Sugar is the new "Devil"

Meerataila

We disagree on who should decide what government should be involved in. I say direct democracy for what affects us all. We all decide together. No more wealthy decision makers. Who, by the way, don't follow our Constitution anyway.

To some extent I agree with you.
Strip power from Fed. Government and return to states and local governments

The reason Madison wanted a strong federal government was to stop exactly the trend you seem most wary of. If you haven't already, you should study not just Shays Rebellion but the actions of colonists (many of them Revolutionary War veterans angry at getting screwed out of their pay) prior to Shays Rebellion. Then read Madison and the other Constitutional Convention participants' writings in that context.

The Founders had to run a propaganda campaign prior to the Revolutionary War in order to get people to fight the British. So they spoke of liberty and justice for all. But the last thing they wanted was democracy. They wanted the decisions made by men like themselves: Wealthy, white, land holding. And that is what they got.

MityMax96

We disagree on who should decide what government should be involved in. I say direct democracy for what affects us all. We all decide together. No more wealthy decision makers. Who, by the way, don't follow our Constitution anyway.

To some extent I agree with you.
Strip power from Fed. Government and return to states and local governments

The reason Madison wanted a strong federal government was to stop exactly the trend you seem most wary of. If you haven't already, you should study not just Shays Rebellion but the actions of colonists (many of them Revolutionary War veterans angry at getting screwed out of their pay) prior to Shays Rebellion. Then read Madison and the other Constitutional Convention participants' writings in that context.

The Founders had to run a propaganda campaign prior to the Revolutionary War in order to get people to fight the British. So they spoke of liberty and justice for all. But the last thing they wanted was democracy. They wanted the decisions made by men like themselves: Wealthy, white, land holding. And that is what they got.

Then what pray tell do you propose??

I mean go with any form of gov. and you are gonna have some group of people getting screwed....
Just how it is.

Meerataila

People want to work and have nice things

Are you sure about that?

Can you say it with 100% certainty that people want to work and have nice things because I have known plenty of people who lost jobs and sat back collecting unemployment -- and kept getting it extended when it ran out -- because they made more collecting than they did if they got another job. There are plenty of people who are capable of getting a job but they choose to sit back and stay on welfare because it's easier to hold your hand out and get money than it is to get off your butt and get a job.

I suppose I should have said 'most people'. I defy you to make the argument that we'll have less people working hard for long hours at dirty and dangerous jobs if they're actually paid well for those jobs.

The reason many choose welfare (aside from the fact that outsourcing has made it so we don't have enough jobs) is because working doesn't lift many out of poverty at all, so why work if you aren't getting anywhere for it?

MityMax96

Uh Oh - What have I started - it was just supposed to be a light hearted view of the world from some 45 year-old house wife that lives in South Africa...............

haha
Great topic, thank you

I fully agree. It may have started as sugar but this debate is a great topic where hopefully people don't f it up and get it locked by turning it into personal insults. Not enough people know politics and American history and it's sad.

+1

Meerataila

We disagree on who should decide what government should be involved in. I say direct democracy for what affects us all. We all decide together. No more wealthy decision makers. Who, by the way, don't follow our Constitution anyway.

To some extent I agree with you.
Strip power from Fed. Government and return to states and local governments

The reason Madison wanted a strong federal government was to stop exactly the trend you seem most wary of. If you haven't already, you should study not just Shays Rebellion but the actions of colonists (many of them Revolutionary War veterans angry at getting screwed out of their pay) prior to Shays Rebellion. Then read Madison and the other Constitutional Convention participants' writings in that context.

The Founders had to run a propaganda campaign prior to the Revolutionary War in order to get people to fight the British. So they spoke of liberty and justice for all. But the last thing they wanted was democracy. They wanted the decisions made by men like themselves: Wealthy, white, land holding. And that is what they got.

Then what pray tell do you propose??

I mean go with any form of gov. and you are gonna have some group of people getting screwed....
Just how it is.

Participatory Economics combined with direct democracy for the decisions that will affect us all.

MityMax96

People want to work and have nice things

Are you sure about that?

Can you say it with 100% certainty that people want to work and have nice things because I have known plenty of people who lost jobs and sat back collecting unemployment -- and kept getting it extended when it ran out -- because they made more collecting than they did if they got another job. There are plenty of people who are capable of getting a job but they choose to sit back and stay on welfare because it's easier to hold your hand out and get money than it is to get off your butt and get a job.

I suppose I should have said 'most people'. I defy you to make the argument that we'll have less people working hard for long hours at dirty and dangerous jobs if they're actually paid well for those jobs.

The reason many choose welfare (aside from the fact that outsourcing has made it so we don't have enough jobs) is because working doesn't lift many out of poverty at all, so why work if you aren't getting anywhere for it?

Ever read Ayn Rand's ATLAS SHRUGGED?

AlyssaJoJo

I don't agree with the tax.

But one day I would like to see soda or sweet sugary drinks be more price wise than water. But that's more me wanting to see the price of bottled water go down because it's redic. I hardly ever drink it - but live in a town that has some horrible water so if I'm somewhere that dosn't have a filter I'll go buy a bottle. I find my self wanting water sometimes but getting soda because in the end it's cheaper.

Meerataila

People want to work and have nice things

Are you sure about that?

Can you say it with 100% certainty that people want to work and have nice things because I have known plenty of people who lost jobs and sat back collecting unemployment -- and kept getting it extended when it ran out -- because they made more collecting than they did if they got another job. There are plenty of people who are capable of getting a job but they choose to sit back and stay on welfare because it's easier to hold your hand out and get money than it is to get off your butt and get a job.

I suppose I should have said 'most people'. I defy you to make the argument that we'll have less people working hard for long hours at dirty and dangerous jobs if they're actually paid well for those jobs.

The reason many choose welfare (aside from the fact that outsourcing has made it so we don't have enough jobs) is because working doesn't lift many out of poverty at all, so why work if you aren't getting anywhere for it?

Ever read Ayn Rand's ATLAS SHRUGGED?

I've read Ayn Rand. If you're a Randian we'll simply never see eye to eye on anything because it's basically social darwinism. Social darwinists believe that the rich rule because they are the best. Not the most ruthless and nasty, but the smartest and most fit. After studying history a couple of decades, I think they're just the most ruthless and nasty.

bugaboo_sue

People want to work and have nice things

Are you sure about that?

Can you say it with 100% certainty that people want to work and have nice things because I have known plenty of people who lost jobs and sat back collecting unemployment -- and kept getting it extended when it ran out -- because they made more collecting than they did if they got another job. There are plenty of people who are capable of getting a job but they choose to sit back and stay on welfare because it's easier to hold your hand out and get money than it is to get off your butt and get a job.

I suppose I should have said 'most people'. I defy you to make the argument that we'll have less people working hard for long hours at dirty and dangerous jobs if they're actually paid well for those jobs.

The reason many choose welfare (aside from the fact that outsourcing has made it so we don't have enough jobs) is because working doesn't lift many out of poverty at all, so why work if you aren't getting anywhere for it?

But if they got a job and were making money they could advance in their position, get a raise and lift themselves out of their situation. The fact is that it's easier to sit back with a hand out. I have known people to take a job -- ANY job -- so that they could get themselves out of the situation that they are in. Why should I have to pay for someone who is perfectly capable of getting a job, and yes, even a low paying factory job if they had to, but choose to sit back and get a hand out instead? How is that right and why should it be allowed?

It's rather funny how when our welfare system is explained to someone who comes from a country where there are no government hand outs they shake their head in wonder and ask "How is that right?"

MityMax96

People want to work and have nice things

Are you sure about that?

Can you say it with 100% certainty that people want to work and have nice things because I have known plenty of people who lost jobs and sat back collecting unemployment -- and kept getting it extended when it ran out -- because they made more collecting than they did if they got another job. There are plenty of people who are capable of getting a job but they choose to sit back and stay on welfare because it's easier to hold your hand out and get money than it is to get off your butt and get a job.

I suppose I should have said 'most people'. I defy you to make the argument that we'll have less people working hard for long hours at dirty and dangerous jobs if they're actually paid well for those jobs.

The reason many choose welfare (aside from the fact that outsourcing has made it so we don't have enough jobs) is because working doesn't lift many out of poverty at all, so why work if you aren't getting anywhere for it?

Ever read Ayn Rand's ATLAS SHRUGGED?

I've read Ayn Rand. If you're a Randian we'll simply never see eye to eye on anything because it's basically social darwinism. Social darwinists believe that the rich rule because they are the best. Not the most ruthless and nasty, but the smartest and most fit. After studying history a couple of decades, I think they're just the most ruthless and nasty.

Would not call myself an Objectivist (Randian)
But I do look at where she came from and what she saw, and what she wrote about.
And I like most of it

weightliftingdiva

People want to work and have nice things

Are you sure about that?

Can you say it with 100% certainty that people want to work and have nice things because I have known plenty of people who lost jobs and sat back collecting unemployment -- and kept getting it extended when it ran out -- because they made more collecting than they did if they got another job. There are plenty of people who are capable of getting a job but they choose to sit back and stay on welfare because it's easier to hold your hand out and get money than it is to get off your butt and get a job.

I suppose I should have said 'most people'. I defy you to make the argument that we'll have less people working hard for long hours at dirty and dangerous jobs if they're actually paid well for those jobs.

The reason many choose welfare (aside from the fact that outsourcing has made it so we don't have enough jobs) is because working doesn't lift many out of poverty at all, so why work if you aren't getting anywhere for it?

But if they got a job and were making money they could advance in their position, get a raise and lift themselves out of their situation. The fact is that it's easier to sit back with a hand out. I have known people to take a job -- ANY job -- so that they could get themselves out of the situation that they are in. Why should I have to pay for someone who is perfectly capable of getting a job, and yes, even a low paying factory job if they had to, but choose to sit back and get a hand out instead? How is that right and why should it be allowed?

It's rather funny how when our welfare system is explained to someone who comes from a country where there are no government hand outs they shake their head in wonder and ask "How is that right?"

It depends on the numbers. How many people who receive umemployment are actually not looking for or turning down jobs? How many people on SNAP or WIC could actually work harder instead of receiving government assistance? I suspect that there are a lot more working poor people then you think there are. Are there people who abuse the system? Absolutely - but those are the kinds of people would abuse the system at any level of income. There are some people who like to cheat - whether it's on wall street or regarding social security disability. That's not a flaw in the program, that's a flaw with a few people.

CarynMacD

I don't agree with the tax.

But one day I would like to see soda or sweet sugary drinks be more price wise than water. But that's more me wanting to see the price of bottled water go down because it's redic. I hardly ever drink it - but live in a town that has some horrible water so if I'm somewhere that dosn't have a filter I'll go buy a bottle. I find my self wanting water sometimes but getting soda because in the end it's cheaper.

That is just crazy!!!! I'm so lucky here in South Africa because the water on tap is pretty good by most standards. I rarely have to buy bottled water.

Now that's really one for the books - WHY IS WATER MORE EXPENSIVE THAN SODA? Does not make sense.

lemurcat12

It has, i know that price is the reason for alot of my friends quitting. that being said a pack of cigs in canada is pushing 10 bucks or more.. adds up pretty fast

Not sure how to study it (obviously even smoking couldn't be perfectly inelastic, but I mean the extent of the effect), but anecdotally I've heard the same kind of thing, including from family members. They wanted to quit eventually anyway, but price was part of why they finally decided it wasn't worth it anymore.

weightliftingdiva

I don't agree with the tax.

But one day I would like to see soda or sweet sugary drinks be more price wise than water. But that's more me wanting to see the price of bottled water go down because it's redic. I hardly ever drink it - but live in a town that has some horrible water so if I'm somewhere that dosn't have a filter I'll go buy a bottle. I find my self wanting water sometimes but getting soda because in the end it's cheaper.

That is just crazy!!!! I'm so lucky here in South Africa because the water on tap is pretty good by most standards. I rarely have to buy bottled water.

Now that's really one for the books - WHY IS WATER MORE EXPENSIVE THAN SODA? Does not make sense.

It shouldn't be, because water bottling companies take the water out of the ground and then put it in plastic bottles. No reason it should be more expensive then something that requires ingredients AND water as a base. :laugh:

lemurcat12

If they're going to have a sin tax on processed sugar stuff, that tax should be used to subsidize the cost of fruits, vegetables, and other healthy options that are currently expensive. This in turn would benefit the farmers.

Ideally, what they should do is just stop all subsidies rather than the feds subsidizing on one end and the states taxing on the other. But it's not the same entities doing the taxes and the subsidies, and most states are pretty starved for cash (mine certainly is a basket case), so there you are.

Also, lots of states don't tax food or tax it at a much lower rate, so imposing the full tax or extra on stuff like soda is kind of the counterpoint of that.

Meerataila

People want to work and have nice things

Are you sure about that?

Can you say it with 100% certainty that people want to work and have nice things because I have known plenty of people who lost jobs and sat back collecting unemployment -- and kept getting it extended when it ran out -- because they made more collecting than they did if they got another job. There are plenty of people who are capable of getting a job but they choose to sit back and stay on welfare because it's easier to hold your hand out and get money than it is to get off your butt and get a job.

I suppose I should have said 'most people'. I defy you to make the argument that we'll have less people working hard for long hours at dirty and dangerous jobs if they're actually paid well for those jobs.

The reason many choose welfare (aside from the fact that outsourcing has made it so we don't have enough jobs) is because working doesn't lift many out of poverty at all, so why work if you aren't getting anywhere for it?

Ever read Ayn Rand's ATLAS SHRUGGED?

I've read Ayn Rand. If you're a Randian we'll simply never see eye to eye on anything because it's basically social darwinism. Social darwinists believe that the rich rule because they are the best. Not the most ruthless and nasty, but the smartest and most fit. After studying history a couple of decades, I think they're just the most ruthless and nasty.

Would not call myself an Objectivist (Randian)
But I do look at where she came from and what she saw, and what she wrote about.
And I like most of it

I'm opposed to making humanity more vicious rather than more civilized by rewarding people with power for wealth accumulation. I see no reason why a Bush should have more decision making power in policies that affect my life than I do just because many great-great-grandaddy Bush's ago the family made a killing in the slave trade. I'd rather take my chances on direct democracy for anything that absolutely has to be decided on to maintain society together.

Thank you for the civil and intelligent discussion, though, hope you have a nice day! :flowerforyou:

PRMinx

I'm not mixing anything. If you don't want to subsidize food so the poor can eat, I don't want to subsidize your military, police force, or National Guard. Hire protection or defend yourself.

You are mixing things

It is in constitutions both state and federal for those things....it is a government role...
It is not in those constitutions to influence the market place...
Or to take money from one group and give to another

And I do protect myself, I take advantage of the 2nd Amendment

Either you want taxation for society or not. If you don't, you're an old fashioned, all out anarchist. If you do, you're for government intervention. It's just a matter of your opinion on what government should be involved in vs mine. If we actually had real democracy we could find out what the majority of Americans really want. We don't. We have an oligarchy dressed as a Republic with a constitution that is conveniently ignored every time the real decision makers want something different.

IT IS NOT A MATTER OF OPINION
It is written down in black ink on parchment, that government has a role in those areas.....
You live in this country, it is what our law states

Exactly
WE ARE A REPUBLIC, not a Democracy...
Democracy is mob rule....
it is 2 wolves and a sheep sitting and deciding what is for dinner

A Republic is
Two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner, but the sheep has a gun

I'd rather mob rule than rich rule, which is, if you know your history (and I suspect you're intelligent enough to know it) is what we've always had.

Oh boy. Really? The only reason you can say that is because of how far we have come as a society. If we were a mob rule government, minorities would never have a fair shot. Women's suffrage would have never happened. And people would still find a way to gain the system for their benefit.

lemurcat12

Uh Oh - What have I started - it was just supposed to be a light hearted view of the world from some 45 year-old house wife that lives in South Africa...............

Sugar + taxes, it was irresistible. Don't worry, just enjoy it!

(I liked your initial post.)