New York Plans to Ban Sale of Big Sizes of Sugary Drinks

a) Ethanol subsidies had very little impact on the price of corn for the majority of the time they existed. So yes I can refute the "fact" ethanol subsidies increased the price of junkfood in any significant manner.

http://www.card.iastate.edu/publications/dbs/pdffiles/11pb5.pdf

b) Why is this a point you are making? You are so quick to totally change directions and completely abandon previous arguments it is tough to keep up. As off topic as this point is, I would like to say I wish they would let milk prices drop down as I drink a ton of milk and it would benefit me personally.

c)I guess you didn't read where I informed you the EPA carved out massive new markets for ethanol which is far superior to subsidies?

 

Are you calling me a liar????? My daughter has neurocardiogenic syncope. It is basically a fancy name for low blood pressure. She has to take in a lot of salt to help her retain fluids to increase her blood pressure to avoid passing out. She takes fludrocortisone to help her retain salt. If NYC banned salt it would be bad for her health. Liberals are such ASSHOLES!!!!!!!!

 

yeah it's cool as long as they don't come for the stuff you eat, right?

Whatever happened to "live and let live", "to each his own", "different strokes for different folks", "it's a free country"?

 

I just read it and am astonished; he did flat out call you a liar. That is freakin ballsy!

 

I guess he thought it was BS but I can guarantee it is the 100% truth.

 

It's times like these I thank the creator for giving me my metabolism, my body and my mind. This tightness is going nowhere, not anytime soon.

The US needs to get out of this whole efficient, convenient, time saving, life isolating mindset. Open up some market places where the common man can stroll around, sit down, have a small meal with fresh vegetables and fruits, and continue with his day. Cali has done a really good job with that but the rest of the US has what... Whole Foods? That's priced and structured for rich white "health freaks" and alienates the average American. There's no respect for food in urban area's - people just want to swallow it whole and fill their immediate hunger cravings due to a fleeting mindset. In rural area's, people just live to eat in a manner similar to hippo's.

I think anything with high fructose syrup should be banned altogether. Me and most of my women eat organic, free range meat, no refined sugars, no packages, fresh veggies/fruits; and while it takes a little intelligence to put this together, it's nothing that can't be taught to kids as general, sound knowledge in school. What's the point of learning Earth Science and igneous rock formations if you're just going to grow up to be fat, boring and ugly running on caffeine all day. That's not what the creator intended when he gave us sophisticated minds capable of superior analytical abilities.

I'm all up on Northside with this issue. The American government is ignoring the real issue at hand and spending too much time manipulating products with HFCS. You're still forcing Americans to sleep with 1 chlamydia prostitute instead of 5. Make life more about enjoying well prepared food, and less about one upping your co-workers in the corporate environment at the cost of selling your soul. In the end, it's worth it.

America, as a nation, must look to Europe for lifestyle answers.

 

There's nothing wrong with advocating a lifestyle.

Trying to impose it on others is the problem.

If someone wants to live an "efficient, convenient, time saving, life isolating mindset", who are you or Michael Bloomberg to stop them?

 

I can't purchase a "certain liquid" (hard liquor) on Sunday here in Texas. Is that a "liberal policy" too??

Simpleton Jerk.

There is so much more I want to explain how you are wrong. I even give you charts to explain to you (since reading comprehension is obviously not your strong suit) but instead you mock with "look at my chart...lol" which I of course never said it was my chart, but a common chart explaining the differences in political ideologies. Again let me stress this more:

Conservative ≠ small government
Liberal ≠ big government
Libertarian = small government

I want to rant some more but its late.

 

Boy, I wonder what you would have thought of Nancy Reagan and her socialist agenda to tell people to say "no" to drugs. Why did she push healthy habits?

 

alrdy answered it. read thread

 

Lol. The entire education system imposes intellectual shackles on children growing up, restricting creativity and encouraging mindless conformity. There is too much of an emphasis on logical reasoning instead of understanding who you are and your higher purpose in life. Why is that any healthier than advocating a non-synthetic, natural way of life? Probably because the pharmaceutical industry would be ****ed and the street wise "hippies" will have won.

If you want to sit on your ass sipping slurpee's and watching reality tv all day, then go ahead. But it's far more unnatural than gay sex and marriage, which America seems to have a huge problem with. Humans should not relate to each other through common complacency's and sloth, and that's the kind of "oh my god fml pity me" lifestyle the r****ded new generation has grown into. We are the master race, let's rise up and embrace it baby.

Have the courage to make a change. Have the courage, to respect history.

 

Do you suffer from an acute lack of reading comprehension?

This is the original post you replied to---

You replied to that by saying corn prices are going up...without addressing the fact that ALL prices are going up, and government agricultural policy is one thing holding it down (exogenous factors such as oil going up and the ethanol machine rolling being not so much in the department of government). You have, up to this point, not properly addressed this issue...in fact in your next post...

You've also completely ignored the last two points, but whatever.

LOL what? Dude, you're helping my argument immensely. Read. Cost-effective.

Then you go off about the EPA making massive markets for ethanol, which is somewhat tangential. Too bad ethanol subsidies actually increase the incentive for farmers to produce corn while the industrial agricultural system hold the price down to reasonable levels, and ethanol subsidies have been recently scrapped. Really, this is on corn, but I could have mentioned all kinds of unhealthy products being marketed as mass-subsidized commodities that don't have the ethanol thing going for them as much as corn (soybeans for example, even if that is becoming a thing now, or hell, meat) and you'd have been dead in the water with your EPA monopoly-making.

Let's recap---

The EPA gives massive incentives for farmers to grow corn, ensuring excess demand and admittedly a higher price caetus paribis. But even if they didn't---

The government industrial agricultural system (something you have never addressed) holds prices down to a reasonable level, and is in fact counteracted by ethanol policy. That was the one caveat YOU had, and now you're gleefully smashing it up.

Corn farmers are in a win-win situation, and they pump out massive amounts of corn. Prices are still reasonable for consumers, especially since inflation pushes all foods up, and while corn is relatively higher because of ethanol, it is being held down by government agricultural policy so that to consumers it is a decision they will take with glee (considering time constraints of cooking in the substitution equation).

Your only reasonable argument is that ethanol policy holds corn up to a certain level, but you seem to have partly abandoned that line of thinking, and used your one cited source to knock it down somewhat, which to me is amusing.

Also, food deserts still are a problem, and nobody can think of mass-subsidizing healthy foods instead. But hey, we'll leave that for another day.

 

Problem is that lifestyle not only hurts them but also everyone.

I'll phrase it in free-market speech. Unhealthy people are a drag on your taxes, and impose a huge social cost, as well as a huge environmental cost.

 

Externalities are frequently forgotten in these type of debates.

That said I don't agree with an all out ban on large drinks and given the backlash to Bloomberg's proposal I suspect it might be modified.

 

Yes, but then you put a tax on the stuff for pay for the increased costs for the unhealthy behavior.

Nothing wrong with taxing cigs to pay for the cost of lung cancer. And there's nothing wrong with a soft drink tax to pay for increased costs of diabetes.

But a ban is just ridiculous. We should be allowed to do what we want with our bodies. We own them. I think this crosses the line. If you ban large soft drinks, why not ban cigs, alcohol, pop tarts, fried chicken, and anything else unhealthy as well?

One thing to preach against. One thing to put a small tax on. Entirely another to ban and tell people what they can or can not do.

 

This is pretty much the line I hold, to be perfectly honest.

 

Would this help fight obesity? Sure.

Is this a good plan? NO. Let me eat or drink whatever I want.

Smoke trees.

 

So what do you advocate, doing about it. 95 percent of people who diet put all the weight back on within 2-5 years (often plus interest) which is why all the "health benefit" studies stop short of that timeframe.

Just the usual crap from people with fast metabolisms and gym rats. "ANYONE CAN LOSE WEIGHT IF THEY JUST HAVE THE DISCIPLINE!"...

or the even more pleasant alternative "KILL THE FATTIES, THEY ARE DRIVING MY HEALTHCARE COSTS UP!!"

Tell you guys what...I weigh 330.....and pay cash for all my doctor visits....if that ever changes I will give them a "Do not treat!" order to save ya'll a few bucks...after all it is only fair right! Ya'll work hard in those gyms....and eat delicious raw, veggie healthy cuisine.

 

delete. not for a ban though. and it wouldn't work anyway.

 

Just speaking for myself, I don't embrace either of those things, even though I have an do use the term "fatties" sometimes, which I should probably stop.

And you could have a serious metabolism issue, for sure. But let's depersonalize it. Something in our culture has resulted in the most overweight, health-risk prone society of people in the history of the industrialized world. So while some may have metabolism issues, the evidence says loudly that we are collectively doing something very wrong, if our goal is to live well and not have miserable extra health-care procedures, which are also very expensive and strain the entire system.

So given that, it's fine to put luxury taxes or health taxes on things that are known to be bad for people.