Why only last week Demoncrat, Charlie Rangel of NY was up in arms at the new cigarette tax because it was unfair to the poor blacks who are "addicted" to nicotine.
Is it possible for a socio-economic group to be doubly victimized? (/sarcasm)
Posted on 07/11/2002 11:02:57 AM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
It seems like only yesterday when the Left was giddy over the enormous tobacco settlements that were lavished upon several of our states. The evils of smoking and its negative health aspects were plenty of reason to award former and current smokers millions of dollars over the course of the past several years. Now, the War on Tobacco is virtually over and the Left has seemingly won. Cigarette taxes have increased so much that a smoker now must pay over $7 per pack in our nation's largest city. If you thought that the era of a lack of personal responsibility would end in the tobacco fields, your thoughts were only wishful thinking. For the Left has a new target, food.
There is virtually no doubt that cigarette smoking has led to the deaths of thousands of individuals over the past few decades due to lung cancer, throat cancer, emphysema, etc. Of course, the Left managed to shift the blame for these deaths to the cigarette producers instead of the consumer. Never mind that most logical individuals could either cut back or quit smoking when they couldn't breathe without coughing or, in the case of a woman, when her voice sounded like one from a villain in an old western movie. A little common sense could have saved many lives.
The government prosecution of the major cigarette companies did nothing to reduce cigarette smoking in America. The conventional method by which smoking has been discouraged by our government has been by raising taxes on smokes. As any college student who has completed an introductory course in economics could tell you, raising taxes on cigarettes cannot decrease smoking by any significant amount. Demand for cigarettes is nearly inelastic, as it is for almost every drug. The desire for cigarettes far outweighs any price difference and the consumer will continue to purchase cigarettes regardless of any price increase.
The battle over fatty foods has begun in much the same way as that of the cigarette company crucifixion. Liberal publications such as 'The Nation' have condemned the fatty food marketers and have helped to ignite the campaign to slap taxes on fatty foods. Liberals hope that the fatty food 'sin tax' will help to drive Americans from a Quarter Pounder to a grilled chicken sandwich.
An abundance of evidence shows that Americans are becoming more obese. The think tank, RAND, has stated that three of every five Americans are either obese or overweight. Obesity, according to RAND, actually leads to larger amounts of chronic health conditions and significantly higher health expenditures than smoking or heavy drinking. If this research continues to be confirmed, fatty foods could potentially become an even more politically lucrative issue for the Left and help to stuff the pockets of one of the Left's most supportive groups, trial lawyers. A lawsuit against McDonalds from the family of a man who died from heart disease and ate at a Big Mac every day may soon become a reality.
This likely upcoming assault on fatty foods is yet another example of the Left's attempt to micromanage the lives of Americans. The Left is simply stating, "You are too stupid to decide for yourself what is healthy food. You are not smart enough to know that a Big Mac has more fat grams and is less healthy than a salad. Therefore, your federal government will take care of you and tax these inconsiderate producers of various fatty foods."
Lest you believe that this is just an issue that revolves around taking care of all Americans, it is actually slightly more complex. In its July 10 edition, the leftist magazine, "The Nation", interviewed fellow liberal and renowned author, Eric Schlosser. As you may know, Schlosser is the author of the best selling book, Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal. In the interview, Schlosser agrees with the magazine's premise that this supposed fatty food epidemic targets America's poor. He further states that this affects the poor to a greater extent because of a lack of proper medical care, accurate information and nutritional education. This is the key facet of the fatty food epidemic, for creating this issue is the latest attempt to lasso the poor under the broad arms of the Liberal Establishment.
The argument that this fatty food problem naturally affects the poor is ludicrous. Just because more poor people eat fatty food and are thereby more likely to suffer from heart disease and other ailments does not mean that this is a natural occurrence. A large majority of the poor can read and understand nutritional labels and have enough common sense to know that chicken has less fat than hamburger. These individuals who consume fatty foods in virtually every meal have made a choice. Chances are that many of these persons, though certainly not all, have made similar bad choices in the past and that is why many of them are in their current socioeconomic status.
Attempts are now being made to add a special 'fat tax' to all fatty foods in order to supposedly discourage consumption of these foods and to provide funding to combat diseases associated with a diet high in fatty foods. How a potential 'fat militia' will be formed and carry out a mission to define and tax all fatty foods has not been discussed.
Look for this issue to become more prominent in the coming months, as the Left will shift the focus to the diets of poor children and will lament the idea that these children are consuming far too much fat in their diets. Then, in typical liberal fashion, the "Save the Children" parade will begin much the same way it did when cries were heard regarding the school lunch program.
Maybe the government could create a series of restaurants that would provide healthy food. Imagine the flow of adults and especially children to such establishments as Tofu Bell, Kentucky Fried Cauliflower and Veggie Burger King.
Who, of course, also must be very dumb, and desperately in need of protection from themselves by Big Brother government.
mmmm....veggie burger king.....Info from Burger King .....hmmmmmm.....yuummmm lol...;-)Ingredient Listing for Patty
WATER, MUSHROOMS, WATER CHESTNUTS, COOKED BROWN RICE, TEXTURED WHEAT PROTEIN, ROLLED OATS, VITAL WHEAT GLUTEN, FROZEN ONIONS, CORN OIL, FROZEN CARROTS, POTATO STARCH, FROZEN GREEN PEPPERS, FROZEN RED PEPPERS, 2% OR LESS OF ONION POWDER, CORN STARCH, BLACK OLIVES, METHYLCELLULOSE, SALT, MODIFIED TAPIOCA STARCH, RICE FLOUR, YEAST EXTRACT, OAT FIBER, SUGAR, POTATO DEXTRIN, KONJAC FLOUR, GARLIC POWDER, BLACK PEPPER, MALTODEXTRIN, NATURAL FLAVORS FROM NON-MEAT SOURCES, DEXTROSE, SODIUM BICARBONATE, SODIUM ACID PYROPHOSPHATE, HYDROLYZED CORN GLUTEN, MALT EXTRACT, SAGE, GRILL FLAVOR, BASIL, RAISIN JUICE CONCENTRATE, OREGANO, JALAPENO PEPPER POWDER, SESAME OIL, MODIFIED CORN STARCH, CORN SYRUP SOLIDS, NATURAL SMOKE FLAVORING, CELERY OLEORESIN, WINE, CITRIC ACID, CARAMEL COLOR, AND XANTHAN GUM.Ingredient Listing for 4" Bun
ENRICHED FLOUR (NIACIN, IRON, THIAMINE MONONITRATE, RIBOBLAVIN, AND FOLIC ACID), WATER, SUGAR, (SUCROSE OR HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP), VEGETABLE SHORTENING, YEAST, SALT, WHEAT GLUTEN, SESAME SEEDS, NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL BUTTER FLAVOR, YEAST FOOD (CALCIUM SULFATE, POTASSIUM IODATE, AND/OR AMMONIUM SULFATE) DOUGH CONDITIONERS (POLYSORBATE 60, CALCIUM PEROXIDE {OXIDANT}, CALCIUM SALTS, SULFATES, PHOSPHATES, AND AMMONIUM SALTS), DOUGH STRENGTHENERS (SODIUM AND/OR CALCIUM-2-STEAROYL LACTYLATE OR ETHOXYLATED MONO- AND DIGLYCERIDES), DOUGH SOFTENERS ( MONO- AND DIGLYCERIDES, AND/OR PROTEASE ENZYME), MOLD INHIBITOR (CALCIUM PROPIONATE), PRESERVATIVE (POTASSIUM SORBATE), OXIDATION REDUCTION ADDITIVES (ASCORBIC ACID, POTASSIUM/CALCIUM IODATE, ALPHA-AMYLASE, AZODICARBONAMIDE), LEAVENING AGENT (MONOCALCIUM PHOSPHATE).Ingredient Listing for Reduced-Fat Mayonnaise
WATER, SOYBEAN OIL, CORN SYRUP, EGG WHITES, DISTILLED VINEGAR, MODIFIED FOOD STARCH, SALT, SUGAR, SPICE, XANTHAN GUM, MUSTARD FLOUR, SODIUM BENZOATE AND POTASSIUM SORBATE AS PRESERVATIVES, LEMON JUICE, POLYSORBATE 60, CALCIUM DISODIUM EDTA TO PROTECT FLAVOR, OLEORESIN PAPRIKA, SODIUM CITRATE, ANNATTO COLOR, MONO AND DIGLYCERIDES.
Interesting premise ... and I remember thinking at the time that it was a little far-fetched.
In my dreams ... or, rather, nightmares.
I heard it on last night's news: a health (nut) group wants a warning put on kids Happy Meals because they say French Fries cause Cancer! I kid you not.
Ronald McDonald in an orange jump suit, being led away in chains... what an image.
Right now, most people can distinguish between tobacco, which has zero nutritive value, and cheeseburgers, which have some properties as food. If the lefties convince enough people that they're right about this and other parts of their agenda, then we'll have a lot more to worry about than where to find a burger den. Every day, we live in the middle, between the extremes on all of hundreds of issues, and a slight movement towards one side or the other is not going to bring people's lives crashing down.
Face it, more people can find something wrong with crack cocaine than with aspirin, and more people can find something wrong with tobacco than with cheeseburgers. That's how the balance is set. If you'd REALLY like to stop the slide, then persuade people that the extremists are misguided, but Chicken Little "the sky is falling" rhetoric is not going to convince anyone.
Banning tobacco, although it's wrongfully intrusive, would at least have ONE good effect: a reduction in the incidence of several diseases. But attacking dietary fat won't do any good at all -- It's now been established beyond all question, that obesity, and the secondary complications of obesity such as heart disease, diabetes, etc, are triggered by the body's reaction to carbohydrates -- NOT FAT. I repeat, eating fat doesn't make people fat -- excess carbohydrates (sugar, starch), when combined with a genetic susceptibility, makes people fat.
The anti-fat, anti-meat crusaders don't want to hear this. They'll argue til they're blue in the face, and they'll never consider the evidence, because their real motive is NOT our health, but serving a vegetarian ideological agenda. (Anti-smoking crusaders probably aren't motivated by health, either. But at least their advice is medically right.)
Why only last week Demoncrat, Charlie Rangel of NY was up in arms at the new cigarette tax because it was unfair to the poor blacks who are "addicted" to nicotine.
Is it possible for a socio-economic group to be doubly victimized? (/sarcasm)
You're right that they don't care about people's health. But I think their true agenda is to get the tax revenue so they can finance all their leftist, social-engineering programs (animal rights, global warming and especially ... income redistribution).
WAA! The poor 'ole poor people routine!
Why doesn't someone do a study on the percentage of obese people on welfare??
Make 'em weigh in, and if they're overweight, cut back on their food stamp allotment.
How many lives would be saved if the Government banned sex for homosexuals and intraveneous drug users....or at least put a high enough tax to force them to stop those dangerous activities?
"I got spicy chicken, bacon cheeseburgers, trip whoppers wid da works. Name your poison." Sirens blare as a police unit screams to a halt in front of the illegal deal going down.
"Hello Meat Wagon," says the pot bellied LEO."Looks like I'm going to have to run you in."
"No sir, officer. I saved this just for you. Fresh this morning." says the dealer.
He hands the officer a Bavarian Creme and two bleberry cheese danish.
Growing tobacco is only possible in certain areas, growing beef cattle is more widespread. The nut cases couldn't get rid of cheeseburgers if they wanted to. And for the rest of my natural life, I expect my generation, and my children and grandchildren's generations to not allow them to. That's a good enough reason to take your grandkids to McDonalds as often as possible!
Whatever the power of taxation was intended for (we have no way of knowing that, certainly the Founding Fathers were familiar with a tax on tea), it has evolved into other things. The tax I pay on gasoline is a fair remuneration for building the roads I drive on. The tax I pay on my house is used in part to pay for fire protection in my city, and if I have a bigger house with a higher tax, to the extent that the fire protection part of the tax is bigger, its because I have the city protecting a more valuable asset of mine. The tax I pay on a six pack of beer is probably meant to deter me from drinking it, but it doesn't seem too effective. It does force me to give up some other thing in my life, in order to have the beer, so it might be having an effect, let me think about that over my next quaff.
The Founding Fathers have plenty more things to "go gyroscope" over than social engineering taxes that were voted on by representatives of the people. Supreme Court sanctioned free and easy abortion might possibly be one of them.
Wouldn't that be The McCrib?
Doesn't this quote essentially say the exact same thing?
ALL TIME CHILLING QUOTE OF THE DAY :
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism,
but under the name of Liberalism
they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist Program
until one day America will be a Socialist Nation
without ever knowing how it happened----
Now, who on earth do you think would have audacity to say this publicly?
Norman Thomas, six-time Socialist Party presidential candidate
and one of the founders of the ACLU.That's Who!!!
I care about my health. That's why I'm only eating burger made of pure Soylent Green(TM).
It's people ya know.
And an Anchor Steam to wash it down? You're on! Next wine trip to Napa that the wife and I go on!
They will tax the poor until they scream.
Face it, more people can find something wrong with crack cocaine than with aspirin, and more people can find something wrong with tobacco than with cheeseburgers.
Every person can find something wrong with government.
As absurd as the fatty-food tax is. An even more absurd, seemingly surreal, though very real problem overshadows it. It is the fact that many fats are beneficial to the human body while carbohydrates and especially complex carbohydrates like sugar and fructose reek havoc on the metabolism over the long term and are the real food culprits that lead to obesity.
What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie
Caffeine-alcohol-sugar free diet; low carbohydrate intake; high protein intake (read meat, milk, cheese, eggs and most dairy products some whole grains and vegetable fibers), gallon of water evenly spaced over the day; aerobic fitness of at least twenty minutes each day.
Deconstructed absurd and seemingly surreal, albeit very real problems that leech off Americans and their well being and prosperity. Predominantly, how and why politics is the problem, not the solution -- and what to do about it...
Congress Can't Fix Corporate America
The politicians are coming lock your portfolios
Exposing the failed psychology of
self-proclaimed environmental and political authorities
Oh well. At least it's cheaper. Might as well throw in a supersize fries.
Which will further contribute to "Global Warming". What will the bean-sprout eating lefties do then?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.