Gov. Paterson Resign NOW!

Deja Vu... (4.00 / 1)

...all over again.

What a damned shame.

---

by: Soundpolitic @ Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 20:40:44 PM UTC

With the end of Paterson's stint as governor, what is to come of SEIU's plans for New York? (0.00 / 0)

In his budget, Paterson proposed a number of new taxes, the closure of facilities and other measures to suit a political agenda.  With the end of his tenure well within sight, what is to come of these initiatives and the outside agencies that support them?

It is hard to believe that the Service Employee International Union (SEIU) 1199 will simply allow the two million dollars investment in the soda tax simply fall to the wayside.  We know whom the SEIU had in their pocket.  And how that black-handed, double-dealing agent worked out for them.

So who will be the new face of the SEIU's regressive policy for New York?  What politician would be willing to back a union in their money grab from hardworking middle and lower classes of New York?  State Health Commissioner Richard Daines is already out there toting the SEIU's campaign to tax New Yorkers into poverty.

---

by: JAVSnyc @ Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 20:45:32 PM UTC

Leaders Change... (0.00 / 0)

...but the song remains the same.

BTW, this is now cross-posted on Soundpolitic and DailyKos.

---

by: Soundpolitic @ Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 21:01:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The soda tax is a good thing (4.00 / 2)

soda is enacting a public health catastrophe on our country.  We enacted tobacco taxes to deal with a similar problem and smoking is declining every year and at historic lows.  We need to do the same for soda.

---

by: Roatti @ Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 21:22:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree (4.00 / 1)

While taxes on necessities are regressive in nature, the public health issues surrounding HFCS cannot be denied -- despite the lame protestations from ADM, etc. And soda isn't any more a necessity than cigarettes.

Maybe -- maybe -- it will force a few parents to choose something healthier for their kids.  

---

by: urizon @ Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 21:33:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Strongly agree (4.00 / 2)

I get my tobacco from a roll-your-own shop.  I love to debate the folks there about the fliers they have posted about how "Smoker's Rights" are "under attack."

I'll tell ya, the way the damn things have a hold on me, I'll only be able to quit if it becomes too expensive (erm, it already is...dammit!  I gotta step outside!)

---

by: Soundpolitic @ Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 21:35:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The soda tax (0.00 / 0)

is one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard. This is America. Taxing people's FOOD choices in infringing on their freedoms, and is ridiculous.

Why single out soda? Is it just because they're made by giant corporations? I drink probably 1000 cans of Diet Pepsi a year, and get maybe 50 calories out of them. I eat tons of cheeseburgers, mostly made from beef by local farmers, and they contribute probably 100,000-150,000 calories a year to my diet. Why not tax those? I eat tons of potatoes, again nearly all made by farmers in the USA. Including frying oil, they probably contribute another 100,000 calories a year to my diet. Why not tax those?

Just stupid.

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 21:42:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Please explain: (0.00 / 0)

How does taxing an item reduce a person's freedom to choose?

The answer is that it doesn't.  If a person chooses not to buy something because of a tax, that's their own freedom of choice at work.  And the tax didn't influence that choice; the person influenced their own choice.

Soda isn't a food necessity like beef or frying oil.  It is a LUXURY.  It's non-essential to human survival.  Just like the cigarette I just smoked.  And just like that stogie, soda is bad for me.

Personally, I drink water.  That's what my body really needs.

That said, I am going to pour myself a second glass of Chardonnay :-)

---

by: Soundpolitic @ Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 21:50:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Because it reduces their ability (0.00 / 0)

to afford it, and therefore affects their choice. That's a pretty basic principle.

I still want someone to explain why soda and not the other 95% of the calories we consume, whats the difference? Everything I eat or drink is a LUXURY, because I could survive on Chicken Ramen and a box of Clementines for $7 a week.  

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 22:00:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Is that true of all taxes? (0.00 / 0)

I mean what about luxury taxes? Personally I'm in favor of slapping a tax on anything that's over a certain number of calories. Not because it's punishing bad behaviour, but because there are costs to the government in health when eating those foods or drinking those beverages.

---

by: nrafter530 @ Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 04:07:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I understand that (0.00 / 0)

When insurance companies try to charge people based on their likeliness to get sick, we call them classist, sexist, and prejudiced, and make laws against it. Poor people even under universal coverage get sick more, stay sick longer, and die earlier, but it is (in some places) illegal to charge them more. In some states it is illegal to charge fat people more for health insurance, which is insane - and was instituted by liberals.  

Morally this is different, but as a practical matter it is the same, but, of course, the opposite. If we charged everyone based on their potential cost, we'd end up charging the severely disabled the most, then severe Hemophiliacs, people who had cancer as a kid, etc; generally everyone who was unfortunately screwed from birth would pay way more than fat people.

I think my general point is that if you want to tax, tax evenly. Caloric-Soda is just one thing. Chips, chocolate, fried foods, bacon, etc are as bad or worse. I hate the idea of taxing food at all (in NY, we generally don't), but if your going to do it, make a system keep it even across the board.  

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 04:59:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why single out soda? (0.00 / 0)

because when you ingest calories in liquid form, your body doesn't get full and thus you keep drinking it and no calories gained through eating are displaced.  It's a quirk of human evolution.  

---

by: Roatti @ Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 21:58:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So tax (0.00 / 0)

Hi-C and Capri Sun and Minute Maid and OJ and Milk and Energy drinks and coffee and tea and Naked Juice and POM and Gatorade and beer and wine and vodka (100 calories per ounce!) and Ensure and whey protein shakes and Jamba Juice and Starbucks and Pedialyte and infant formula and damn it, charge a woman per ounce for giving her kids breast milk too. That shit is loaded with calories.

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 22:04:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Soda (0.00 / 0)

has between little and nothing to do with america's obesity epidemic. A can of soda has no more calories than a beer, or milk, or orange juice, or coffee, the way most people get it.

People are unhealthy because they choose to eat/drink more calories than they burn. A dinner at Chili's typically runs 2000 calories. A salad at Don Pablos has 2500 calories. 15 chicken wings have 2200 calories. A serving of pop has 90 calories, or 1 if you drink diet soda.

Forcing calorie counts onto menus is far more promising towards helping out obesity epidemic than taxing something that accounts for less than 5% of the average American's caloric intake.

Lets worry about the other 95% just as much.

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 21:50:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's not really about the calories (0.00 / 0)

Soda's artificial sweeteners, high acidity, and carbonation (which effects the hemoglobin in your bloodstream) are far worse.  There's much more to food than just calories.  And there's a lot more to America's health problems than just obesity.

---

by: Soundpolitic @ Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 21:56:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There is absolutely not one shred of evidence (0.00 / 0)

that artificial sweeteners are bad for you. One study on pumping rats with the rarely used sweetener Saccharin that has since been disavowed by its researchers is all that's ever come out in 40+ years.

I agree with everything else you say. That's why a soda tax baffles me. Why on earth are people so caught up in something so insignificant?

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 22:07:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah, right... (0.00 / 0)

Just like there isn't a shred of evidence that man is resopnsible for global warming.

The soda tax clearly is baffling you because you drink soda and you don't want to pay the tax.  Very selfish of you.

---

by: Soundpolitic @ Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 22:16:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Clearly. (0.00 / 0)

It'll cost me, by my calculations, a whopping $70 a year. I make over 1000 times that. I'll deal.

Find a study for me. Please.

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 22:17:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Find a study for yourself (4.00 / 1)

Stop just seeking out information to confirm your beliefs.  That's what the Tea Drinkers do.

Seek out information to challenge your own damn self.

(End Flame War...I'm watching The Chris Matthews Show, which is discussing the actual content of this diary before it was hijacked by an unreasonable anti-soda-tax health crisis denier from Amherst.)

---

by: Soundpolitic @ Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 22:22:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I did. (0.00 / 0)

Years ago when I realized I was drinking 1000 cans of aspartame soda a year.

I didn't hijack this thread. I just responded to other people thoughts. Other people changed the topic.

And I think I've referenced the health crisis 5-6 times already, so check yourself before you personally attack me. I just dont think we should attribute it to only one thing when that one thing accounts for 5% of the problem.

also end flame war.

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 23:02:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not sure that's true (0.00 / 0)

The human body metabolizes fructose differently from other sugars:

Fructose Metabolism By The Brain Increases Food Intake And Obesity, Review Suggests
ScienceDaily

(Mar. 26, 2009) - M. Daniel Lane and colleagues at Johns Hopkins have built on the suggested link between the consumption of fructose and increased food intake, which may contribute to a high incidence of obesity, and Type 2 diabetes.

[. . .]

Lane commented: "We feel that these findings may have particular relevance to the massive increase in the use of high fructose sweeteners (both high fructose corn syrup and table sugar) in virtually all sweetened foods, most notably soft drinks. The per capita consumption of these sweeteners in the USA is about 145 lbs/year and is probably much higher in teenagers/youth that have a high level of consumption of soft drinks. There is a large literature now that correlates, but does not prove that a culprit in the rise of teenage obesity may be fructose."

I found this story after a single Google search. There's a lot more information out there about a cause-effect link re. sugary/HFCS drinks -- if you take the time to do the research.

Personally, I drink this stuff:

ZEVIA is the first all natural zero calorie soda. With only pure ingredients, ZEVIA contains none of the chemically processed artificial sugar substitutes, artificial flavors or artificial colors found in other diet sodas. ZEVIA is all-natural, has zero calories, zero net carbs, zero fat, and little or no sodium (depending on flavor).

All seven delicious ZEVIA varieties - ZEVIA Natural Cola, ZEVIA Natural Orange, ZEVIA Natural Twist, ZEVIA Natural Root Beer, ZEVIA Natural Black Cherry, and ZEVIA Natural Ginger Ale - are healthier and taste better than any other diet soda. Click here for answers to Frequently Asked Questions about ZEVIA.

Learn the facts about ZEVIA's pure, all natural ingredients including stevia, an herb native to South and Central America used for centuries to sweeten food. Stevia is hundreds of times sweeter than sugar and has no effect on blood sugar levels. Click here to learn more about the history and science of stevia.

You should give it a try. And, now that stevia is approved as a food additive, I'm sure the big soft-drink manufacturers will start using it in the near future. It's been used in Japan for over twenty years.

---

by: urizon @ Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 22:09:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'll check it out (0.00 / 0)

but it sounds expensive. And I REALLY like the taste of Diet Pepsi.

I believe you on HFCS. but that shit's in EVERYTHING. Again, why single out soda? If that's what's killing us, lets tax HFCS instead! Way better idea!

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 22:11:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

2 more thoughts (0.00 / 0)

1) Pepsi's throwback drinks with sugar instead of HFCS are probably going to become permanent with its next introduction. With the price of corn skyrocketing, ut's no longer significantly cheaper to use HFCS.

2) 15 years ago, Budweiser outsold Bud Light 3-1. Now, Bud Light outsells Bud 6-1, and the category Light Beer outsells the category Premium Beer (Bud, Miller, etc) by an astounding 7-1.

Why? Because Bud and Miller and Coors decided to make their light beers their flagship brands instead of their traditional beers. I bet Pepsi and Coke can do the same.

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 22:16:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Of course, you're ignoring (0.00 / 0)

that fructose is a natural sugar that's already present, and the body quite easily metabolizes it.  It's the predominant sugar in most fruit, hence the name "fructose."  It's also 50% of sucrose.  

---

by: Norbrook @ Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 22:30:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You are (0.00 / 0)

poorly informed on this issue.  As per many of these comments. Obesity epidemic and increases in average consumption of soda track perfectly--- along w/increases in diabetes.  There is also geographic co-location.  Scientists who have studied people's diets have concluded that soda adds more empty calories, in the average American diet, than anything else.

Calorie counts on menus, on the other hands, have not been very effective.

Soda-- and high-fructose corn syrup in general-- have everything to do with the obesity epidemic.  Most effective would be to stop subsidizing their production at the federal level.  Soda taxes, however, are something that State governments are able to do about it.

---

by: robinia @ Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 14:00:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Correlation? (0.00 / 0)

OF COURSE they track "perfectly": People who don't care about their health consume that's bad for them! I bet chips and donuts and red meat consumption track "perfectly" too. my point isn't that you can't tax soda, my point is that its unfair and honestly useless to single it out.

btw, a bunch of researchers at Yale and Stanford disagree with your findings on calories on menus, and the National Restaurant Association is in favor of it (because their margins are higher on healthy food).

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 20:56:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is on Chris Matthews (0.00 / 0)

Right now.

---

by: Soundpolitic @ Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 22:16:25 PM UTC

I hope he can hold out (0.00 / 0)

The two-year anniversary of Spitzer's resignation is March 17.  With powerful organizations like NOW calling for Paterson to step down, he may not last long enough to mark the occasion.

I hope he can hold out though, so we can make March 17 a formal state holiday, Resignation Day, which of course would coincide nicely with that other holiday that involves heavy drinking.

---

by: NYCO @ Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 17:44:30 PM UTC

I refuse to be resigned! (0.00 / 0)

I say we call that holiday "New Hope Day"-- because hope, like Spring, springs eternal in the human breast.  If we must clean out corruption every two years, or every year, well, gimme a mop.  I do not intend to ever resign myself to corruption being inevitable.  Some cultures, some places, have achieved democracy.

Don't drink... don't mourn, organize.

---

by: robinia @ Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 14:06:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

but... but... green beer! (0.00 / 0)

---

by: NYCO @ Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 16:27:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]