Bill Clinton opposes soda tax

Part of me isn't really surprised. Not necessarily on a policy level, but more like he seems to be the kinda guy that likes him some sodie pop.



For me, the "unsavorable" thing about this isn't really the tax per se, but that it seems like the Center for Science in the Public Interest is soapboxing it as an "evils of sugar/unnatural foods" thing. Remember, CSPI is the same group that wants everyone to give "carrot sticks and cantaloupe" as Halloween treats instead of candy, and stated a few years ago "we could envision taxes on butter, potato chips, whole milk, cheeses, and meat." CSPI is an advocacy group (like PETA, NRA, etc.). Just because they have "science" in their name, we shouldn't assume unbiased scientific research... they've been caught manipulating data in the past (not saying or even suggesting that's the case here, just that they seem to be a bit "out there" in fringe-land sometimes).

dajafi wrote:

Werthless wrote:

dajafi wrote:As for the soda tax... Paterson proposed this in NYS a few months ago and I was against it. Now that it's the feds, I'm kind of between indifferent and supportive. I'd like to think there's some justification I can point to beyond "Obama good, Paterson bad," but...

With me, it's the opposite. I'd rather some bankrupt local area do something stupid than have it be federal policy.

Why would a soda tax be "something stupid?" It seems less painful than most of the alternatives, and might even contribute to a drop in the diabetes rate and resultant public health expenditures.

Yeah, that was lazy by me. Substitute "stupid" with "unappealing," "undesirable," or "something I don't support."

CrashburnAlley wrote:I don't feel like going back and quoting a relevant post but since I saw it discussed -- I love the soda tax idea. I don't know how you could be against it, unless you are flatly against all taxes. Wonder what Ron Paul has to say about it?

Or Stephen Colbert.

Lots of people buy soda, so there isn't a burden on any one selected group of people, and it's a quick and easy way to raise more funds.

So, I assume you would also support taxes on the following goods, the goods and magnitude of the tax to be decided at the discretion of our trusted Congress:

chocolate
Steak
Bacon
beer
salad dressing
mayo
cheesesteaks
sour cream
pasta
fried food
artificial sweeteners
salt
coffee
eggs

The problem is that applying the logic used for this tax can only be done in an arbitrary way. And I tend to hate government actions that are applied arbitrarily. Anyone can conduct a study to find that X food is bad for you in some way or another. In moderation, all of these foods are fine for you, but in excess, they will all lead to health problems. "Things that are bad for you" can encompass all sorts of foods, drinks, and activities, and we're entrusting our Congresspeople and their favorite lobbyists with deciding how much we should pay to eat certain foods. I hate slippery slope arguments, but it's clear that there is one here; soda will not be the only targeted drink/food. Opposition to the soda tax has little to do with soda for me (I drink it 4 times a year or something).

Oh, and poor people will indeed bear the brunt of this cost, on average. I'm fairly certain that poor people drink more soda, and therefore, spend a higher percent of their income on soda.

pacino wrote:

Werthless wrote:There is a new demarcation between those accepting the recession's realities and those resistant to it.

Call it a tale of two economies. Private-sector workers -- unionized and nonunion alike -- can largely see that without compromises they may be forced to join unemployment lines. Not so in the public sector.
...
A study in 2005 by the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute estimated that the average public-sector worker earned 46% more in salary and benefits than comparable private-sector workers. The gap has only continued to grow. For example, state and local worker pay and benefits rose 3.1% in the last year, compared to 1.9% in the private sector, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
...
Some five million private-sector workers have lost their jobs in the last year alone, and their unemployment rate is above 9% according to the BLS. By contrast, public-sector employment has grown in virtually every month of the recession, and the jobless rate for government workers is a mere 2.8%.

The conditionssurrounding the stimulus plan also perpetuate these realities, as the wages of public health care workers were deemed untouchable by the stimulus dispensers.

So what's your point?

Mainly, I thought the unemployment rates of private sector vs. public sector were really interesting, and reflective of the comparative difficulty in paring back costs in the public sector. I was not aware that public sector employment has RISEN during this recession.

Public sector employment grows during a recession for the same reason spending rises. It's supposed to be counter-cyclical.

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:

Werthless wrote:There is a new demarcation between those accepting the recession's realities and those resistant to it.

Call it a tale of two economies. Private-sector workers -- unionized and nonunion alike -- can largely see that without compromises they may be forced to join unemployment lines. Not so in the public sector.
...
A study in 2005 by the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute estimated that the average public-sector worker earned 46% more in salary and benefits than comparable private-sector workers. The gap has only continued to grow. For example, state and local worker pay and benefits rose 3.1% in the last year, compared to 1.9% in the private sector, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
...
Some five million private-sector workers have lost their jobs in the last year alone, and their unemployment rate is above 9% according to the BLS. By contrast, public-sector employment has grown in virtually every month of the recession, and the jobless rate for government workers is a mere 2.8%.

The conditionssurrounding the stimulus plan also perpetuate these realities, as the wages of public health care workers were deemed untouchable by the stimulus dispensers.

So what's your point?

Mainly, I thought the unemployment rates of private sector vs. public sector were really interesting, and reflective of the comparative difficulty in paring back costs in the public sector. I was not aware that public sector employment has RISEN during this recession.

Demand and reliance on government rises during down times. One would think supply would rise with that in order to adequately provide various services. Alas, there has been a hiring freeze for 6+ months in Pennsylvania with an indeterminate end date, and yet the largest budget ever is currently being debated. Who will administer said budget? Who knows?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WVmZUi2mHU&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politico.com%2Fblogs%2Fscorecard%2F0509%2FRon_Pauls_son_running_for_Senate.html&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

"We've lost our believability."

I think he means credibility. He's like a cross between George Bush and Ron Paul. If I close my eyes, he sounds like Ron Paul, but making up words.

So I was looking at Phillies' political donations, and as expected a lot of money given by ownership to MLB's PAC. Also a lot for PA politicians of both parties by members of the front office, especially Giles and Monty. Giles seems like he's more of a Republican having given a bunch to the national party and McCain, Monty more of a Dem. Both have given to Bunning actually, the only out of state pol. I think the best donation by a member of the organization is Thome gave $600 in 2005 to the National Italian American Political Action Committee.

Werthless wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch.v=_WVmZUi2mHU&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politico.com%2Fblogs%2Fscorecard%2F0509%2FRon_Pauls_son_running_for_Senate.html&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

"We've lost our believability."

I think he means credibility. He's like a cross between George Bush and Ron Paul. If I close my eyes, he sounds like Ron Paul, but making up words.

"Drinkability" has run amuck

Bloomberg campaign spending thus far: $18.7 million

I'm starting to think his goal is to win unanimously.

dajafi wrote:Bloomberg campaign spending thus far: $18.7 million

I'm starting to think his goal is to win unanimously.

I got a flyer from his campaign the other day. Its not as bad as your phone call, but seriously? 6 months from the election with no opponent with any real name recognition? You need to campaign at all? This is like his personal ecconomic stimulus package for the city.

Sean Hannity is such a clown.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isv8f_h_0jM[/youtube]

# of things wrong with what he and his guest said: everything.

Jon Huntsman appointed Ambassador to China. Odd, interesting, etc.

Also, you know who sucks? Nancy Pelosi. Discuss.

CrashburnAlley wrote:Sean Hannity is such a clown.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch.v=isv8f_h_0jM[/youtube]

# of things wrong with what he and his guest said: everything.

Hannity - a face made for punching

there's tons of dead air on any tv network/channel, and fox clearly is no exception

Werthless wrote:

allentown wrote:

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:I listened to my daily 5 minutes of crazy(tm) today in the car. Hannity said something like 'Freedom, i.e. free-market capitalism', as though freedom MEANT capitalism. Do people really believe that is the meaning of freedom?

It's not how I would define it, but I can see what he means. Capitalism can be defined as simply a system of voluntary transactions, where individuals make their own decisions about what to buy, produce, and trade. Free market capitalism can thus be considered freedom in the economic realm.

If we had true freedom, then people could join into cooperatives and share resources. They would be free to do so. But if these people tried to enforce their sharing onto unwilling others, then we wouldn't have freedom then, would we?

Unregulated laissez faire capitalism results in freedom only for those with a ton of money, who control the means of production. If you start with, or devolve to, a condition of extreme wealth inequality, then you can wind up with the brutal conditions and lack of choices seen for the masses in Britain during the early industrial age and in the mining communities and company towns in the US. Child labor was prevalent, work places were dirty and dangerous, and working hours were very long and labor was very tough. Workers could not get a decent wage, consumers could by only from monopolies, products were adulterated, the rich could set up debtors prisons, assault and hang unionizers, etc. It was a very grim world. Workers were pretty much equivalent to serfs or slaves. Not at all what most of us would regard as freedom.

So are you saying that life was altogether worse before the industrial revolution? That seems to be your claim, that capitalism was not an improvement over the previous times. Also, that the surge in productivity seen in the last 200 years would have likely occurred under any number of systems, the previous thousands of years notwithstanding.

There were things necessary for that increase in productivity, the coddling of robber barons and absence of regulation not being among them. And yes, the lives of the serfs likely were better than the lives of the factory workers and miners at the time of unregulated capitalism. Capitalism with sensible regulation has worked very well, unregulated capitalism hasn't. Certainly productivity has increased vastly and the lives of ordinary citizens has improved immensely during the era of regulated capitalism. The Bush experiment in turning back the regulation clock was a resounding failure.

dajafi wrote:Public sector employment grows during a recession for the same reason spending rises. It's supposed to be counter-cyclical.

And the demand for services goes up, from crime fighting to aiding the newly destittute. Private unemployment occurs in the recession/depression because the demand for goods and services has declined, so fewer people are needed to provide them.

drsmooth wrote:

CrashburnAlley wrote:Sean Hannity is such a clown.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch.v=isv8f_h_0jM[/youtube]

# of things wrong with what he and his guest said: everything.

Hannity - a face made for punching

there's tons of dead air on any tv network/channel, and fox clearly is no exception

Sometimes, I think about Jesus, and how he acted. And according to The Bible, he really didn't have much use for the Pharisees, and preferred the company of prostitutes and tax collectors and lepers and such. It just makes me think.

lethal wrote:

dajafi wrote:Bloomberg campaign spending thus far: $18.7 million

I'm starting to think his goal is to win unanimously.

I got a flyer from his campaign the other day. Its not as bad as your phone call, but seriously? 6 months from the election with no opponent with any real name recognition? You need to campaign at all? This is like his personal ecconomic stimulus package for the city.

Yeah, we got a flyer yesterday as well. Unreal.

I was surprised to see the news about Huntsman. But it's not totally unprecedented or even a full guarantee that he won't run in 2012; JFK's ambassador to South Vietnam, Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., had been Nixon's running mate in 1960 and was considered a possible contender in 1964 even while he was abroad.

Guessing he did his mission work in China or something.

jerseyhoya wrote:Also, you know who sucks? Nancy Pelosi. Discuss.

sucks because she's a scheming, lying, harridan, or because her asstardidness may open the door to some sort of official inquiry into Team Cheney's ugly crap?

dajafi wrote:I was surprised to see the news about Huntsman. But it's not totally unprecedented or even a full guarantee that he won't run in 2012; JFK's ambassador to South Vietnam, Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., had been Nixon's running mate in 1960 and was considered a possible contender in 1964 even while he was abroad.

Guessing he did his mission work in China or something.

Huntsman speaks Mandarin and was a former ambassador to Singapore under Bush I.