in school with Home Economics courses and wnith health courses. You can't use information you never learned. Trying to learn it after you graduate probably does not work that well for most people. If you feed your kids a healthy diet from jumpstart they will maintain a healthy diet for their entire life. When you learn the concept of all things in moderation that concept sticks with you forever. I would love to eat 2 apple fritters on Fridays. I buy one and often split that with a person I work with.
I am off today for Veterans Day and am going to a local hamburger establishment for my free veterans cheeseburger with fries. I might even sprinkle a little extra salt on the fries... how bad of me.
I agree with most of what you say above, cradle, but this statement you led off with quite misrepresents everything I wrote.
"All good intentions but you are taking away an individuals right to do with their body what they will."
Nothing I wrote, nor anything Bloomberg has proposed (or accomplished in the Mexico experiment) takes away folks "right to do with their body what they will". Folks are free to make bad choices, indeed they can be expected to do so. They're human. And free.
Tilting financial incentives towards less poor choices and more towards good choices allows folks to continue to make bad choices, they just pay more than if they make better choices. People who make lots of bad choices cost society a whole lot more in health costs, lost productivity, etc, so it's quite fair that they contribute along the way...and perhaps they'll make some better choices...but that's up to them.
On the cup sizes, consumers can drink all the sugary soda they wish, instead of 64 oz all at once, they need to buy multiple smaller cups. But they are free to do so.
And you are certainly free to keep enjoying your apple fritters!
Sound good to me.
Is not imposing a tax on some form of behavior another way of attempting to control a person's behavior. I know that is what NYS has done with cigarettes to dissuade people from smoking. Another point is that more restaurants than ever have gone to unlimited refills. You purchase a cup and you can fill it with whatever beverage is on the machine. You can quaff as much coca cola as you like or ice tea, lemonade. If you are using a Coke Freestyle machine you have over 100 choices. Half of those flavors being sugar free and even flavored sparkling water. Is it fair to tax someone because they might choose a Dr Pepper over sugar free cherry lemonade? What it winds up being is a tax on an empty cup.
I thought explaining this would be easier.
"control a person's behavior"?
Can you buy and smoke cigarettes in NYS?
If yes, that's up to you (as an adult), then the answer as to "control" is no, you are not 'controlled'.
Influenced, yes, perhaps.
And if you do
choose to buy those cigs, the tax goes into the coffers to pay for your later cancer treatments and those of others making this choice.
Not everyone develops smoking related cancer, but sure is a much higher incidence.
Sugar is much the same. Over time, for many it causes chronic disease and ultimately death.
So, taxing sugar makes sense.
Conversely, instead of subsidizing sugar, subsidizing nutritionally dense foods instead, is a great way to help those foods be less expensive and more available to lower income populations. Makes a ton of sense. But no one gets 'forced' or 'controlled' into eating smarter, healthier.
The soda cup sizes is an interesting way to target the most intense, most rapid sugar intake delivery system, sugar sweetened beverages. One sugary big gulp is all the calories most folks should have for an entire dinner. But folks who drink this poison are addicted to it, so one big gulp is definitely not the pattern...and we see the results at most any 7-11...just watch the folks who come in, push the Dr. Pepper of Coke button, or the Slurpee, vs those who come in, get a bottle of water etc...radically different.
Again, you and I as taxpayers are paying for this addiction.
Do you really want to subsidize sugar?
Encourage the most rapid, drug delivery system?
Or do you want to discourage it?
As a conservative, I want my tax dollars to be used in as optimally efficient way as possible to do the most good.
I don't expect perfection, not from people nor from government, but I'm all in favor of using our noggins to encourage the outcomes we want.
But folks are free to choose and use their poisons.
I know the Republican party is a pretty pathetic group of swines. I think they still have just enough standards to drag a blue blood Rockefeller like you out to the curb and give you a swift kick in the rear end. Then again... probably not...
. MD I know a bunch of Republicans and for the most part they are all over the place in what they think and believe... you sir are the red haired step child of all of them. Exactly nothing that you post here resembles in any way shape or form what they profess to be Republican dogma. No matter how convoluted their political beliefs they all despise Democrats to the bone.
