According to Van Helsing at moonbattery.com:
The researchers, writing in the journal Archives of Internal Medicine on Monday, suggested taxing could be used as a weapon in the fight against obesity, which costs the United States an estimated $147 billion a year in health costs.
"While such policies will not solve the obesity epidemic in its entirety and may face considerable opposition from food manufacturers and sellers, they could prove an important strategy to address overconsumption, help reduce energy intake and potentially aid in weight loss and reduced rates of diabetes among U.S. adults," wrote the team led by Kiyah Duffey of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Roto-Reuters chirps enthusiastically:
There are early signs that such a policy works.
Duffey's team analyzed the diets and health of 5,115 young adults aged age 18 to 30 from 1985 to 2006.
They compared data on food prices during the same time. Over a 20-year period, a 10 percent increase in cost was linked with a 7 percent decrease in the amount of calories consumed from soda and a 12 percent decrease in calories consumed from pizza.
As an added benefit, reduced sales will help drive up unemployment, pushing the number of people reliant on government handouts toward critical mass.
Of course, our nanny state rulers won't dictate our every mouthful of food by taxes alone. There are also subsidies, by which they force us to pay for foods we don't want and don't eat.
[Duffey et al.] argued that agricultural subsidies should be used to make healthful foods such as locally grown vegetables, fruits and whole grains less expensive.
Or, we could just stop with the tedious incrementalism and have Comrade Obama appoint a Food Czar charged with drawing up the mandatory daily menu for all Americans.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Here's what a some other bloggers wrote:
And a fitness czar. They can dictate the mandatory daily excercize regimen. Winston, a man of your age should be able to do twenty toe-touches.
Make it simple; you get 1500 calories a day. You use a special credit card when you acquire any food and when you go over your allotted 1500 calories, you simply don't get any more! Too bad.
Once the collective has a vested interest in you body, it will be motivated to micromanage it. Gird your loins folks. And this selective taxation has to go. If something is so absolutely horrible that it justifies banning, ban it (heroin). If not (pizza), tax it the same as other products. Taxes are to raise money for necessary government functions. They were not intended as a tool for social engineering.
-----------------------------------------------------------
If you think overtaxation and banning products is getting out of hand just wait and see what happens if they pass Obamacare. It won't be just what you "eat" it will also be what you "do".
Everything we enjoy will be overtaxed or banned for the greater good. The government learned from prohibition in the 1920's not to "ban" it. . . .but to "tax" it. Excessive taxes will have the same result as prohibition. In prohibition people still drank their booze. They just got creative and learned to make their own and called it moonshine. They created secret gathering places and called them a "speakeasies" where you could get together and consume a few alcoholic drinks.
First cigarettes. Then soda. Next, pizza:
U.S. researchers estimate that an 18 percent tax on pizza and soda can push down U.S. adults' calorie intake enough to lower their average weight by 5 pounds (2 kg) per year.
The researchers, writing in the journal Archives of Internal Medicine on Monday, suggested taxing could be used as a weapon in the fight against obesity, which costs the United States an estimated $147 billion a year in health costs.
"While such policies will not solve the obesity epidemic in its entirety and may face considerable opposition from food manufacturers and sellers, they could prove an important strategy to address overconsumption, help reduce energy intake and potentially aid in weight loss and reduced rates of diabetes among U.S. adults," wrote the team led by Kiyah Duffey of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Roto-Reuters chirps enthusiastically:
There are early signs that such a policy works.
Duffey's team analyzed the diets and health of 5,115 young adults aged age 18 to 30 from 1985 to 2006.
They compared data on food prices during the same time. Over a 20-year period, a 10 percent increase in cost was linked with a 7 percent decrease in the amount of calories consumed from soda and a 12 percent decrease in calories consumed from pizza.
As an added benefit, reduced sales will help drive up unemployment, pushing the number of people reliant on government handouts toward critical mass.
Of course, our nanny state rulers won't dictate our every mouthful of food by taxes alone. There are also subsidies, by which they force us to pay for foods we don't want and don't eat.
[Duffey et al.] argued that agricultural subsidies should be used to make healthful foods such as locally grown vegetables, fruits and whole grains less expensive.
Or, we could just stop with the tedious incrementalism and have Comrade Obama appoint a Food Czar charged with drawing up the mandatory daily menu for all Americans.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Here's what a some other bloggers wrote:
And a fitness czar. They can dictate the mandatory daily excercize regimen. Winston, a man of your age should be able to do twenty toe-touches.
Make it simple; you get 1500 calories a day. You use a special credit card when you acquire any food and when you go over your allotted 1500 calories, you simply don't get any more! Too bad.
Once the collective has a vested interest in you body, it will be motivated to micromanage it. Gird your loins folks. And this selective taxation has to go. If something is so absolutely horrible that it justifies banning, ban it (heroin). If not (pizza), tax it the same as other products. Taxes are to raise money for necessary government functions. They were not intended as a tool for social engineering.
-----------------------------------------------------------
If you think overtaxation and banning products is getting out of hand just wait and see what happens if they pass Obamacare. It won't be just what you "eat" it will also be what you "do".
Everything we enjoy will be overtaxed or banned for the greater good. The government learned from prohibition in the 1920's not to "ban" it. . . .but to "tax" it. Excessive taxes will have the same result as prohibition. In prohibition people still drank their booze. They just got creative and learned to make their own and called it moonshine. They created secret gathering places and called them a "speakeasies" where you could get together and consume a few alcoholic drinks.
I mean seriously are we going to start having back alley pizzerias? Are we going to resort to "bootlegging" pizza, sodas, salt, burgers, pasta, cheesecake and cigarettes? Wake up America ! ! ! !
 |
| We just got in a couple of cases of Dr. Peppers so drink up boys ! ! ! ! |
-----------------------------------------------------------
From wikipedia.com:
Moonshine was named because they made it by the light of the moon.
Bootlegging - the act of making or transporting alcoholic liquor for sale illegally; "the Prohibition amendment made bootlegging profitable" or the act of selling illegally or without permission.
Speakeasy - A place for the illegal sale and consumption of alcoholic drinks, as during Prohibition in the United. The term may have come from a patron’s manner of ordering an alcoholic drink without raising suspicion — bartenders would tell patrons to be quiet and “speak easy”, — or from patrons’ ability to talk about alcohol without fearing that a government official might be listening.
