Obama Open to 'Sin Tax' on Soda

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Obesity has gone up significantly since they replaced sugar with high fructose corn syrup. And diet sodas, with aspartame and sucralose, are worse.

So instead of taxing soft drinks because they contribute to obesity they need to bring back good old sugar and use stevia instead of the toxic chemicals they put in diet sodas, the ones that are known to be pesticide related (Splenda/sucralose) and neurotoxins (aspartame/phenylalanine).

Other countries, that still use good old sugar, don't have nearly the obesity ratio we have here in the US. Our own country didn't have this degree of obese people when we used sugar instead of HFCS, and when we used saccharin as a diet additive (which was bad enough, aspartame and sucralose are worse by a long shot).

Taxing isn't the answer, we need to stop letting them put worse and worse additives into our food. Here's what the Michelle Obama has to say about HFCS:

"And you start reading the labels and you realize there’s high-fructose corn syrup in everything we’re eating. Every jelly, every juice. Everything that’s in a bottle or a package is like poison in a way that most people don’t even know."

Don't overdose on soda, but it shouldn't be taxed - and if the first lady is refusing to let her family consume this crap then why is it in OUR food and drinks?

It's in their food, too. That's the point.

Nobody is forcing you to eat this. They're not shoving it into your mouth. If you don't want to eat it, don't eat it.

reply to post by Orion65


I agree with you 100% several years ago Royal Crown Cola marketed a premium Cola here in the United States that used pure cane sugar instead of high fructose corn syrup but alas when taking on Coke and Pepsi it's hard to make a splash.

They discontinued it here but still sell it in Australia and New Zealand.

I myself find my own tastes evolving as I mature, and don't drink much soda anymore...but high fructose straight from the industrial gallon size drum with a garden hose while snacking on cafine pills.

Wow it's so late but for some reason I am just not sleepy!

Go figure!

reply to post by Orion65



There are options. T shop at a place called Total beverage, which sells long-neck bottles of soda, that are made from cane sugar. They cost a little more than cans, but are worth the difference.

This is hardly a new idea. This has been pandered before. Bad idea? Well, considering we are the fattest nation on the planet, I'd say not. Just talk a waltz through your local wallymart, and tell me you don't think it's a good idea. Clearly Joe Citizen can't manage intelligent decisions on food, intervening by our government isn't a bad idea.

It's just a tax. If people want to continue to be fat slugs, they can by all means spend more money on it. But consider: regardless of how fair you THINK it is, the reality is everyone ends up paying for other's health one way or another. Do you enjoy paying for the care of the obese, whose problem is completely self-inflicted?

reply to post by ChilledVoodoo


Nah, it's not about obese kids, another Obama lie used as an excuse.

Anyone seen what kids are served for lunch from the schools? Between pizza, burgers, chicken nuggets, tacos - where do I start?
I've actually seen lunch menus come home, dictating where the healthy stuff was on the menu - pepperoni is the meat, the crust is bread (or starch, another yummy), the cheese a milk product (if that stuff is even real cheese (yes, I'm young enough to recall my own years in the school cafeterias)). Fries, another starch. A fruit icee, counts as a fruit (not in my house) milk for calcium (though it's so full of hormone injections, the body will adapt). Maybe a fruit cup in there for a little more fruit (saturated with fructose to the point that it's more harmful than good). If memory is with me, there isn't a veggie on the menu anywhere.

Now, while my kids don't eat school lunches, I am appalled at what is fed to these kids - a nice, steady diet of sugar-dosed junk. It's not just one part of the country, it's everywhere. (yeah, then they have the audacity to say people just haven't learned to eat proper from a young age!).

In essence, children that are more fortunate get to eat well. Children who come from financially strapped families and receive aid are eating this stuff every day.

So, soda is bad, probably more so for the teeth, as the acid is probably worse in the long haul when compared to sugar intake, as sugar is in almost every damn thing anymore. But I seriously doubt it's the number one cause of childhood obesity in this country.

And even Obama acknowledged in the article that he understands that people don't want Big Brother telling them what to eat and what not to eat.

Big Brother was his own words.

Originally posted by fleabit
Do you enjoy paying for the care of the obese, whose problem is completely self-inflicted?

Hence my idea of internment camps for fatties. They would be released once they lost the extra weight.

Everyone will buy less soda. The manufacturers and distributors will earn less. They will lay off workers to compensate. One way or the other, any tax always hits the working poor the hardest. Or is that the plan all along?

Originally posted by orderedchaos

I see tax raised on junk, but I don't see the price on healthy foods being lowered to an affordable price to encourage healthy eating.

Isn't that the truth, you would think if it was a legitimate concern the first thing they would do would be to lower the cost of the foods they claim is good for you. Secondly they would make sure all those unnecessary chemicals in foods be eliminated if they know they add nothing positive to the overall health of the human body. Thirdly all veggies and fruits would be grown without the harmful pesticides and man-made growth stimulators. Natural alternatives would be used in their place. If this issue is about helping people stay healthy there are many other more productive means of doing so without shaking people down with more taxes.

[edit on 9-9-2009 by Chai_An]

And the next statement by the president in the article:

"Legislators from certain states that produce sugar or corn syrup are sensitive to anything that might reduce demand for those products," he said. "And look, people's attitude is that they don't necessarily want Big Brother telling them what to eat or drink, and I understand that."

Originally posted by Mak Manto
It's in their food, too. That's the point.

Nobody is forcing you to eat this. They're not shoving it into your mouth. If you don't want to eat it, don't eat it.

I take it you were replying to my post? I agree, no one forces anyone to eat (or drink) anything but that wasn't my point. My point was that the corn lobbyists have made a ton of money out of practically doing away with sugar and integrating corn based sweeteners into everything. These products mess with our health, and have caused far more obesity, than other sweeteners have in the past. In a nutshell, they created this huge problem with this degree of obesity that they now want to tax.

(I personally don't buy enough soda to care one way or another if they tax it. It's the principle of it.)

As for me, if I want a soda I'll buy one with sugar on the label, and I'll buy products with stevia even if I have to pay more to do so.

Originally posted by stevegmu
reply to post by Orion65

 

There are options. T shop at a place called Total beverage, which sells long-neck bottles of soda, that are made from cane sugar. They cost a little more than cans, but are worth the difference.

Of course, I definitely agree and do choose to not drink the "poison", LOL.

A lot of my irritation at the HFCS and corn lobbyists agenda comes from the fact that I've worked in the medical field for 20+ years and have seen first hand the changes health-wise between the days of sugar as a common sweetener and now. From digestion problems to obesity and other issues this stuff (HFCS) is bad. Sugar isn't great for you but it doesn't come close in how it affects your body negatively as HFCS. (I'm not referring to diabetics, who obviously are going to be adversely affected by HFCS **or** sugar.)

It's laughable to me that soda may possibly be taxed for its contribution to obesity when we have the highest ratio of obesity ever with HFCS. Which is a choice we, the people, did not make. This junk additive is in everything. Not just soda, anything that had sugar. I'd say about 80% of products I used to buy (jam, ketchup, etc.) I now buy organic (and pay MORE) to avoid it. It's ridiculous.

How about a sin tax for everytime a politician lies to the Weople of America. We would have our National debt paid off in no time. ^Y^

This is similar to the cigarettes thing. I really don't like this at all. Now to lay this out in the front, I don't drink soda, I don't smoke. To me It doesn't look like it has anything to do with health issues. Raise taxes on addicting substances, more money for that extremely expensive Healthcare Plan that gets shoved down our throats no matter how many people approve/disapprove of it. Methinks it would be strange to see soda smuggling going on. Here, they essentially banned soda from the vending machines in the school. As you walk down the halls you saw kids selling soda out of their lockers and even worse, kids very willingly buying it for up to 50% more than the price at the local grocery store. On top of all that, higher taxes has always seemed to cause problems in the economy. I don't like this at all...

-One more point: If soda is so evil and bad and awful compared to other alternatives, why not create more incentive for the alternatives (lowering prices for alternatives, etc.) rather than just demonize and tax the hell out of the "bad" thing? OH because that might mean less money in the governmental coffers. (As if you could get much lower than -$7.1 Trillion)

reply to post by Mak Manto


You're right, he understands that people don't want big brother telling them what to eat ... but many laws are passed on the basis that 'it's good for us'.

That it's for our own good - not because it's what we want, as though we're a nation of infants.

On another note, I think pop is taxed because it's a big seller, which means money pulled in through taxes. Sure, some might drink less of it, but it's still a cash crop.
Same as cigarettes. A lot of people quit, a lot didn't, and more people probably started up out of defiance.

It's a way to pull in money, not for health reasons - that reason was made strictly to make them look good. Everything done is for the good of the little people, as we all know. They're only looking out for us, our well being, our security, our health-
Just like a big brother is supposed to do.

Originally posted by fleabit
This is hardly a new idea. This has been pandered before. Bad idea? Well, considering we are the fattest nation on the planet, I'd say not. Just talk a waltz through your local wallymart, and tell me you don't think it's a good idea. Clearly Joe Citizen can't manage intelligent decisions on food, intervening by our government isn't a bad idea.

It's just a tax. If people want to continue to be fat slugs, they can by all means spend more money on it. But consider: regardless of how fair you THINK it is, the reality is everyone ends up paying for other's health one way or another. Do you enjoy paying for the care of the obese, whose problem is completely self-inflicted?

If true that you pay for the cost of running a nanny state it's only because of the tax and spend propensity of people who advocate government taking care of citizens from cradle to coffin.

It was in fact programs like social security and medicare that were used to con tax payers into continueing to be taxed and to pay for the military industrial complex 24/7/365 even after the wars were over and the Federal Income tax should have been repealed.

You wanted big costly expensive government now you have it and your solution to it being big and costly is just to tax people more so it can get bigger and costlier.

You don't have to worry about the cost of a nanny state when you don't run a nanny state to begin with.

It's faulty thinking that never ends as one wish after another is asked for and granted from the Santa Claus in Washington that you just get to pay and pay and pay for.

reply to post by orderedchaos


Nothing the government does is ever in the citizens interest but simply in the governments interest.

There is so much waste, fraud, and corruption in how the government handles the citizens money, giving them more money is beyond comprehension.

Originally posted by amari
How about a sin tax for everytime a politician lies to the Weople of America. We would have our National debt paid off in no time. ^Y^

Taxing the politicos every time they tell a lie? We'd be the richest country on the planet, let alone paying off the national debt!

(As long as we could get them to pay up.)

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


I know.

And I know the government's primary interest is money, the same as every corporation on the planet. It all comes back to the mighty dollar.