Way to reduce the healthcare PROBLEM - 200% tax on fast food.

[HopeHoops]

All of the revenue would go toward funding healthcare and the prohibitive cost of the nasty shit would reduce the health problems that are making healthcare cost so much.

Sin taxes put the burden on those who use the products that cause the problem. Tobacco, alcohol, junk food - why not?

Thoughts?

[tridim]

1. My only issue with this.. What exactly is "fast food"?

Where is the line drawn?

Is a Deli fast food?

[HopeHoops]

3. If the chain has a drive-thru, it counts.

Those need a surcharge - another 100% would be fine.

[taterguy]

5. So anything without a drive-thru is ok?

[cwydro]

12. Cracker Barrel is safe then.

;-)

[Igel]

175. There's a seafood restaurant near where I used to

live that had a drive through window. You could get crabcakes, crawfish, burgers, or catfish, regular food, just in take-away containers.

The donut place next to it have a drive-through window.

Odd, which one would be taxed as fast food.

[kenny blankenship]

119. So they board up the drive-thru window.

Then what?

[stopbush]

159. The city of San Juan Capistrano, CA just voted to ALLOW

drive-thru windows after a decade-long ban on the same. Seems the city was losing out on too much tax revenue that the fast food places would have been generating had they had drive-thru windows.

Two sides to every coin.

[kenny blankenship]

161. The fast food chains will board up their own windows if 200% tax is added to their product

so they won't fall under the fast food definition anymore. The definition being given for fast food was any restaurant with a "drive thru." I wasn't saying the government would board up the drive thrus. Indirectly they would have, but the sale of fast food would still go on and the 200% tax would go uncollected.

[stopbush]

162. That will never happen, so why bother discussing?

[kenny blankenship]

164. Next time read the OP first

Then you will understand people's responses to it better.

[stopbush]

165. I read and responded to the OP previously.

Had you read thru the thread, you'd know that.

[SoCalDem]

26. Food that is not prepared at home?

200% seems excessive, but I could see a flat amount per item being added without realy harming the "market" for it..

When you see the huge amounts of sales for the sodas, burgers, burritos, candy, chips, etc, it would probably not stop people from buying them if even a nickel per item was added, for the sole purpose of going into the "medical care kitty".

If a tax was also added, to discourage the over-consumption, that's another issue.

The problem we have here, is that none of these "food-like snacks" are a free-standing entity...they are all just cogs in a gigantic lobbyist-rich environment.. They are willing to wage all-out WAR to prevent being made an "unfair" target of taxation/surcharges..even thought they know their "foods" are unhealthy.

Their corporations exist to make money...not to make us healthy.. their goal is to fill bellies, as cheaply as possible, and to let the customers deal with the effects later on..

[blondeatlast]

121. +1. nt

[mod mom]

127. how about items w bad ingredients such as partially hydrogenated or High fructose corn syrup?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

2. Yes! sin taxes!

How progressive. :sarcasm:

[HopeHoops]

6. When I quit smoking, butts were $1.25/pack at MOST and $.85 was easy to find.

There's no way in HELL I would pay for them now! I quit in '85.

[SPedigrees]

30. They were 35 cents a pack when I quit in 1969. nt

[wtmusic]

cause -> effect

sin has nothing to do with it.

[Scout]

49. Bullshit. n/t

[Igel]

176. Lots of things are dangerous.

But some we frown upon as somehow inappropriate or unacceptable, and so those we feel justified in taxing. Why? Because taxation, we like to think, decreases the incidence of the offensive behavior.

The rest is language games.

[wtmusic]

180. That must be why we force people to wear seatbelts

Because we find unstrapped drivers offensive. :thumbsup:

[taterguy]

4. Who gets to decide what the definition of fast food is?

[tridim]

8. It would have to be based on nutritional content.

I can't think of any other way.

Unfortunately that would mean probably 80% of restaurants would also be considered fast food. It's rare to find quality, nutritional food when eating out.

[Deep13]

23. Congress. nt

[PVnRT]

39. Yeah, that's a good idea

By Congress, of course, you mean which lobbying group spends the most money.

[Deep13]

55. Well, that's why nothing like this will ever happen.

I'm simply answering the earlier question about who decides. Art. I, the legislative power of the United States shall be vested in Congress.

[Davis_X_Machina]

7. Because it won't work much?

Cheap Donuts and Expensive Broccoli: The Effect of Relative Prices on Obesity:

Our estimates imply, for example, that a 100 percent tax on unhealthful foods could reduce average BMI by about 1 percent, and the same tax could reduce the incidence of being overweight and the incidence of obesity by 2 percent and 1 percent respectively.

Gelbach, Klick, Stratmann, Thomas, FSU College of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 261. 21 March 2007

[Zodiak]

9. Thoughts?

This would perpetuate the myth that liberals are just nanny-staters wanting to impose their ideals on everyone. And I'd agree with them.

Healthcare costs so much not because of sick people, but because the health insurance companies and every other private enterprise involved in healthcare must make an obscene profit.

Smoking, drugs, fatty food, etc. have ALWAYS been around....and people will always die of something that costs a lot of money, whether they are living a healthy lifestyle or not. The question is WHEN they will die.

[HopeHoops]

14. That's what DEATH PANELS are for!

Cigna, Blue Cross, etc.

"CLAIM DENIED"

"I'm sorry, we can't get pre-approval for your life-saving operation."

[Scout]

53. ^^^read Zodiac's post #9 above^^^^

"Healthcare costs so much not because of sick people, but because the health insurance companies and every other private enterprise involved in healthcare must make an obscene profit."

sums it up perfectly.

[blondeatlast]

128. Very good points. Do we also want to tax the frozen yogurt the diabetic decided to have?

The once a year, perfect steak the heart disease patient indulges in on his birthday?

[CTyankee]

160. I don't know about the OP's idea, but you are really ignoring the fat phenomenom on the past 25

years! And it's costing us a freaking fortune in health care costs and a drain on our national productivity.

You mention smoking. Well, when I was a kid smoking was the cool and adult thing to do so I smoked as did lots of other folks who ended up dying really nasty deaths from lung cancer. Guess what? We decided as a nation to stop smoking and we did, to a large extent!

Do some research on American history and you'll find that around the turn of the 18th to 19th century, we were a nation of drunks. In fact, excessive drinking was defended as an exercise of our newfound "freedom." But we sobered up as a nation. People were persuaded, by various means, that drinking excessively was harmful and, furthermore, drinking was anything but freeing -- it was a shackle. (I did research on this in a grad school course and my major reference was "The Alcoholic Nation" and I forget the name of the author, but it was very enlightenting.)

I just don't think we can give up so easily by shrugging and saying "oh well, it won't work." It HAS worked in our history both in smoking and in drinking (just not in Prohibition).

[HopeHoops]

167. Bingo - you understood the intent!

It wasn't intended to be subtle, but apparently it was.

[CTyankee]

177. I really don't understand the defense of bad food here at DU. I get the "nanny state" thing

but we don't say that about cigarette smoking any more (well, only a very few do) -- in fact, I read somewhere that if you tried to smoke in the halls of a public school anywhere in the U.S. you'd be promptly thrown out but we don't seem to think that way when it comes to unhealthful food for the kids!

If you ever have a chance, get a copy of "The Alcoholic Nation." It is quite interesting...

[omega minimo]

10. More people need more healthy food options accessible. When markets are similar everywhere, then

try your across the board approach.

Or try working on getting food markets, farmers markets and public gardens in more impoverished areas.

[Deep13]

22. Making fast food prohibitive would be a good first step. nt

[omega minimo]

33. So you're just completely unaware of the socioeconomic disparity in food choices?

:evilfrown: Can't you read that post and get a clue about the realities of food choices for people who AREN'T YOU?

[PVnRT]

41. Evidently not

Maybe he thinks poor neighborhoods have squeaky-clean Trader Joe's and community credit unions instead of the fast food joints, liquor stores and predatory lenders that they actually have.

[omega minimo]

46. The good news is

the trend in community gardening, school gardens. reclaiming unused urban land, inserting more farmers markets in urban/poor neighborhoods and general awareness about the importance of eating fresh and/or organic foods.

:thumbsup:

[Deep13]

52. Having been in that position, I sure can.

It was still cheaper to get food at the grocery store and what I bought there was unlikely to kill me.

[omega minimo]

61. You're right. But some areas don't have grocery stores to go to or cars to get to them

:think:

[Deep13]

71. So how do they get to fast food places with no car?

I did have a car, then. I shopped at Dave's in a crummy neighborhood near what passes for a downtown in Cleveland. It was a nice place that catered to the local community which was working poor. I was in school full time, I had very little money and no health insurance at the time.

I have to think that the sudden surplus of money from what used to be people's fast food budget would create a real need opportunities for grocers to fill.

[omega minimo]

"So how do they get to fast food places with no car?"

:wow:

[Deep13]

95. Well?

I know there are more of them than there are grocery stores, but they still tend to be in commercial areas.

[omega minimo]

100. It's been in the news. Impoverished areas with lots of fast food and nearly nil markets

I could google it for you or you could do it yourself, if you're interested in understanding this better. Don't have instant links for you, sorry. And remember, it's a big country.

[Deep13]

116. That's actually relevant to an earlier post I made.

It's pretty hard to assume "poor people" will starve because of fewer fast food joints when one does not indicate which local population he or she means. An awful lot of poor people live out in the sticks without anything nearby. One has to ask what people ate before there was a MacDonalds there. Every chain restaurant that pops up anywhere is a business opportunity lost to a local citizen. I know new locally owned eateries have a nearly impossible time competing with the assault of advertising from international brands. Without Sodium King, McDiabetes, Wendy's Old Fashioned Heart Attack, or whatever someone will fill in the gap. Possibly it will be someone who actually lives there who will not want to feed his or her friends crap. The economy is always fluid and a reduction in spending in one place means an increase elsewhere.

[omega minimo]

122. Except in certain impoverished areas

"The economy is always fluid and a reduction in spending in one place means an increase elsewhere."

If there's only reduction in fresh/basic options and increases in fast food outlets, that isn't fluid, it's stagnant. So's the "food."

[Deep13]

131. Yeah, well, it's only one idea.

I'm not suggesting that taxing fast food is in anyway close to a complete solution. More action needs to happen to attack every part of the problem. Universal healthcare would go a long way, but would not be a complete solution either.

[bobbolink]

62. Ah, yes... you were one of the "exceptions", because you are soooo much smarter than

the rest of the poor folk you attack so easily.

Apparently, though, you are either having a problem reading the research and articles that DISPUTE your assertions, or you have problems integrating that information.

It would disrupt your ability to judge and look down on others, and you wouldn't be so SPECIAL anymore.

Your smugness is unbecoming a "progressive"

[Deep13]

80. The only one doing any attacking here is you.

Again, it's ad hominem. You haven't actually written anything here that demonstrates or even suggests that I'm wrong.

And yeah, an education does make a person smarter than he or she otherwise would have been. That's not conceit. It's a fact.

Are you suggesting that no working poor person is smart enough to go grocery shopping instead of lining up in obedience to the ads to buy stuff that will kill him or her? I suppose there are no poor nonsmokers either. Poor people are not statistics or mindless cogs in a machine. Like everyone else, they have a range of abilities (including intellectual) and resources. A lot of them know they don't have to buy fast food. Frankly, your implied condescension of them illustrates a common complaint that a lot of people have have with "liberals."

[bobbolink]

83. Are you smart enough to understand articles and research pointing out that many poor folk don't have

choices about WHERE they shop?

Have you ever read anything about the reality of shopping in poor neighborhoods?

No?

Then maybe YOUR condescension and attacks are unwarranted, yes?

You have shown your hand... you consider it ALL about being smart and intellectual ability.

That's the same as the racist assertions we've seen from redneck america.

It has NOTHING to do with the reality of poverty.

Deal with it.

[omega minimo]

101. Which is worse: "implied condescension" or ignorant condescension that talks about poor people

as an abstract population one knows something about (not enough, to be sure) and deigns not to be OVERTLY condescending like an uneducated person might do. :spray:

[Deep13]

113. No idea what you are talking about...

...and I rather doubt you do either.

And again, you haven't stated any reason why you think I'm wrong.

[omega minimo]

124. "Educated" but can't sort that out?

:spray:


"You haven't actually written anything here that demonstrates or even suggests that I'm wrong."

You wrote that to someone else and are repeating it to me, as if we're the same person, which is stupid.


"Are you suggesting that no working poor person is smart enough to go grocery shopping instead of lining up in obedience to the ads to buy stuff that will kill him or her? I suppose there are no poor nonsmokers either. Poor people are not statistics or mindless cogs in a machine."

Poor people are cogs in a machine -- not mindless, mind you -- but stuck in the gears, nonetheless. Your POV and unwillingness to think or research outside your own little corner of the universe suggests that YOU see poor people as statistics, in the abstract.


"Like everyone else, they have a range of abilities (including intellectual) and resources."

They are they and you are "like everybody else" -- and you're sill ignoring that the point is their RANGE OF RESOURCES IS LIMITED.


"A lot of them know they don't have to buy fast food. Frankly, your implied condescension of them illustrates a common complaint that a lot of people have have with "liberals." "

That statement is too bizarre and too convoluted to be comprehensible. :crazy:

[blondeatlast]

132. How nice for you. Were you working two jobs? Working full time and going to school?

Did you have kids?

Take a walk through the projects and barrios. Talk to the people and understand their lives.

They aren't where they are because they have oodles of options.

[Deep13]

166. So both the thesis and the antithesis both prove your point?

If I'm someone who has never had to suffer, then I don't know what I'm talking about.

If I've been poor, then I was the wrong kind of poor or not poor enough.

Either way proves your point, which means the initial premise--I'm not poor--is irrelevant to this discussion. That's because the facts of this problem aren't about me or you. Ad hominem isn't wrong because it's unfair or whatever. It's wrong because it changes the subject and diverts attention away from the real issue. And frankly, I don't need to understand the details of everyone's individual lives. I suppose I can't talk about civil rights because I'm white. Or gay marriage because I'm hetero. Or AIDS because I haven't got it. Well, you don't need to be a weatherman to see which way the wind's blowing.

Actually, I did work full time in college, often overnight, with undiagnosed sleep apnea and an untreated psychiatric disorder. I lived with my mother, but that was actually a burden. I paid to live there, had to buy my own--well--everything, and lived with the constant fear of being pitched out because of her paranoid neurosis. After that I packed up my '77 Nova (this was 1991) and drove to this shit hole, a place where I knew no one and where I had never been before. And there with the aforementioned personal problems including rapidly corroding teeth, I clawed my way through the total institution of law school.

When you were twelve, did you ever feel your drunken step-father's hand squeeze around your neck in an effort to kill you or at least come pretty close while your mother pretended not to see it and while your sister screamed? As a child have you ever been evicted from your home because said drunk spent the night chasing DTs around with a hammer while threatening the landlord? Have you ever been in a position where a psychiatric disorder has prevented you from making friends in the fifth town you've moved to because you had no idea how to do it and by default becoming the outcast? Have you had to suffer being unable to breathe without great effort because the dogs, cats and cigarettes are more important than you and because no one believes that the car accident you had at age 18 months might have permanently damaged your nose?

Maybe when sizing someone up, you ought to stop and remind yourself that you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about before opening your trap.

[bobbolink]

40. Start with banning high fructose corn syrup!

Oh, wait, "progressives" don't want to stinkin' government intervention....they want to be able to JUDGE those who don't have the economic freedom to choose.

Fuck 'em

[omega minimo]

63. Don't start with your broadbrush now.

What progressives wouldn't want HFCS banned? What ""progressives" don't want to stinkin' government intervention"? All of 'em? Some of 'em?

Don't undermine your arguments with your anger.

[bobbolink]

67. Hey... you don't need to lecture me. Maybe you didn't see the thread.

Look it up before you come down on me for the ignorance displayed by "progressives"

And don't lecture me about my "anger"..... What am I supposed to do...lick the asses of those who are judging and shitty with poor folk?

Lick their asses.... like, say, Malcolm X did, or Bishop Tutu, etc?

Nope, some things deserve anger. If you have now decided you don't like mine, feel free to put me on ignore.

Now, READ, and come back and acknowledge your mistake.

Thank you.

[omega minimo]

69. You need to get a clue too

About lumping everyone together and telling your allies to piss off because you're mad about something else, somewhere else. You've already done this to me. Thought I'd try to reach you again.

It's your choice to stay pissed at overgeneralized groups and alienate individuals.

YOUR mistake.

[bobbolink]

74. Yup, you'd rather judge than READ...it was all there in that thread.

Stop with the psycho-analyzing.... to quote Erin Brockovich, you suck at it.

I was extremely pissed with the ignorance in that thread, and still am.

Deal with it.

[omega minimo]

76. What thread?

:wtf: look at how unreasonable you're being. You want to be permanently pissed at everyone and everything. Have at it.

And no, don't tell me What Thread, after already telling me to Read It and Acknowledge My Mistake, as if everyone knows what you're reading on DU.

I tried. That's it.

[bobbolink]

78. You judge, yet don't even read what I said.

Maybe if I up the volume///

THERE WAS A THREAD ABOUT BANNING HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP.

SEARCH FOR IT.

Or is it unreasonable to expect you to actually KNOW what you're talking about before you judge and criticise?

edited to say... before you pull the typical DU crap about demanding a link, YOU are the one who is judging me, so you go look for it your own damned self.

THEN COME BACK AND HAVE THE HUMANITY TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU WERE WRONG.

[omega minimo]

81. .

you are not thinking clearly.

you are choosing to piss off everyone around you.

your mistake.

[bobbolink]

86. It's not thinking clearly to not be willing to look up the appropriate information.

Enough of your personal attacks.

Welcome to my ignore list.

Bye now....

[omega minimo]

91. .

it's insane to think people know or see or read what you do on DU.

it's YOUR CHOICE to alienate people -- potential allies -- with your hostility and broadbrush personal attacks.

and it's hypocritical to then complain that "the homeless are invisible on DU" -- if you force people to ignore YOU.

I TRIED. AGAIN. Goodbye.

[hobbit709]

11. Nobody sings louder in church than a reformed sinner.

[asdjrocky]

13. This is a joke right?

Do you think poor people eat fast food because they just love the dollar menu? How far did you think this through before you started typing?

[Xenotime]

16. I don't think this is a joke. It's something that needs to be very real.

[asdjrocky]

19. What do you mean, it needs to be very real?

Are you saying we need the tax?

[Ptah]

24. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x9000596

[blondeatlast]

137. What a creepy thing to do. I spoke my piece in that thread. nt

[stopbush]

15. It's another regressive tax idea.

Rich people wouldn't pay added taxes when they lunch at their upscale restaurants and 19th-hole eateries, but Joe Blow who grabs a dollar menu item for lunch because that's all he can afford gets screwed.

So, the $12 burger with the $7 side of fries isn't taxed because it's served on linen, while the bag-n-go crowd takes the hit.

[HopeHoops]

17. Hell, you're right - hit TGIF, Applebees and Ruby Tuesdays with a 400% tax on red meat products

Just for shits and giggles.

[stopbush]

28. Except that I lost 46 lbs on Atkins, which is heavy on protein and light on carbs.

In fact, Atkins says McDs is probably OK if you throw away the bun and eat the meat (meat is safer than fish, at least when it comes to mercury). I ate a lot of eggs and red meat (veggies, too. Easy on the fruits). Never felt better. Go figure.

BTW - my bad cholesterol also went down on Atkins, and my good cholesterol went up.

Since I re-loed, I've gotten off Atkins and my weight has gone up slightly. I'm now back on it, looking to shed the 15 lbs I've added back.

The biggest problem I've found with Atkins is that it gets boring really, really quick.

[bobbolink]

77. So, you're not content with being the food police.... you're now running for Food Czar

Dictatiorial much?

[Scout]

73. another excellent point! n/t

[michreject]

18. Lemme see how that would work

Put the tax on fast food.

People dislike the tax so they don't go there.

Fast food joints lay off 20 million people.

20 million people can't get jobs.

20 million people go hungry.

20 million people get sick because they can't afford healthy food.

They put a massive drain on the health care system.

You know that's a brilliant idea. Out fucking standing.

[Deep13]

21. The absolute worst reason to produce something harmful or even unnecessary....

...is that it will keep people employed. Using resources for that reason is unsustainable.

[michreject]

25. If one thing doesn't kill em

another thing will.

Fast food or no food. Some choice, eh!

[Deep13]

48. That's not the choice they are facing. nt

[michreject]

139. Not yet

But it could be if the tax is imposed.

[Deep13]

20. Sounds good.

It would improve the environment too.

Don't really care about the philosophical objections. Bottom line, it would work.

Also we should have heavy taxes on big money CEOs, atheletes and other entertainers and on trust funds.

[bobbolink]

34. It sounds good to people who are ignorant, and dont' give a shit about poor people.

So much for being a "progressive"

[Deep13]

47. Ad hominem.

I already know about regressivity. I also know one has to buy the product to get hit with the tax.

Beyond that, what's wrong with it?

[bobbolink]

56. Ad hominem yourself. Educate yourself about your ignorance about poverty.

THEN join the discussion.

You find it perfectly acceptable to JUDGE and ATTACK poor people for their "choices", but resist every effort to help you to understand the reality.

There is plenty right on this thread, if you actually care to learn.

[Deep13]

65. I'm not attacking or judging anyone.

And frankly, disagreeing with you does not make me ignorant or uneducated. Get over yourself.

The simple fact is, the cheaper something is, the more likely it will sell. Same for advertising. When people are told to buy something over and over again, they will. Free choice has very little to do with it. Regularly eating fast food, like smoking or heavy drinking, is the wrong choice. The health and public ramifications are too numerous to detail here. Frankly, I consider this a tax on companies who knowingly give people heart disease and diabetes.

Most people in this country or middle or lower class. Ergo, there can be no health care policy without regulating the way we get diseases. I'm all for redistributing the wealth of society's robber-barons. Nevertheless, we have to face the fact that 1. that probably will not happen and 2. even if we did that, it would not be enough to control disease.

[bobbolink]

70. You're so used to having full permission to judge poor folk that you don't even recognize you're

doing it.

Your elitism is showing.

GET OVER YOURSELF.

[Deep13]

111. Again, ad hominem. Not an argument. nt

[bobbolink]

148. Not an "argument" to those who can't hear.

There's nothing that you would consider a "good argument" that would persuade you to take a second look at your thinking.

[HopeHoops]

168. Ad hominem (courtesy of Monty Python):

"Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries."

[DireStrike]

27. No more consumption taxes

They are regressive.

[walldude]

29. You want a real "sin tax"? Tax fucking churches.

Enough of finding ways to add taxes to people who already can't afford them. Tax people who pay no taxes at all. Why the fuck should some church get off free?

[MindPilot]

60. Ramen!!

[HopeHoops]

169. Six for a dollar! SHIT yeah!

I love that stuff. Throw out the salt package and toss in some frozen peas or something.

[blondeatlast]

138. Better yet--tax the goddamned tax-exempt think tanks like the Heritage Foundation.

How many people get sick and die each year indirectly because of their anti-American war on the REAL bosses of the government--you and I?

[Cleita]

31. Sure let's tax the poor some more.

All those "sin" taxes are a tax on the poor. Let's start taxing the rich again with a 90% income tax. I think the guy who makes $100,000 an hour can get by on $10,000 an hour.

[GreenPartyVoter]

84. Exactly.

[bobbolink]

32. I LOVE it that "progressives" keep finding all kinds of ways to punish poor folk.

Too bad NONE of you is educated enough to understand the basics of REGRESSIVE TAXES.

:grr:

[asdjrocky]

35. Laughing at the poor bobbo, didn't you know it's the latest craze?

We all know poor people eat from the dollar menu just because they are cheep.

[bobbolink]

42. YEs, we "save" money on cheeep food so we can buy more GOLD!

See how really clever we are?

I just had one more "aware" person judging me today --- can you tell I'm fed up?!

[asdjrocky]

72. I hear ya.

I just paid nearly 600 bucks to the police man and the towing company because they said I owed child support that I didn't owe. Called up the DA, called up the Child Support agency, hell I even called my ex-wife that I haven't spoken to in years, and guess what? I don't owe shit. But the computer said that I do... so I pay.

I've been back in my home town for about a year and I've been pulled over twice, both times they take my car, both times I show them there is no reason, but I never get my money back. Last time it happened I was told I had nine tickets I didn't pay. When I went to court I explained to them that at the time those tickets were issued I was in the service of my uncle so I couldn't have gotten them, the judge, an nice looking lady with wonderful teeth, dismissed the tickets but of course you still have to pay for impound fees, towing, storage and this wonderful thing they call a lean fee. No big deal, just an extra hundred.

When you ask what you can do they tell you to get a lawyer. I'm a licensed driver, I have insurance and I have a clean driving record, but it's gotten to the point where I'm afraid to drive any more. In one year this has costs me more than three thousand dollars. I'm grateful that I have a roof over my head, but the rest of this month will be without food, unless it comes from my garden.

It just seems that there is no way to even get even, much less get ahead.

Sorry to ramble on to an old friend. Can you tell I'm a bit fed up?

[Deep13]

129. Pot calling the kettle black.

We all judge all the time of course. You cannot be sure someone else is judging you unless you first judge the words and intent of that person. So, it's a pretty flimsy charge to make anyway. And as a nonchristian, I have no duty to refrain from judgment least I be judged. Saying "don't judge" is another way of saying "don't see and don't think."

[omega minimo]

37. or have a clue about availability of food choices for impoverished areas.

[bobbolink]

45. Well, you see... if they had a CLUE, that would take away their ticket to judge.

Then, how the hell would they get that superiority kick they crave?

Please, have some compassion for the empathy-impaired.

Errrr.......

:hi:

[omega minimo]

51. LOL

"Please, have some compassion for the empathy-impaired."

How you doin,' bobbolink? I know you ain't invisible. ;)

[X_Digger]

109. When I was growing up...

.. in rural Southwest Virginia, eating out was a treat.. We had government cheese, government butter, government rice, food stamps, and whatever we could grow / hunt. I can't imagine being in our position in an urban setting where we couldn't grow / hunt food.

When I went to college, it was ramen, lipton cup'o'soup, saltines, a bag of potatoes, and day old bread from the bakery outlet for PBJ sandwiches. All were cheap sources of protein & carbs. I did know folks who were one rung above me on the poverty ladder, and they spent a lot of meals at places like taco bell and Arby's (lots of X for $ deals) or buffets (Mr. Gatti's for pizza, Hunan for chinese, Golden Corral for meat, Shoney's for weekend breakfast.)

To even countenance an idea like this makes my stomach turn (no pun intended). Food banks are already stressed to the breaking point, and childhood hunger is _still_ a problem in this country, almost 40 years after the 'war on poverty'.

[bobbolink]

144. Very well put! Unfortunately, it won't be heard by those who are attached to PUNITIVE

"solutions".

It gives them that warm, fuzzy feeling of superiority.

[PVnRT]

36. Yay, regressive taxation!

Great idea! Let's tax all the things you don't like!

Has it occurred to you that fast food is not the only cause of health problems in America? That relying for funding based solely on a tax on ONE THING is sure to make funding fail if it works the way you want to?

Oh, and you didn't define "fast food." Is that anything with carryout? I can call up the award-winning steakhouse in Lexington and order carry-out. I guess that makes it "fast food" as well.

I love hearing "progressives" argue for regressive taxation to go after the things they don't like.

[bobbolink]

50. Isn't it sad that people who consider themselves so "aware" are so ignorant about REGRESSIVE TAXES?

This is so amazing to me... and no matter how many times we try to get the facts to people, they keep coming up with the same "ideas".

:nuke:

[DemocracyInaction]

38. That's Today's High Paying Jobs!!

For God's sake that would eliminate what passes in this country for "high paying" jobs these days. Hell, no manufacturing and no pushing burgers at McD's, will mean no one is employed in this nation that is slipping steadily towards the drain!!!

[lildreamer316]

43. Why do you want to punish the poor??

There was a time in my life when all I could afford was fast food; or I tried to feed myself on the same amount at the grocery store. If this had been in place, I would have almost starved - including the first five months of my pregnancy (when I did not know I was pregnant -yes it is possible.)

This is not very well thought out.

[Scout]

44. that's just a stupid idea

many people with health problems don't eat fast food (my mom) and many people who eat fast food are not fat and/or don't have health problems. there is not a direct correlation/causation.

and, what exactly is fast food? if i get a salad without any dressing from McD's, is that healthy? what about the filet of fish? am i exempt from the tax if i shop at Whole Foods, and buy some of their stuff that is full of fat and calories? hmmmm?

[MindPilot]

54. There should be a $50 fee every time someone post a silly idea.

Then Skinner wouldn't have to hold a fundraiser every few months.

[bobbolink]

58. .

:applause:

After all this time, and there are still so many who don't understand the BASICS of REGRESSIVE TAXATION! You're right.... there should be an applicable fine!

[walldude]

64. LOL.. he'd be cleaning up today..

[MindPilot]

85. He'd be retiring to the Caymans by the end of the week.

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. On the face of it, it sounds great, but... only to be implemented when our

full cheap food policy is put under review and food distribution and pricing of fresh foods are made equally accessible across the country so I can go to the store in the inner city and find the same fresh produce. In fact, that fresh produce needs the subsidies, instead of the highly processed food...

French fries vs a vs fresh russets, for example.

Realize this is also highly regressive, so it cannot be your only weapon.

[Ron Green]

97. Finally, a truly helpful post.

Government policy ought to encourage better eating by everyone, and putting the squeeze on junk food merchants is part of the answer. There are some shrill posters on this thread who don't seem to understand that junk food is addiction and slavery of the many by the few. I swear, there's a point at which "progressives" and libertarians are on the same side, and that's a place I don't ever want to be.

[nadinbrzezinski]

99. Most folks don't realize that the AG bill matters

and that the current policy goes back to Nixon.

Here is a piece of trivia. During the Nixon admin the percentage of a paycheck going to food was 18%, today it is 10%

Then health care was 10% now it is 17%

Coincidence? I have a sneaky that it is not.

But people really don't care to look at the nitty gritty that is policy and the AG bill.

[bobbolink]

102. Yes, punishing poor folk is "Helpful"

:wtf:

The ignorance about the reality of poverty is truly stunning.

[Ron Green]

114. Wow, you've really got just one tune, haven't you?

I work every day with poor people on issues of housing, employment, medical care, mental health, addiction, and nutrition. Your monotonous tirade really brings nothing to the discussion, other than to remind us of what most thoughtful people already know.

[nadinbrzezinski]

125. Anger is amazing

and unfortunately it can lead to a single tune.

I can understand it... where it comes from, but a while ago... decided not to engage.

Oh and I applaud you for the work to help folks get out of poverty, break the cycle, et al

It is crushing to the spirit, truly crushing.

[bobbolink]

140. So, you are an expert because you "work with" poor folk, and you still promote punitive

measures?

Talk about ONE TUNE.... punishing poor folk is one tune that has been true of the US since the beginning.

I don't expect you to be willing to actually listen to anything that goes against your set-in-cement ideas, but for others reading here, this may shed some much-needed light on this subject:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6375845&mesg_id=6380369

[blindpig]

143. Some people just don't get it.

Junk or not, it's the only hot food some people get all day.

Blaming the people, tell me again how a liberal is different from a conservative?

[bobbolink]

149. If you find that difference, please clue me in!

The damage done to poor folk is the same whether it comes from the "left" or the "right".

And both of those come from the same place... that sense of superiority.

And neither side is willing to recognize it.

Same/same.

[Deep13]

118. Cerainly, it cannot be the only thing or even the main thing.

I have to think one part of opening new food sources in underserved places can be helped by reducing the amount of money being spent at fast food places. This would make customers available for different food sources.

[nadinbrzezinski]

133. As much as you are well intentioned the fast food places you abhorr

are a CONSEQUENCE of current cheap food policies. You can close all of them tomorrow, that will not mean stores will magically appear in the inner city. Why the way we do subsidies need to change.

I will give you another reason for that, we are practicing monoculture in the midwest. In the short term that works, but in the medium (we are already there), and long term, that does horrendous damage to the land.

Oh and our food policy is fully and completely dependent on cheap oil... that gone... well it will be fun.

The fast food we enjoy will go away one way or another, but that is because our policies are currently not sustainable, but the forces behind keeping the current policies are very strong. You really want substantive change, the AG bill will be up for review in a couple of years. Most Americans who live in cities, and I am one, don't care about it. But the AG bill is as critical to our future as getting good health care.

That said, your solution is extremely regressive.

By the way, I abhor those places as well... for many reasons, including how addictive they are... but the High Corn Syrup is not McDonnalds, but the cheap food policy we have in place.

Identify the real causes and go after them.

Oh and I am lucky enough to be able to INCREASE my food budget by actually buying fresh and cooking at home. Yes, it went UP, not down. As counter intuitive as it sounds, having a meal at Burger king consisting of a small burger, fries and soda is actually cheaper than buying the meat and making a similar dish at home. Yes, I have priced it. and that has all to do with the current food policies.

Oh and say cheese, thank Nixon and his AG secretary while at it.

[Deep13]

163. Yup, it's really fucked up.

It's not my solution. First, I don't think it is really a solution by itself or even a major part of one. Second, I'm only agreeing with what the OP wrote. Anyway, I'm sure everyone here knows that taxes on junk food will never happen anyway.

Nothing will ever magically happen. Everything needs active public policy to do it. Unfortunately, that is why major improvements will never happen.

[Fridays Child]

59. How about taxing agribiz out of existence, instead?

Cargill, ADM, Monsanto, DFA, IBP, Tyson, Smithfield. They're all death peddlers.

[bobbolink]

68. WHAT?????!!!!! Go after CORPORATIONS instead of poor folk?

What are you, one of them COMMIES??

:applause:

[stopbush]

107. And 2-billion people die of starvation?

If the world went over to organic farming, we'd be able to produce only enough food to feed 4-billion people.

Like it or not, big agra is necessary to support the number of people who live on on this planet.

[Fridays Child]

135. Assuming what you say is fact, it still doesn't justify the promulgation of policy...

...in favor of corporate profit at the expense of people.

[Sebastian Doyle]

136. Bullshit

Organic farming seemed to do just fine before MonSatan and ArcherDevilMadmen started fucking up the planet.

And if a few people need to die off to make that a reality again, so be it.

Provided those few people are the top 1%, that is.

[stopbush]

157. Spekaing of Bullshit, that's where I got the info I posted.

Penn & Teller's Bullshit program did a segment on organics. They spoke with the guy who basically invented organic farming in the modern age, and he was the one who opined that organics alone couldn't produce the volume necessary to feed the whole human population.

The rest of your post is just ignorant. People starved all the time when organic farming was the norm, often from the diseases that are associated with organic farming, like e-coli etc.

Organic farming wastes land like crazy. The crop yields are far below what a normal farm produces.

And, a few people need to die to make it so again? Is 2-billion a few? And who gets to decided who dies? You?

And you honestly think that the top 1% are going to be at all represented in such a kill-off? Really?

[HopeHoops]

170. ^5 !!! - You are totally right!

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

[omega minimo]

66. Add a 200% tax on companies that feed poison and toxics to the American people

ALL of them.

[nadinbrzezinski]

75. +1

[omega minimo]

79. and a 500% tax on those who poison our water

and air

[Hello_Kitty]

82. Put some decent grocery stores in poor communities first.

Fast food and junk is often all that's available.

[asdjrocky]

90. ding ding ding. We have a winner.

[omega minimo]

104. Post #10 Duh

:hi:

[bobbolink]

92. Too bad some of the more empathy-impaired people won't read your fine post.

They already know what they judge others with.... and you're trying to confuse them with the facts.

Good for you! :applause:

I appreciate those who understand these issues. :hi:

[omega minimo]

103. No you don't

"I appreciate those who understand these issues"

[Deep13]

120. Could be done through zoning.

It can also be done with state wide legislation stating that every chain grocer who builds X sq. ft. in the burbs must also buit X sq. ft. in the slums or out in the sticks.

[HopeHoops]

171. Los Angeles has already done that. They put a ban on new fast food establishments.

They already have the highest density in the nation, so I'm not sure how much good that will do. I assume you know about the study that linked obesity rates to proximity of fast food joints to schools. Now THERE is a shock.

[blondeatlast]

141. Much better idea--and happily pay more taxes on my food (I don't pay any sales tax on it now)

to accomplish something like this.

[Hello_Kitty]

155. Seriously. How many Safeways and Trader Joes are in So. Phoenix?

But there's a damn fast food joint and/or convenience store on every corner. Gee, what a surprise that there's poor health and obesity in those communities.

[stopbush]

158. Better idea: mandate that they all go on Nutri-System

and have their food air-dropped into their homes! It's "only" $12 a day per person for such a program. That's "only" about $50 a day for a family of four. That's "only" $1500 a month for food.

Plus, they'll feel like they're hanging with sports stars like Dan Marino.

:sarcasm:

[Romulox]

87. More taxes on the poor. Boo hiss. nt

[Deep13]

123. Wouldn't it be a tax on fast food corporations?

I suppose we could say tax the profits, but won't that mean the state is making money off the suffering of the presumably unwilling customers? (And therefore has a reason to keep them going.)

[tkmorris]

88. How about we tax stupid instead?

Republicans are always trying to tell people who they are allowed to fuck, and now we have so-called Democrats trying to tell people what they can eat, drink, or smoke. Enough already.

[Autumn]

89. Why not tax sex? n/t

[Posteritatis]

93. Sin taxes targetting the poor; how progressive. (nt)

[Hekate]

94. Nothing like a disproportionate tax on poor people, is there? nt

[bobbolink]

105. And, hey, it gives them so much reason for feeling superior!

Its a win-win.

[AngryAmish]

96. Meet Emily - she is a single mother of three

She works two jobs to keep her kids under a roof.

Working two jobs is tiring. So is spending an hour making dinner, another half hour eating it and forty minutes cleaning up.

The one thing that might make her day a little easier, picking up a bag of tacos for dinner...AND YOU WANT TO TRIPLE THE PRICE.

Stupid.

[asdjrocky]

98. Best response in this thread.

[omega minimo]

108. Fast food as a convenience once in a while is one thing. Habitual daily meals of it

aren't healthy, aren't even FOOD.

Which are you suggesting? Cooking fresh at home always takes longer, for everyone. And it's the cheapest, high quality, fresh option.

[MindPilot]

110. My neighborhood has street vendors, mom & pop taco stands and

sandwich shops, even people who cruise the neighborhood selling freshly prepared food from the trunks of their cars. This is food every bit as fresh and wholesome--maybe even more so--that I can get at the grocery store. A tax would simply deprive these small business people of their livelihoods and deprive the neighborhood of part of its culture.

[omega minimo]

117. Sounds great. Those people bring options to those lucky neighborhoods

AFAIK "fast food" refers to the big chain outlets and their preprocessed products.

[AngryAmish]

112. I am suggesting that making people's lives harder is stupid

Lets have another word with Emily.

She just got off of her shift at the factory and is riding the bus home. It is six already and she gets to leave for her next job in two hours. As a good mother she would like to talk to her kids or help them with their homework before she leaves. Instead, she has to get off the bus, spring for a transfer, walk half a mile to the grocery store, shop, walk the other half a mile back to the bus line,ride home,climb up to her apartment, clean and shuck the green beans, begin to marinate the skirt steak, put the salad in the spinner...shoot ! Times up. It is almost eight and the kids have not eaten yet although they should be in bed. Emily has to leave for her next job. Well then - pop a plate of pizza rolls in the microwave and out the door for Emily. Maybe her kids get to eat tomorrow.

Madness. Mindless madness.

[omega minimo]

115. For some reason

you didn't answer my question. And you are trying to make this sound like an impossible thing to do. Plenty of parents do it under those circumstances. "Clean and shuck green beans"? "Marinate skirt steak"? What planet are you living on? :spray:

The OP's "sin tax" punishes the wrong people. And more low income areas need better access to healthy, fresh foods and basic grocery staples. :thumbsup:

[X_Digger]

151. The next step down? canned food, not healthy food.

It takes time to make a healthy meal (no, not 'healthy choice' frozen dinners, either.) Often times, that's the limiting factor after price.

Were fast food too expensive, low income folks (I used to be one of them, thanks) would switch to dinner in a can, or one skillet meals like hamburger / tuna helper, which really aren't that much healthier.

[omega minimo]

153. From the current example

the next step would be have the beans shucked and steak marinated ahead of time, prepped for crunch time b/w two jobs. Do the shopping, have quesadillas with some fresh peppers, tomato or salad and serve the prepped meal another night.

Fresh food prep does take some time. If people are stuck thinking it's buy/unwrap/eat or dump the box in a pan and stir, that is skipping the step and preventing the use of fresh, healthy foods.

Maybe less dependence on meat as the center of the meal would help too.

What about wok style cooking, dumping in the veggies, meat and stir fry, add sauce, over rice?
Cooked pasta, add fresh veggies at final moments to steam, drain, add olive oil, cheese, maybe even sauce.

There are a lot of ways to do simple fresh cooking. It takes a little work and a little time.

[X_Digger]

156. "A little work and a little time"..

.. time is usually the second most valuable commodity in a household. I worked two part time jobs in college (I was king of the plumbing department at Hechinger on the weekends and day labor for a temp agency). Any meal that took more than 20 minutes to prep and cook was time I didn't have. If I was lucky, I had 30 minutes after the end of work to shower, grab something to eat, and get to class.

If you shower before work, you might have time for that kind of thing. If you shower after work, you probably don't.

[blondeatlast]

142. You get it. Thank you. nt

[HopeHoops]

172. For $3.99 you can get a bag of 10 frozen bean and cheese burritos.

That's way cheaper than Taco Hell.

It also takes less time to cook them than it does to sit in a drive thru.

[JCMach1]

181. Exactly...

[Kickin_Donkey]

106. No thanks ...

That's a regressive tax that will disproportionally affect the lower economic classes.

[Hekate]

126. How many of DUs Self Righteousness Brigade have ever been single mothers w/ transportation problems?

>crickets<

I'd like to hear from some who have walked a mile in those shoes.

Hekate

[omega minimo]

134. One of those here "helping"

describes a single mother of three, shopping on the bus, making dinner b/w two jobs, "shucking green beans and marinating skirt steak." :rofl: :cry: :spray:

Whatever happened to tortillas and gubmint cheese?

[blondeatlast]

146. I may be there soon and am beginning to understand the lack of options.

Lost the hubby, lost our home, and now the car's on the fritz. I don't "get it" completely, but I'm beginning to--if the car fritzes out, I can't attend school.

[nadinbrzezinski]

147. Does working wiht that population works?

In a ciudad perdida no less?

Trust me, I heard many a times from families with kids

My all time fav...

YOU SHOULD give your kid formula instead of soda or juice.

Ok, that's nice, with what clean water?

I remember having that argument with a social worker. No, mom should have ... breast fed... but that is a whole different discussion.

And that is one of my all time favs...

Thankfully that SHOULD NOT be an issue in the inner city in the US... it is, but not as bad... now to the breast feeding... yep... don't get me started.

[dembotoz]

130. bad idea

one of the main advantages to fast food is that it is generally cheaper.

Going out to eat is a source of entertainment.

Cheap entertainment.

I would love to take my family to table cloth restaurants but quite frankly i can not affort to.

[mamaleah]

145. That'll be a good way to give people a reason to not vote for anyone

who had anything to do with any party who might have been involved with anyone slightly related to the guy who gets something like that passed.

My mother lives 6 blocks from me. I do not need another mommy in Washington.

[blondeatlast]

150. Proud of yourself, eh? Your big bravado in The Lounge is SO telling:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x9000596

[omega minimo]

154. Glad to see they closed the Swarmhole

[HopeHoops]

173. Actually, I didn't expect such a constructive debate to unfold when I posted that.

But, point taken. There are a lot of really well thought out comments in this thread! So yes, I'm proud of it. DU has a wealth of intelligent people in its ranks. I don't mind the abuse. I expected most of it.

Face it though, you can eat at home for a fraction of the cost of fast food. We do. It doesn't take more time - actually, I would argue that it takes a lot less.

[Politicalboi]

152. Make it alcohol

And you have a deal. Fast food is sometimes the ONLY food poor children eat. Make it more expensive to drink. Just leave my cigarettes alone. I pay enough for them and pot already. Time the boozers belly up.

[HopeHoops]

174. Question for you, and this is dead serious.

When I smoked, tax on butts was about $.12/pack and they ran $.85 to $1.25 a pack. The fuckers are like $5.00 now, right? The tax hasn't gone up that much and neither has the cost of growing the leaves. WTF is up with that? Any clues?

[lame54]

178. Why not just fix the FDA

[rucky]

179. Most regressive tax ever.