Sugary Drink Sin Tax

[The Human Q-Tip]

Err, can you draw any factual basis for the inference that charity could some how care for millions of impoverished people?

As you acknowledged, we didn't have significant numbers of people dying in the streets prior to the entitlement era, and that was at a time when our population was well over 100 million. So either charity was taking care of those people, or the pre-entitlement nation just didn't have many people starving even in the absence of 1) charity and 2) entitlements. Either is good.

That being said, I'll acknowledge a difference between how "poverty" is currently defined, and truly not having enough money to eat and live.

Again, can you demonstrate, statistically any of this? Unemployment is down, poverty is down, crime is down, levels education, self-reliance, independent living, and opportunities have increased.

Oh, I suspect we could argue statistically about a lot of that, especially how you choose to measure "self-reliance". But we also have a much higher percentage of people dependent upon the government for sustenance, our structural deficit has ballooned, and wage-earners are paying a significantly higher percentage of their income to support those who are not working.

Can you cite a few?

Google "health care third party payors" and you'll get a shitload of hits:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=has thrid party payor increased the cost of health care&src=IE-TopResult&FORM=IETR02&conversationid=

Without such, I'm going to say your argument is baseless. I'm more than willing to provide facts to support my claims.

Feel free. Look, I honestly think you misunderstand the reason people post. They don't do it to please or amuse you, or because they desire to engage in debates over minutia in which they have no interest. They may not be interested in putting forth the effort to prove every predicate to your satisfaction because that's not the aspect of the issue that interests them. They may be more interested in discussing the issue that assumes that predicate.

In other words, if I make a statement that I believe most others would accept as true, but you don't, I usually won't care, because your belief/agreement isn't important to me. In fact, your objection to something I think others freely acknowledge itself often proves the point I wanted to make.

Then why respond to my posts? You're not making logical arguments if there isn't factual data to support your conclusions.

I respond to the parts of your posts that interest me. I don't respond to those that don't.

And, you're confusing the existence of factual data with the willingness of another poster to do all the ground work of digging up whatever they've read outside this forum, posting it here, and then arguing here about the facts to your satisfaction. Just because I choose not to waste time posting facts to refute an argument that we never actually landed on the moon doesn't mean we didn't land there, It just means I don't care to waste my time arguing about that particular claim.

So, just because you won't accept that the third party payors systems inflates costs doesn't mean that I think it is worth the effort to prove it to you.

So it is morally better, in your mind, to separate a child from the mother and pay for their care (unnecessarily creating an orphan), rather than giving that same money to the mother to care for her child?

All else being equal, no. But, all else may not be equal.

A legally enforceable entitlement to payment that an individual can demand from the government (i.e., taxpayers) creates the potential for dependency and abuse that I believe are destructive in the aggregate long-term. It destroys the normal "fuck I better work my ass of or I'm going to starve" incentive. Private charity, which is not legally enforceable, is much more flexible because there is no legal entitlement as to the existence or amount.

So, while I'd generally prefer for a child to stay with it's parents via self-reliance or private charity, I'm not in favor of subsidizing someone else having their family while sitting on their ass and having others pay for it.

Being poor is supposed to suck. That's the incentive for people to bust their ass so that they do not end up that way.

 

[Kyrieville]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-panel-calls-taxing-sugary-180000406.html

 

[OptimusPrime]

They don't take long do they? When they see Boobus' asshole spread open and waiting, the federal government moves swiftly to defile them.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Yeah, so much for the claim that there isn't anybody even proposing taxing anything other than sugary soda.... For anyone who didn't want to click....

(Bloomberg) -- Americans should pay taxes on sugary sodas and snacks as a way to cut down on sweets, though they no longer need to worry about cholesterol, according to scientists helping to revamp dietary guidelines as U.S. obesity levels surge.

The recommendations Thursday from the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee also call for Americans to reduce meat consumption and to take sustainability into account when dining.