I'd Support A Sin Tax - On Government

Here's a thought. If they are so effective, maybe we should start taxing legislators for new tax propsals without a hint of cutting government, or making it truly effective and accountable. Now, that's a sin tax I might actually support!

I love it when politicians go on about taxing the rich, even though they, as much as any informed individual, know that it isn't mathematically, or practically possible to fund much of government by such schemes - unless you create a socialist state and there are no "rich people." This new theme out of NJ informs us what liberal Democrats really think about when it comes to generating revenue.

Which class do you suppose could opt out of junk food the easiest if they wish? Here's a 2007 study showing an increase in "junk food" consumption to roughly 30% of an average diet. That tells the pols where the money is.

Capitalist junk food companies spend huge amounts marketing to the young ... and middle and lower classes. They do that to create a steady and growing market for the future. But apparently our educational system fails when it comes to teaching nutrition. So, now Big Government must step in and combat capitalism in an attempt to modify behavior. And if it doesn't work, no big deal, they still gain more revenue.

Of course it is the lower economic classes that will suffer most from both the taxation and a continuing inability to change their diet. Bottom line - government wins, the people lose. Samol, samol when it comes to the liberal government circle jerks to which we should be growing accustomed to seeing.

WINDSOR, N.J. (CBS) ― The sputtering economy has caused an increase in prices of many staples including gasoline, rice, ice cream, even beer. Now some lawmakers in New Jersey are considering taking food taxes a step further and install a proverbial "sin" tax on fast food.

Yes, the idea of marking up your favorite fast food burger or pack of fries is actually being tossed around, and it's not settling well with many residents.

Comments

[chris]

Your idiot leader is spending $12B a month to lose a war and your are worried about fast food taxes? November should be fun!

[IslamoLlama]

"-- If they are so effective, maybe we should start taxing legislators for new tax [proposals] without a hint of cutting government, or making it truly effective and accountable. Now, that's a sin tax I might actually support! --"

Yikes, pulling your support for McCain already? The man who will get rid of all earmarks (except for those earmarks directed at the state he's currently campaigning in), raising the military budget (with what money?), and balance America's check book while slashing Corporate Taxes by 10% and further reducing the Capital Gains Tax (... ?!) is going to be paying that pittance in spades.

I hope his wife's beer business is doing well.

"-- Yes, the idea of marking up your favorite fast food burger or pack of fries is actually being tossed around, and it's not settling well with many residents. --"

There was a time when the states were ment to be experimental exercises in democracy. Apparently, that time has passed because GOP losers will have a screaming hissy fit if they have to pay an extra 10 cents for a whooper. The fact that the money is going to help fund hospitals in struggling areas - you know, areas where people without insurance are forced to use the emergency room as a primary care provider? - probably just sets off the "universal health care" mental alarms in the wingnut core.

What? People who treat their bodies like shit should be forced to shell out extra dough to support the institutions that save their fat asses when they go into cardiac arrest? Oh noes! How bitterly unfair! Isn't the GOP the group always screaming about people who are a drag on society? Well, here you are - the perfect method for balancing the load. Pay extra for emergency room care (in the form of pre-paid junk food taxes) if you eat poorly. Save money and live healthy if you eat more vegetables.

I remember when the GOP rammed the Cheeseburger Bill through Congress, shielding fast food restaurants from lawsuits brought by their overweight clients. You wingnuts could scream load enough about how poor stupid fatties who ate french fries all day shouldn't be able to burden big companies (like restaurant chains... or hospitals!) with their bad decisions. Now the shoe is on the other foot. Poor stupid fatties need to be protected from high prices, even if it means the entire community suffers from substandard hospital care.

Who the hell does the GOP think its protecting? Not the hospitals. They still get stuck with huge bills for treating the chronically sick. Not the area residents. They still get stuck with run down hospitals and over crowded emergency rooms. Why, the only people who seem to benefit from Dan's sandwhiched complaints are... multi-million dollar fast food companies!

[The Elector of Saxony]

"People who treat their bodies like shit should be forced to shell out extra dough to support the institutions that save their fat asses when they go into cardiac arrest? "

How about unprotected homosexual sexual activity? Greater health risk than any other sexual behavior on earth. The risks are known, they have been documented. Is a "gay lifestyle" tax ok with you? Even occasional marijuana use increases the risks of cancer enormously over those of non-smokers. How about increasing the fines for posession of marijuana in order to fund those future health risks. Say an extra thousand bucks per joint?

[Fred Beloit]

chris, you mokes, you are half-truthing again. Your comment is hereby corrected, you liar:

"Your idiot leader[s] [Nancy Pelosi, House leader and Harry Reid Senate leader, are authorizing]...spending $12B a month to lose a war and your are worried about fast food taxes? November should be fun!"

[Fred Beloit]

"The fact that the money is going to help fund hospitals in struggling areas - you know, areas where people without insurance are forced to use the emergency room as a primary care provider? - probably just sets off the "universal health care" mental alarms in the wingnut core."

Say Moe, you uncaring cheapskate, what about money for dentists, masseurs, faith healers, lonely hearts columnists, First-Aid kit owners, and fortune tellers. Knowing the future prevents injuries.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- How about unprotected homosexual sexual activity? --"

Why not go the extra mile and tax all unprotected sexual activity? We could set the rate at 10% of the current rate of sex. Oh, wait, sex is free so your analogy fails.

If prostitution were legal, I think it would be a more than fair candidate for taxation. As sex remains free of charge and virtually impossible to regulate, I think you know as well as anybody what a stupid idea you've just pitched.

"-- Even occasional marijuana use increases the risks of cancer enormously over those of non-smokers. --"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html?referrer=digg

LOLS! Wrong.

"-- Say Moe, you uncaring cheapskate --"

Well yes, it would take a true wingnut to equate lonely heart columnists and faith healers with professionally licensed and accredited hospitals.

Throwing up such a weak argument almost makes me think you agree with me and you can't bring yourself to admit it, Fred.

[Lala]

I found this website by accident - it's all about hospitals, non-profits, ceo pay, etc.

http://www.wherethemoneygoes.com/

[Fred Beloit]

Moe, you could not be more wrong. The point I was trying to make is that advancing your argument a little further down Logic street and applying a little history shows that government is insatiable. "Gimme" is the byword of the people. It is just human nature. This is one of the major flaws the founders were worried about. Congress controls the money. People control the votes for Congress. Wealthy people have the means to give the campaigns of pols a lot of money.

Let's make a deal. Let's make a deal. I'll support your candidacy and/or vote for you. You give me, you know, a little something for the effort. A recent and rather extreme example is the Repub from Alaska, Don Young, sneaking a bit into a law already passed by Congress that would favor a developer from Florida. The Florida developer wanted the best representation for Alaskans right? He gave Young a lot of money for Young's campaigning. It is just a coincidence he also wanted to change the direction of a Florida road. "Rep. Young Outlines Community Support & History Of Coconut Road Interchange"

A little further up Logic street are the caring folks who want to solve other peoples problems with other peoples money; they are the charitable people no? No, they want to put charities out of business because they are voluntary. We can't have that; why that means people can control their own giving. They may not want to put their money where I, Moe, Harpo, and the rest think it should go.

In short, Moe, no, I don't agree with you.

[Fred Beloit]

Thanks, Lala. By the way, just down the street from the Obama residence is the place where Mrs Obama works for an astronomical salary doing, very frankly, nothing much.

A must read: http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/1198/

"And in what sense did the Obamas “leave” corporate America? Mrs Obama works for the University of Chicago Hospitals. She’s not a nurse or doctor. She’s a lawyer who was taken on by the hospitals in 2002 to run its “programs for community relations, neighborhood outreach, volunteer recruitment, staff diversity and minority contracting.” In 2005, she got a $200,000 pay raise and was appointed Vice President for Community Affairs and put in charge of managing “the Hospitals’ business diversity program”."

Thanks to Mark Steyn's blog.

[Fred Beloit]

Oh no. They are missing. Who's missing? The apostrophies after the word "peoples" in my comment above.

[IslamoLlama]

"--

I found this website by accident - it's all about hospitals, non-profits, ceo pay, etc.

http://www.wherethemoneygoes.com/
--"

I'm overwhelmed by citation, Lala. Did he actually get these numbers from somewhere or just dream them up in his sleep? I see references to "their financial statements" but no links to said statement. This may be hard to grasp, but "non-profit" organizations don't have to break even or lose money to be considered non-profits. Hence "profits" from a non-profit organization are required to be spent according to certain rules, but they are still allowed to exist.

Also, what's the point Lala? Are you proposing hospital reform? Non-profit reform? Should we get rid of hospitals entirely? Just Chicago hospitals? Should profitable hospitals stop receiving US tax dollars until they become unprofitable again? I know the GOP bitches and moans when the postal service or Amtrack don't post high enough profits. So where are you going with this?

[IslamoLlama]

"-- The point I was trying to make is that advancing your argument a little further down Logic street and applying a little history shows that government is insatiable. --"

Abuh? I think you may have swerved off logic street and plowed into a stop sign. By your line of reasoning is US funding of military contractors the same as buying everyone a lucky rabbit's foot? I mean, in both cases the government is spending money to keep us safe, right? Sure, one case funds tanks, guns, and body armor while the next pays for a charm on a string. But other than that, what's the difference? A little history shows that government is insatiable and will spend all your tax dollars on lucky rabbits feet if we don't dissolve the military.

"-- Let's make a deal. Let's make a deal. I'll support your candidacy and/or vote for you. You give me, you know, a little something for the effort. --"

Yeah, that's how politics works. I'll pay for your interstate through Kansas if you pay for my interstate through California. Everyone kicks in money to fund the FAA even though Newark, Bush Intercontinental, and LAX reap more benefit than Podunk, South Dakota. I'll support your farm-friendly candidate if you support my Iraq War Veteran.

Ideally, the democracy forces everyone to cater to each others' interests. Realistically, the winning party tends to get the lion's share of the reward. If you don't like that system, you may have a general problem with representative government. I would suggest moving to a small island nation without any government provided services or benefits. Try the Caymens. I hear they're beautiful.

People are a little pissed at the GOP right now because they've been taking it all for themselves and giving nothing back. So the GOP is getting run out of office because they won't play ball with the American people.

[Lala]

Following is an excerpt from CBS news - I love Rangel's reasoning - it's all about respect.

On YOUR Dime: Congressmen Lease Luxury Cars

Rangel spoke to CBS 2 HD by phone about the seemingly extravagant expenses being racked up on the taxpayers' dime:

CBS 2 HD: "How would you answer those people who say, 'Well, but it's taxpayer money. Instead of $700 a month, could you find something for, say, $300 a month?'"

Rangel: "I could probably find something for ... one of those red cars and then I think my constituents would say, 'With all the money that he gets, this is the respect he shows us?'"

"The car isn't just a vehicle for getting around; it's an important part of doing my job and my constituents appreciate it."

Taxpayers CBS 2 HD spoke with were not buying that rationale.

"I drive a Toyota RAV and I feel that he could drive a Toyota RAV and probably lease it for $200," taxpayer Cathy Kraut said.

Of the 42 Congressmen in New Jersey and New York about a dozen participate in the leasing program.

[tally]

national average for a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline jan 3, 2007 when the democrats took over = #2.33

national average for a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline may 1, 2008 = $3.62

what has 15 months done for me? i'm paying $1.29 per gallon more for gasoline.

[jharp]

"I love it when politicians go on about taxing the rich, even though they, as much as any informed individual, know that it isn't mathematically, or practically possible to fund much of government by such schemes - unless you create a socialist state and there are no "rich people."

Dan R,

You are either a nitwit or dishonest. Just who the eff do you think has been funding the government. The poor?

Though I've enjoyed my visit here I really wonder how you stay in business.

A once every three days link to someone elses thoughts?

Don't know how many $'s you're making here, but is it's more than $100 a week consider yourself lucky,

[syn]

Want to know how Liberals keep poor people out of their pristine and clean and pure environments?

They charge 30% more to shop at 'organic' markets such as Whole Foods and Wild Oats then ohm their divine by lecturing about how everyone else is soooooo unhealthy.

[syn]

Chris

$12 billion per month is nothing compared to the $1 Trillion, 600 Billion spent yearly on the Entitlement Industrial Complex; and, we are only beginning to see the effects and costs of 70 million babyboomers set to retire.

Damn I am lucky I'm not under the age of 45.

[Fred Beloit]

Moe asserts: ""-- Let's make a deal. Let's make a deal. I'll support your candidacy and/or vote for you. You give me, you know, a little something for the effort. [by FB]-"
Yeah, that's how politics works."

That is also how bribery works, Moe. Wouldn't you agree that the less of it we have, the better off we all will be?

[Fred Beloit]

Harpo, you are either a prostitute or a pimp. Which is it?

Anyhoo, this one is for you. A while back you were whining about wanting the same health care on the same terms that your Dem friends in the Congress have.

Here is more to whine about, but this goody is exclusive to the House of "Representatives".

http://wcbstv.com/seenon/car.lease.us.2.713776.html

[Fred Beloit]

You were told, Moe: "A little further up Logic street are the caring folks who want to solve other peoples problems with other peoples money; they are the charitable people no? No, they want to put charities out of business because they are voluntary. We can't have that; why that means people can control their own giving. They may not want to put their money where I, Moe, Harpo, and the rest think it should go."

Since you have not responded to this, Moe, I will suppose you have no problem with this idea.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- Of the 42 Congressmen in New Jersey and New York about a dozen participate in the leasing program. --"

Funny, none of the Republican Congressmen seemed to have a problem with this program between '92 and '06. I wonder if this has anything to do with a sudden Democratic Majority in the House? Nah!

How many car payments before the New Jersey and New York Congressmen rack up enough dough to pay for a Bridge To Nowhere? How many car payments until they catch up with the GAO detected $285 billion in wasted dollars spent by the Pentagon?

Shit, Rangel is driving a nice car but the President gets his own 747. How is that fair? I bet President Bush could get by just fine in an economy model. Also, what does John Boehner drive? And, for the love of god, won't someone check these people's counter tops!

[IslamoLlama]

"-- That is also how bribery works, Moe. Wouldn't you agree that the less of it we have, the better off we all will be? --"

Once again, Fred, you fail to understand the difference between actual bribery and GOP red carps. Actual bribery would entail - say - a Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska on Sen. Stevenson's property, or a $2 million yacht to ex-Congressmen Cunningham.

"-- Since you have not responded to this, Moe, I will suppose you have no problem with this idea. --"

And you're not even speaking coherently at this point Fred. There's nothing to respond to. You've accused the Democratic Party of trying to put charities out of business with not a single piece of legislation or proposed program to back up your claim. There's nothing to respond to except the paranoid whinings of a GOP wanna-be hack.

[Ferd Beolit]

"Shit, Rangel is driving a nice car but the President gets his own 747. How is that fair? I bet President Bush could get by just fine in an economy model."

Idiotic response, Moe. One supposes you were trying to be witty.

"You've accused the Democratic Party of trying to put charities out of business with not a single piece of legislation or proposed program to back up your claim." Are you really unable to connect the simple ideas that (1) the government should take care of people's needs for health care and housing and (2) FEMA versus the Red Cross? Are you that simple minded?
Also, I'd really like to see where I accused the Democraticic Party of trying to put charities out of business. It is moonbat, asshats like you and Harpo whom I accuse.

[Lala]

This is pretty amazing - the New York City Council, a useless bunch, sets up phony charities, with taxpaye4r money, from which they then withdraw funds to give to their favorite contributors, including members of their families who are running "charities"

NYC Taxpayers Petition for Slush Fund Inquiry http://www.1010wins.com/NYC-Taxpayers-Petition-for-Slush-Fund-Inquiry/2117288

NEW YORK (AP) -- Eight taxpayers have asked for a state court inquiry into the use of so-called slush funds by the New York City Council.

The petitioners say officials undermined public confidence in government by creating fictitious groups and having public money allocated for them in the city budget.

Manhattan court papers say the practice is illegal and has cast a shadow over the City Council. They want to know when it started, who started it, who participated and who knew about it, and where the money went.

City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who's considered a likely mayoral candidate next year, has said the council appropriated some $17.4 million since 2001 to groups that did not exist.

[irongrampa]

Isn't that just special--another bit of social engineering, with the added benefit of revenue.

[seekeronos]

The way I'm reading nearly all the BS above is this:

1) BOTH parties have abused their trust with the citizens of these United States...

2) Most citizens don't really care about this consistent and persistent breaching of that trust enough to seek (truly) independent or third party candidates to high level offces

3) Both parties have got their various constituencies so snowed that they'd not likely consider alternative "third ways".

Dems: blacks, working poor, latte-sipping, BMW-driving wannabe-"elitists", hippies, LGBTs, ignorant "socialists", farmers, first-generation Latinos, the Entitlement/Social Programs Complex, and more....

GOP'ers: Christians (both Bible-believing Fundamentalists and so-called "evanglicals" - y'know, the speaking-in-tongues-dancing-with-snakes crowd), small business owners, farmers, 2nd-generation Latinos, traders, Wall Street, the Military-Industrial Complex...

... with both of them bound at the knees by lobbies, financiers, international corporations, and foreign entities like the UN and the WTO.

Isn't it time that Americans woke up from the stupor of the two-party system (which is effectively a one-party system with two heads) and heeded the counsel of George Washington, who eschewed parties, knowing the folly thereof?

Or at least, participated in something closer to the Constitution?

That is why I suggest that Constitution-loving Americans - no matter if they be Democratic or Republican -- take a look at Chuck Baldwin:

(expected campaign web site -- http://www.baldwin2008.com/ )
(wikipedia entry -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Baldwin )

Here is a man who represents a lot of the same message of the Constitution that Dr. Ron Paul does, and if God be with us, hopefully even more Americans will wake up to that same message of freedom and liberty and non-interventionism which will set this great Republic on the right course once more.