"Beverage Tax - It's A Shocking Good Laugh" by At Random / LJWorld.com

Blogs home At Random

Beverage Tax - It's A Shocking Good Laugh

I have been caught off guard a couple of times recently by an ad against the proposed Beverage Tax - the tax that would be added to juice products and soda. Maybe you've seen it. An unhappy mother and despondent son walking listlessly through the aisle of a grocery store looking hopelessly at containers of soda - just out of reach of their price range.

I thought a Saturday Night Live 'fake' commercial had made it into the wrong time slot. And then I realized it was for real. I obviously haven't been staying up on all of the attempts our government is doing to try to assist consumers in making healthier choices, but to me this tax is a no brainer. If we don't want something unhealthy to be used frequently, then we tax the heck out of it as a deterrent.

Now I am the first to admit that doesn't always work. We see people still smoking even though the cost of cigarettes has become prohibitive for all but the very wealthy. To think that people actually have a complaint against the Beverage Tax though is pretty hysterical. Sure, I know people can become addicted to soft drinks and that little people love their fruit juices in sippy cups designed to hold sugary liquids against their newly forming teeth much as bottles do, but come on! Does anyone actually not see the benefit in assisting people through higher taxes to break their nasty habits?

I took the time to read a few of the nay sayer reasons against the tax. There are inane comments such as increased abuse of cows for milk production because of higher milk consumption. There is the argument that a lot of people in our country have heart conditions that might be increased with high fat content milk being consumed. And let us not forget those people who are lactose intolerant we need to add to the mix.

How do we get around all the negative comments?

Has anyone heard of the word 'water'? Do we not have access to skim milk? (Which is what children should be switched to at the age of two) Water is a terrific choice and often is quite inexpensive. Juice should be limited to four to six ounces daily, depending on the age of your tot, and eating the actual fruit is a much healthier choice. Yep, seems like water and skim milk would solve the problem. We can still get our caffeine fix through chocolate - much preferable in my mind.

Anyone care to join me in a toast to the proposed tax with a nice cold glass of agua?

By Ronda Miller

October 27, 2009

At Random

From the Citizen Journalism Academy

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

27 October 2009
at 10:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

schula (Anonymous) says…

I'll toast you, Ronda. I love a nice glass of ice cold water. In fact, I always have a glass of water within reach.
27 October 2009
at 10:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

Thanks, schula. I have been called the soda Nazi twice in the last couple of minutes. This is by people who so call 'love' me. Heaven only knows what is coming! Hopefully no tidal waves of dissension……..unless it is clear, clean, water.
27 October 2009
at 10:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

RoeDapple (Anonymous) says…

When you calculate your income tax, sales tax, real estate taxes, personal property taxes, hidden taxes on rubber products, alcohol, tobacco, (and now beverages??) you will find we are being taxed in excess of 50%. And they want more….

One 16 oz. bottle of water costs more than 16 gallons of filtered tap water, yet we buy it for the convenience…
27 October 2009
at 11:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

Yes, this is true.

Think of how many of the above products you could possibly live without though. I know the alcohol, tobacco and beverage ones don't affect my pocket book.

I do buy two gallon containers of bottled water, but it is easier for me as I am at home. If we are going to drink let's make it healthy regardless of tax. I have been eye balling the filter pitcher I see advertised at Target - maybe Santa will buy it for me!

Are we actually disagreeing on this, Roe? Shame on you, or is that me?
27 October 2009
at 11:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

RoeDapple (Anonymous) says…

Not disagreeing at all, more like seeing the same thing from only a slightly differing perspective..

;-)
27 October 2009
at 11:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Ami (Anonymous) says…

I'll join the toast. Well said.
Our kids drinks juice only on special occasion. At home its only water or milk
27 October 2009
at 11:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

schula (Anonymous) says…

I buy water in the gallon jugs, too. The water that comes out of the faucet has an smell to it. I, too, have been thinking about the Brita water pitcher. I think I will have to save some money from my second job to get one.

27 October 2009
at 11:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

JackRipper (Anonymous) says…

interesting the same gov that wants to save us from soda subsidizes corporate ag which uses the corn to create hfcs which helps make the soda cheaper in the first place. just like cigarettes they have no real concern about Americans health.
27 October 2009
at 11:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Multidisciplinary (Anonymous) says…

Will they be taxing diet sodas also?
27 October 2009
at 11:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

Roe, you really should be in politics! ;)

Ami, here's to you and the health of your children. If they aren't ever started on soda or juice they most likely won't ever miss it.

schula, let me know what you find out on price - I should check it online now. Anyone out there have one they care to share info about?

Jack you raise a very interesting question and make a good point. So how about you personally? Are you a soda sipper or slurper?

I do add some juice when I make a smoothie but I prefer fresh frozen fruit to that!
27 October 2009
at 11:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

Do I have to answer that question, multi? It may make all the difference to the general tide of this blog! ;) And it scares me……. hehe
27 October 2009
at 11:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

d_prowess (Anonymous) says…

I am admittingly out of touch on this issue, but why is soda and juice being targeted? If it is the sugar and resulting weight gain that it can cause, why these two products alone? I would think that all candy should be included. And really where does it stop? Should a thickburger from Hardees be taxed higher since I think it has about the number of calories a woman should eat in a whole day.
I also think Multi has a good point. Such at tax shouldn't apply to any sugar free drink, like diet coke, right?
27 October 2009
at 12:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

d_prowess;

This is what I located in a quick search:

“second proposal would place a federal tax on drinks sweetened with sugar or high-fructose corn syrup — but it doesn't specify exactly how the tax would be levied. The tax would not apply to artificially-sweetened beverages with no calories, such as diet soda. ”

This was from May, 2009. If anyone has a more recent update or information that varies from this please share it. You caffeine soda junkies who drink diet drinks may just be safe! Water is still a better choice in my mind though.

I also agree that candy and other food products are as unhealthy…this may just be the beginning of “bad food and drink” taxes. We may have more 'twinkie” defense cases in court if they keep this up!
27 October 2009
at 12:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

JackRipper (Anonymous) says…

rain water and pure grain alcohol is all i touch. i will not allow my precious bodily fluids to be sapped.
27 October 2009
at 12:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Multidisciplinary (Anonymous) says…

I don't have all the info on this, that is why I ask..

frankly, I'm up for a 'movement' if they do. I use diet drinks as part of my 'health diet program'…I have a particular diet..and my 'treat' is a sharp fruity diet soda, it totally fulfills any desire for sweets so I crave no foods like that..it can't be replaced with something else like sweetener in water with lemon, it is just not the same.
I drink that, but it achieve the same effect.

If I'm doing such a great thing to improve my health like the government wants…why should I be penalized for using something like a can of diet soda in the process?

This is like saying…you shouldn't use 'precooked foods in an smaller packages'..(for some reason the government might come up with)…if someone happens to be in a situation where due to their particular needs, be it disability, living alone, traveling, dieting, working…so they have to pay a tax for something they use everyday, every meal!

For some, it is not a luxury,nor a vice, but a necessity.

If they do this…how about this:

We toss our garbage out our car windows along state highways!

No envelopes, nothing identifiable..just a mass protest…if they tax our beverages, we will fight back!
Toss it in front of city halls, down K-10..along those roads where they have litter pick up routes…so that it gets news coverage.

Write 'No Soda Tax!” on your fast food sack after you eat lunch..and toss it out!
A nation wide protest.

I'm already considering martyring myself for that damned mandatory medical insurance bill..maybe I'll add this to it.
Somebody's got to do it.
Start thinking what Federal Building I should do it in front of, this government's agenda is ridiculous.
>8 /

27 October 2009
at 12:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

Jack, ripping good plan! Keeps you heart healthy too - hopefully you aren't driving about.

multi, reread this slowly while sipping your diet soda….

“The tax would not apply to artificially-sweetened beverages with no calories, such as diet soda. ”

I would never be the person to tell you otherwise! We all need something 'sweet' in our lives to look forward to…it can be a whopper and popcorn for some (okay, that is me), or it can be a diet soda for another.

I am thinking you are against all these taxes, multi? What type of diet soda do you drink? I just sampled some with peach flavoring recently that were quite nice. I admit something with carbonation is quite nice with some meals…I consume maybe a handful in a year though.
27 October 2009
at 12:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

autie (Anonymous) says…

scotch? It is caffeine free. And kills all harmful bacteria as well as viruses. It is kind of over the top with carbs though.
27 October 2009
at 12:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Multidisciplinary (Anonymous) says…

I was typing that as you posted of course, lol. I think I had read previously that they were going to exclude it, but they keep messing with things, so I wasn't sure what the current situation is.

I think each person has to choose for themselves. Unfortunately, a don't think a tax is going to do a thing to change this, it's just going to make people stop buying things like real fruit, chicken, fish, whole grain breads, and other foods they might be buying. They will buy more ground hamburger instead, but back other places on healthy items…so that they can still have their sodas!

Think of when the price of coffee soared in the 70's…did your parents stop drinking coffee??

No they didn't..and when the price of cigarettes when astronomical…it really didn't affect people the way they hoped it would.

Now…I will add…back in the early 80's..when people were saying soda wasn't the reason people were gaining weight..that it was the fat in foods…I was the one saying..it's the sugar in the soda that is making people's blood sugar roller coaster, so then they eat more fatty foods and carbs!
You have no idea how many mild arguments I got into back then, hehehe.

I should have taken names, so that when later things caught up to what I was saying I could have gone back and done a Julia Roberts on them.
;)
27 October 2009
at 12:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

twinetowngirl (Anonymous) says…

Being in favor of just about anything the government does is like the story of the frog in the the pan of water…nice and comfy at first, getting a little warmer, warmer, until he has got so used to the water getting warm, he does not realize it's HOT and his “goose” is cooked.
The gov. takes one thing away, and the people are all for it, and another, and another (or taxes one thing, then another.) pretty soon, you have no rights, no freedoms, and it's all because you thought at the time “what a great idea” tax the poor suckers who drink, smoke, gamble…see where this is going???
27 October 2009
at 12:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

autie, good point. I'm not sure what the tax on Scotch is…pretty high I imagine..and did you stop drinking it. Heck no. Multi's point just made.

I have also read studies, multi, that sugar free drinks cause people to over eat too. I do know most of the overweight people I know drink a lot of them. I am not sure if there is or is not a connection. I am glad they've changed the artificial sweeteners though.

I also agree that people are so stuck in their habits, their tastes, that it is extremely difficult to switch them out to a healthier choice. Sometimes that extra price maybe makes them more desirable. Human nature….got to love it!
27 October 2009
at 12:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

twine, well written and to the point. No end in sight.

Do we feel better if we know what the tax goes to. For example, if the tax is on items for children do we feel better if the tax money goes towards education of our children; better foster homes, preventative health issues. Do we feel better if the tax on cigs. is used for cancer research.

I guess I am wondering if the human mind accepts things more readily if we see a direct correlation on what our government does with the money gained as opposed to just - our government is taxing, “the pennies on our eyes”….
27 October 2009
at 1 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

make_a_difference (Anonymous) says…

Here's to water! And to you Ronda.

I've been using a Brita pitcher for so long I don't remember just when the beginning was. Twenty years??? I'm on my second one & would have a difficult time living without it. When my oldest child moved into her first apartment, that was one of the things I bought for her, along with a set of quality knives & a couple of quality skillets/pots/pans.

We drink either water or milk with meals. Juice is used mostly for a between meal “snack” & frequently diluted somewhat. Though I admit that during the winter I keep several kinds of juice in the frig to encourage intake of fluids…I'm big on keeping the body hydrated.

My kids always thought it strange that other families sat down at a meal with soda as the beverage of choice…and they got used to being considered strange themselves for requesting water.
27 October 2009
at 1:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says…

“If we don't want something unhealthy to be used frequently, then we tax the heck out of it as a deterrent.”

The “we” to whom Ronda constantly refers is government. Are we really so stupid and easily controlled that we're willing to hand over the reigns of our lives to government officials? Shameful.

27 October 2009
at 1:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

fishcat (Anonymous) says…

I've been wondering when the “warm Earthers” would propose a tax on carbonated beverages. Enough with taxes!
27 October 2009
at 1:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

fishcat (Anonymous) says…

When we allow the government to decide what is healthy for us, shame on us!
27 October 2009
at 1:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

JackRipper (Anonymous) says…

If you give up sodas and try water for a few months you won't likely go back. That nasty flavor provided by corporate America isn't about providing satisfaction.
27 October 2009
at 1:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

classclown (Anonymous) says…

Maybe Obama can start a Cash for Chunkers program. People can turn in their Cheetos, candy, soda and whatnot and get a rebate to buy healthier foods. Have everyone attend an official weigh in once or twice a year and impose a tax on people for every pound above their “ideal” weight. The taxes collected from the overweight people can be used to fund the Cash for Chunkers program.
27 October 2009
at 1:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

puddleglum (Anonymous) says…

I like the idea of taxing the hell out of things that I think should be banned from public market.
but, that's just me.
27 October 2009
at 2:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

75x55 (Anonymous) says…

“Ami, here's to you and the health of your children. If they aren't ever started on soda or juice they most likely won't ever miss it.”

or better all-purpose quote:

“Ami, here's to you and the health of your children. If they aren't ever started on [liberty] they most likely won't ever miss it.”

Where is it the duty and responsibility of government to be our nanny? When did the immorality of excessive taxation become preferable to actually being responsible for ourselves as citizens and not expect 'big daddy' to take care of all our needs?

To sell these kinds of nuisance taxes to the people using 'tobacco taxes' as an example is atrocious. These taxes aren't about “decreasing the use of tobacco” - these taxes are government extortion of addicts. And this is the moral basis for extending unnecessary taxation to a vast array of possible targets? Insane.

If it's so bad that we must 'tax it out of existence' for the good of all, then outlaw it. Otherwise, we're actually talking about nothing more than an oppressive government finding new ways to get blood from it's turnips.

“Agua”, indeed - “you'll be happy with your simple bread and water, little serf - after all, it's all you've ever known….”
27 October 2009
at 3:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Multidisciplinary (Anonymous) says…

I think the studies are not controlled properly/inconclusive as I know from personal experience that in the absence of other carbs, drinking a diet soda and eating protein I did not experience hunger spikes like one does with sugar drinks and other carbs.

And I did this for a year. So I would say this wasn't a fluke few day situation. I can add that when nutra sweet was invented, Diet Center, that did a lot of research in the lab..was tickled pink as the only artificial sweeter they allowed was Tab cola..they didn't like anything with an 'ose' ending..no dextose, fructose, etc.

Their dieters nationally kept daily records of what they ate so they could track that people were eating the same foods…just adding in the new colas with nutra sweet.

They found that suddenly, their dieters weren't losing weight. They were a bit stunned.
They hit plateaus…they didn't gain weight, but the same people, following the same plans and had been steadily losing..suddenly stopped losing. (They would have had to significantly reduced their calorie intake to do so, not what Diet Center plan recommended as healthy)
They watched this for a period of time, then made a recommendation.

They told people to stop using the new diet colas…and they started losing again.
This was in the early 80's, I don't know what they ended up doing later.

I had a friend who was in Pharm. Chem. up at KU at the time. He couldn't not make sense of this as, in his words..the ingredients in NS are produced in the human body, why should that affect the diet? He didn't go into further detail, but it made no sense to him.

I would drink more water here, but it is so very very hard, it ruins the dishes if it evaporates in it, you can't scrub it out, literally. I'm not drinking that stuff for just plain drinking water, and I won't pay for those Brita filters as much as it looks like I would have to change them here.

When we flush here, there is so much chlorine, it smells like serious swimming pool water, very strong. Sure beats that red algae smell back in Lawrence. That got so bad, I couldn't drink that either that last couple of years.

I get water when I order out, and at fast food places, I'll even get two, one to bring home, because the town water is better. Since I live so far away, I tend to buy something to put in the fridge anyway, everyone here does. Imagine, living so far away, you buy Subway, KFC, at lunch, and when you're done you order things to take home for someone there to reheat for dinner because they haven't had any for days. Put a few Taco Bell burritos in the fridge for later, breakfast. 60 miles round trip is a long way to drive when you get the urge, but they do it, and they call others to go along, lol. “Hey, we're going to Taco Bell, wanna come?”
27 October 2009
at 3:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Multidisciplinary (Anonymous) says…

75x55

hehehe..I'm reminded of a young man whose mom never let him have sugar as a child. True story. He went to a friend's house, had a candy bar, and passed out. This same young man, at a friend's wedding, to be funny towards something I said, picked up an entire huge piece of three layer wedding cake, and shoved the whole thing into his mouth all at once, in about two seconds, like a cartoon!
(one of the funniest moments, ever..wish I had a video)

So, all her hard work..what the kid learned…his mom was a $%^ who had denied him all the fun that other kids had. They got to try the new candy that came out, got to talk about it with other kids..he was left out. Ice cream, treats at school, Halloween. He was the odd kid. The freak who's mom wouldn't let him have sugar, or candy. Thanks mom.
He was marvelous though, that goodness he was probably one of the few kids that could deal with 'being the odd one' that well.

It would have been better, if she would have done like mine did I think..we had one 2 liter bottle of Coke a week, for the family. Now of course..once I got a car and a job, I could buy my own..out.

But we poured one probably 8-10 oz glass, with ice so there was less. We knew we had to share, and my parents preferred iced tea, so most of that pop ended up being for me and if friends came over. I didn't drink pop with meals, but iced tea or milk, and oh yes, being southern, you bet it had sugar in it, lol. She had a recipe, and we definitely had a little tea with our sugar. In other things, our life wasn't totally sweet, but some did say, that tea had almost as much sugar as Kool-Aid. She she died, I got the old red wooden handled sugar scoop. Paint worn from years of wear.
I was relived. Until then, since the day I left home at 17, I never felt I was doing tea *exactly right*, lol.

Mom used sweetener in her coffee come to think of it, that was weird, maybe that was her way of cutting back calories, or maybe those Sweet 10 drops were faster and easier than a spoon and stirring. Knowing her, it was both. Fewer dishes went a long way in her book of reasoning.

27 October 2009
at 4:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

multi, the key to feeling satiated is the right combination of fat, protein and carbs. We discovered this works wonderfully well in our Leaner Lawrence contest. The right balance works very well and in particular when eaten in five equal caloric amounts throughout the day.

make_a_difference, back at you!

75x45, Okay, and here is a pie in the face headed your direction! Okay, just kidding. I am not one who believes in much government regulation…just ask my friends and political foes. I do think that we need to do what we can to prevent people from acting any more stupid than necessary when it comes to their health and that of their children. It appears education just isn't enough to help them make the change. It is unfortunate that we don't all have the self control to exercise daily and eat the proper amounts of fruit and veggies with protein, but it is the case. Do I want my whoppers and popcorn taxed. Heck no! Would it decrease my consumption? Just maybe depending on how high it were to be taxed. I agree the government can/should only do so much.

fishcat, good comments both - please do stay out of my water source, however. ……

puddle, yippee! We agree on something…

classclown, some of what you say seems to work well for those businesses who reward people to stop smoking and start exercising. Regardless of what you think about government involvement in our food chain, I hope you at least thing the commercial is worth a good laugh.
Have any of you seen it?

There are a lot of things to be despondent about in our world…having to drink milk and water isn't one of them in my world.
27 October 2009
at 4:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

BigPrune (Anonymous) says…

I'd drink bottled water more often when I am out and about in our community, pressing the flesh and making new friends, but I compared the price of a 16 oz bottle of water and that of 2 liter bottle of coke, and I can get the 2 liter of coke cheaper than the bottle of water. Of course, if I was really frugal then I could bottle my own water, but sometimes my surroundings prevent me from doing so. Being cheap like I am since it is my nature, I stick with the 2 liter coke, though it does make it difficult to drive taking a swig while texting on my cell phone.

There are two things that we are guaranteed, death and taxes. I wonder why the politicians want to tax something that will lead to our earlier demise? After all, we are supposedly over-populated and starving to death as it is. Let us die happy and fat, no death panels necessary!
27 October 2009
at 4:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

75x55 (Anonymous) says…

“I do think that we need to do what we can to prevent people from acting any more stupid than necessary when it comes to their health and that of their children.”

Getting close to the “do it for the chiiilllldddrrreeennnn…..” mantra.

Doesn't matter how nicely you say it, or how wonderful the goal - it is still the recommendation to use the coercive power of government for whatever the cause-dujour is. And THAT is a dangerous thing.

What's the popular saying - “keep your laws off my body”?
27 October 2009
at 5:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kmat (Anonymous) says…

The tax was proposed to help pay for health care for all.

There is a difference between fruit juices and juice drinks. If you want to have real fruit juice - no extra taxes. You want to drink immitation juice that is just water with a bunch of high fructose corn syrup, then pay a little tax. You want to drink sugary pop? Then pay a little tax.

People seem to keep getting juice drink and fruit juice confused. One is good for you in moderation and the other rots your teeth and makes you fat.

I hate these commercials so much because the mom in these ads is giving her kids a bunch of junk that is harmful and bitching about a small tax on it. If she cared about her kids, she wouldn't be filling them up with high fructose corn syrup.

Those that are bitching about the govt trying to control what we eat - they aren't. You can have all the high fructose corn syrup you want. But, when you're fat and in terrible health because of the poor choices you made, the little bit of extra taxes you paid will help to fund all your medical bills.

The Brita filters rock! If you drink a bunch of water, get the fridge dispensor that holds a couple gallons and has a dispensor spout. Not only is it cheaper than buying bottled water, you're not using all those little plastic bottles that clog up our landfills.
27 October 2009
at 5:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

RoeDapple (Anonymous) says…

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12420…

Straight from the man!

“When it comes to health-care spending, we are on an unsustainable course that threatens the financial stability of families, businesses and government itself,” Mr. Obama told reporters.
27 October 2009
at 6:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

rootdown1212 (Anonymous) says…

Taxation seldom changes real behavior. If that was the case then no one would smoke, drink alcohol, or buy Hummers. This is just another money grab attempt by the Left. What ever happened to educating people and expecting them to make responsible decisions?…and if they don't, its their health…and don't use the “yeah, but we're all paying for it excuse.” That justification is tired and worn out. Government, keep out!
27 October 2009
at 6:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

BigPrune, spoken like a true gent. I will most certainly be on the lookout for someone swigging from their two liter then! Now that would be a conversation starter. Do you add anything to it?

75 - may be a dangerous thing but it is being done and is necessary unfortunately in some extreme cases. People put beer on the child's cereal, smoke and/or do drugs around their children, expose them to toxic chemicals, use corporal punishment. It does make me question where it will end. I remember, what two or three years past, the case where the obese boy's parents were taken to court.

kmat, terrific points. It is the unhealthy things they are crying and moaning about. It isn't as though they still can't have something sweet. Natural juice is wonderfully sweet as is fruit - that is why is is referred to as nature's candy. I also appreciate the information on the filter. I will certainly get the fridge dispenser.

Roe, I am afraid to go to sleep now. Thanks so much for that added fear in my life! ;)

root, I agree in part. Taxation doesn't seem to have worked in the past. We could always begin cutting off fingers or hands of people who reach for such items. Education certainly doesn't seem to help. I know several times over the past few years my daughter scoffs when she hears the “news' that we have an epidemic of obesity in our country. That hasn't been news for some twenty years has it?
27 October 2009
at 6:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kslw56 (Anonymous) says…

I wonder how many of you think pot should be legalized, while soda should be taxed?
When you start taxing food products to make people change what they buy, you open pandora's box. What will be next? Who will decide? Think about it, we are in a free country where we should be free to make decisions without govt intervention. When the govt decides for you, you lose your basic freedoms. Once the govt starts taxing something, they don't stop, they just keep finding more things to tax.
First it will be soda, then candy, then cookies, then ice cream, then chips, then…….. you get my drift. Again, who will decide for the rest of us what we should eat, what should be taxed? This is not in the best interests of americans, it is strictly punishment for some and control for others.

27 October 2009
at 7:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

75x55 (Anonymous) says…

“in some extreme cases.”

Therefore, all must continue to surrender their liberty, a little bit at a time? All for the good intentions of a merry-go-round of do-gooders that decide what's good for everyone, this week….

And kmat - your thought is exactly the root of the problem - based completely on the assumption that the federal government has any real business running health care and the myriad of other so-called 'essential services' that would better be handled by the states, local goverment or the private sector.

Taxing people to curb their supposed destructive behaviors is immoral, on the same level with robbery. As with tobacco, alcohol, etc., - consumption isn't going to be reduced significantly, and the taxing authorities know it - it's just an easy money grab. Taking what doesn't belong to them, just because they can.

Again, if it's that bad, then let it be outlawed.
27 October 2009
at 7:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

denak (Anonymous) says…

Sorry, Ronda, I totally disagree with you on this one. Soda, while not the best thing in the world, isn't going to have a negative effect on a person if they drink a moderate amount each day. It isn't the reason Americans are getting bigger. That can be blamed on everything from evolution (ladies we are going to get shorter and fatter) to fast food to our cities laid out in such as way as to prohibit excercise.
Blaming, or taxing, Pepsi isn't going to solve those problems.
Secondly, in order for something to be taxed or banned, the state must show a compelling reason for government intervention and I don't see where the government has a compelling reason to tax this specific product.
Why soda pop? Why not nacho chips? Or even regular milk? And dare I say it, why not chocolate??? Most of the chocolate in candy bars is not dark enough to have any health benefits so why not anything that isn't a dark chocolate? Should we tax snickers?
As for parents, I find it appalling when I see parents give their very young children pop. If they are still drinking from a cup with a top on it, they shouldn't be drinking pop. (Good luck getting the little stinker to bed) However, that isn't child abuse. Its just lazy or uninformed parenting.
Lastly, stores are going to find a way to get around this tax. A week ago, Dillon's was selling Pepsi for 1.48 plus tax. It is now on sale for $1.00 Once the store sees that the product isn't moving at its original price, the store will discount it to move it. So, tax or no tax, the store will either discount this product (and other sin tax products) or it will go out of business because I am willing to bet that “junk food” makes up a good chunk of the store's profit.

Dena
27 October 2009
at 7:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

JackRipper (Anonymous) says…

Get government out of subsidizing corporate ag before doing anything! It could be that simple. Right now there is no demand for all the corn we grow so they find uses for it, HFCS is one of them. While the gov makes corn cheaper for producers of junk food they drive the price up of corn in third world countries where they'd like just to eat period.
27 October 2009
at 7:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

RETICENT_IRREVERENT (Anonymous) says…

I am just plain sick and tired of the 11% excise tax on ammo.
27 October 2009
at 8:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

75x55 (Anonymous) says…

“Get government out of subsidizing corporate ag before doing anything! ”

Like tobacco subsidies…..
27 October 2009
at 8:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

JackRipper (Anonymous) says…

Exactly.
27 October 2009
at 9:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

denak, you needn't apologize for disagreeing - it is what makes the world go around.

As I've mentioned, I am not one of those who wants much government involvement in our lives. I do believe that there are unfortunately a lot of parents who don't do a good job of parenting and the government needs to “baby sit” them and keep an eye on what they are doing with there children.

Is this sad? Yep, but it is reality. Now I also realize that it is frightening to think of the government taking things a step further and telling us we can't have children (but they've been doing this for a long time when they take children and place them in foster homes).

Where will this end? None of us know - probably it will end when we as a larger group decide how far we allow it to go. We can't make someone smarter - we can offer them healthy choices and limit the unhealthy choices.

Bad nutrition is in many respects child abuse as sure as other forms - it lasts a lifetime. Obesity causes insecurities and low self esteem, certainly can be to blame for diseases developed later in life (diabetes, cancer, heart conditions).

Would people step up to the plate themselves if the government didn't take control? I don't think so or we wouldn't need the regulations we have at present. We all know what foods are healthy for us if we read. People just don't care to change their habits. And please don't be messing with my whoppers or my Hersey bar…not 70% cocoa. Too bad! Don't arrest me…please.

Ret. time to stock pile!
27 October 2009
at 9:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

75x55 (Anonymous) says…

“Bad nutrition is in many respects child abuse as sure as other forms - it lasts a lifetime.”

Morphing any desired form of control over others into a some aspect of an already recognized social evil. Bad nutritional choices are now “child abuse”?

“Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good
of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live
under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.
The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may
at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good
will torment us without end for they do so with the approval
of their own conscience.” - C.S. Lewis

27 October 2009
at 11:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jcjayhawk1 (Anonymous) says…

Excellent quote 75X55

This discussion just goes to show how the gov. picks and chooses how it want's to get involved. The government does not know best. I don't trust the government's motives or it's track record. The American people are sending the government mixed signals. We want to be respected and have control over our lives yet place the responsibility and blame at their feet.

Parenting has now been subsidized by the government.
28 October 2009
at 1:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mdrndgtl (Anonymous) says…

This slope is slippery…
28 October 2009
at 8:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

twinetowngirl (Anonymous) says…

While they're at it. why not ban halloween…think of all that candy your kids are getting going door to door.. Make it all fruit that you hand out…you know, so the crazies can slip razor blades into them.

Geez, I'm not against drinking water, I do it most of the day, milk is good too. I don't buy bottled water, all those plastic bottles to recycle and all. Yea, i eat candy once in awhile…As with anything, do it in moderation!! The government has no business telling me what I can and can't eat, drink, or feed my child.
28 October 2009
at 9:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

toe (Anonymous) says…

Nanny State.
28 October 2009
at 9:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kmat (Anonymous) says…

75x55 (Anonymous) says…

And kmat - your thought is exactly the root of the problem - based completely on the assumption that the federal government has any real business running health care and the myriad of other so-called 'essential services' that would better be handled by the states, local goverment or the private sector.
___________________________________

To start - the govt is trying to run health care. They're trying to create public health insurance. big difference!

Oh yeah, the private sector has done such a great job so far!!!! Keep your head in the sand and keep praying the conservatives that are paid off by the insurance idustry have their way. You too can go bankrupt because you can't pay your medical bills.

In case you hadn't heard, most polls are showing anywhere from a 60% - 70% approval rating for the public option. You are in the small majority and believe what the insurance industry tells you.

To give you an idea of why we need the govt providing options. I had a miscarriage a couple years ago. I've also had kidney stones. I've called around and can't get insurance companies to cover me unless I pay extremely high rates because those are classed as pre-existing conditions. Because of this, can't switch jobs because I can't lose the insurance I have now which is covering me.

Just keep your head in the sand.
28 October 2009
at 9:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kmat (Anonymous) says…

kslw56 (Anonymous) says…

I wonder how many of you think pot should be legalized, while soda should be taxed?
__________________________

Pot should be legalized. And it should be taxed like cigs and alcohol. No one is saying that citizens can't use what they want (pop, cigs, pot), but using substances that are not all that good for you will cost you a tax. Pretty simple. The consumer still has the freedom to consume what they want. I also think that anyone should be allowed to grow their own, just like you can brew your own beer or make your own wine, and not be taxed.
28 October 2009
at 9:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

I agree with most of what you say, kmat. I won't mention the one drug, eh, uh, I mean item I might disagree on.

75, “Bad nutritional choices are now “child abuse”?

Yes, they certainly are. For those of us who are witness to infants and toddlers who have massive decay going on in their mouths and associated pain, it most certainly is. We are actually required to report such cases to SRS.

I agree that 'most' beverage and food choices should be left to the discretion of the adult, heavy taxing on unhealthy items is a terrific idea, and many people seem to have intelligence and self restraint to know not to overindulge themselves or their children. However, there is that part of the populace who don't seem to understand this.

I have known highly educated adults who hand their children a cookie or a bowl of marshmallows for breakfast on a regular basis - so I am not equating intelligence with education.

Halloween rocks, twinegirl, but it doesn't have to be about the sugary high. When our society stops equating fun, holidays, celebration with something other than sugar then we'll win the battle against obesity. Just don't mess with my whoppers!

I know children who get very excited about receiving a micro wave bag of pop corn, an apple (it is pretty easy to see if there is a razor in the apple - just slice it) or even a small toy (ideally one that isn't a choking hazard). Raisins are a great choice, as are other small packaged fruits - again making sure the child brushes their teeth after consuming such snacks.
28 October 2009
at 11:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

Just polled several people 'at random' at Dillons on 6th st. Some were young adults and others were mothers with young children. All said they would have been fine with small bags of popcorn and/or fruit cups. One mother with sons two and four years of age said their next door neighbor always gives them individual bags of popcorn and they get very excited.

I suspect as with most things our desire for candy and sweets is a learned behavior (addiction) as is most things. Children as they get older learn (are taught) that candy is wonderful, but younger children really can't miss what they aren't given - don't know.

I was raised by Grandparents and we expected a dessert at every meal, but we never had candy or soda in the house unless it was a special holiday such as Christmas. We had more of the baked goods type of sweets such as cinnamon rolls, pies, cakes. And that is probably why those items are still what I love the most.

28 October 2009
at 4:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Multidisciplinary (Anonymous) says…

I just had a thought. Aren't those fruit cups plastic cups with foil lids? I'm thinking of kids walking around, banging sacks against their legs, steps, each other..against each other's Pirate swords, etc..and in those bags are Tootsie Roll stick, dum dum sticks..etc..things that could poke right into those foil lids.

I know the boys used to cut through bushes to beat each other to the door, dragging their sacks through the branches not thinking about what kind of bushes they were or what might be happening to their costumes..or the bushes.

And that juice may run all into their other candy, onto their parents carpet..and somebody is going to not be a happy camper, some tired parent may yell at their kid for making a mess all over the house as they carry that sack from room to room before they figure it out. Some kids crying because the parent throws all their candy away..wet with fruit juice.

Just a thought..good idea on health..maybe not so portable for a kid running amuck all night. I feel the same way with people who hand out those little cans of pop. One, sure, some people figure the kids need a drink while they are out running around..but if they don't…think of how heavy those are! Plus, if is ruptures..

maybe a little pkg of dried fruit would be better, weigh less too.
Just don't mention craisins..you've have mel all giddy again.
28 October 2009
at 5:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Multidisciplinary (Anonymous) says…

uh oh, uh oh..you know i've got to do it! hahahahaha

“Halloween rocks, twinegirl, but it doesn't have to be about the sugary high. When our society stops equating fun, holidays, celebration with something other than sugar then we'll win the battle against obesity. Just don't mess with my whoppers!”

This..from the woman who plans the dinners…the last one's theme being 'cake'..and the next one being 'pie'.

roflmdo!

And with the holidays coming up, you know the next one has to be holiday desserts! No option there.

/ luv ya Ronda (cheesy grin)
28 October 2009
at 5:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kmat (Anonymous) says…

I got little tubs of Playdoh to give out this year. I've still giving out some candy, but each kid will get a Playdoh and a candy bar. In years past, we just gave each kid a handful of candy. I just thought it would be something different that the kids would enjoy instead of sugar.
28 October 2009
at 5:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Multidisciplinary (Anonymous) says…

And you know, we've switched.

If used to be: festive, holidays and the like were not 'mainly quantity oriented'. As in that was the main purpose. But it was about quality, being special, fancy. Being proud that you were doing something out of the ordinary for a reason.

In times when they had little, they did more.
Or they used the best, hired the best, went all out instead of the everyday.

Of course, these gatherings often meant a lot of extra people, thus larger quantities needed to be prepared, but those were of the 'better things'.

As families stopped being larger, and people started using microwave products, food became easier to come by, these gatherings became less about doing our best, yet they continue to be about putting out 'lots' of things.

Sure, it often has special foods that only come out on those dates, and some are special of course.

But as Ronda says..in my adaption of it…we've adopted a 'fill it up' mentality..for every possible event.

Fill the table to overflowing, because it looks Rockwell. We have soothed the family, only what we have soothed them with is neither special or necessarily good for them.

A kids birthday party used to be a simple two layer cake and presents, and the kids were tickled pink to come to it. Maybe pin the tail on the donkey, tag, if they were older.

Then some more games. The chips and music.
Then the skating parties with a cake.
Then a Mcd's party, or a pizza party, each with a burger, fries, pizza..then cake.

Now it's a teem all out bash, dinner, chips, a bowl of skittles, m&ms, reese's, nachos, pizza, wings,endless soda, chex mix, cake, cupcakes, poppers, by the time the kids goes home, he's consumed more calories than I can to count here.
28 October 2009
at 11:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tangential_reasoners_anonymous (Anonymous) says…

Rondon't: “Just polled several people 'at random' at Dillons on 6th st.”

You know, Rondon't, it's a dangerous proposition for women to be approaching strangers at local merchants, whether offering assistance or seeking information.

( I trust your shopping cart wheels are properly insulated. )
29 October 2009
at 9:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

multi, you caught me with my pumpkin showing! As I recall cake and pie are on the yellow light - not the red light list of foods. That means we can have them on occasion. I have a piece of cake once a month at a special event (or in this case pie) and that is quite acceptable. Now if tange comes on and posts how many whoppers I eat each and every night (btw, I don't buy them he does because he knows I am an addict) I am in real trouble! ;)

Christmas goodies don't have to be about sweets - although schula has no choice but to bring what she did last year!

The fruit cups are quite safe in the bag of candy though, multi. Rest assured on that one. No aluminum foil on them anywhere.

I really think children (especially the small ones) enjoy Halloween for the following reasons:

Extra attention from parents and other adults, running wild with the pack of other children, dressing up in costumes, getting to run up and knock on someone's door - regardless of any candy involved, all of these things would be a lot of fun. (Add some whoppers to the mix and you're set)

And before someone talks about how pricey popcorn is….I put kernels in a brown paper bag with directions on the front to stick in the microwave and press 'popcorn'. It works exactly like the microwavable bags without salt, or preservatives and it is much, much less expensive.
29 October 2009
at 9:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

tange, you were just a bad memory waiting to be remembered. I only approached

1) other woman who I would be able to easily take out should they attempt to accost me
2) they had small children with them that I would hold hostage
3) I remained inside the store at all times
4) I kept my hands off shopping carts so I would not have a 'shocking' experience.
29 October 2009
at 9:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

schula (Anonymous) says…

I will have to look for my recipe for my dessert to bring in December. I am not sure where I put it.

29 October 2009
at 4:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Multidisciplinary (Anonymous) says…

Give me popcorn balls made with real marshmallows, not that jar stuff! And use lots of goo so they are sweet and buttery, and not packed so tight they hurt your mouth when you bite them. There is real finesse involved, not just a fast paced jam the things together without a care.

Popcorn balls are an art.

And when people handed out little sacks of pre popped popcorn..it being KS, it was stale hours before, and of course the popcorn got eaten last, after the chocolate,and toerh good stuff so that made it even worse, lol.

Good to know about the fruit cups!
I was thinking about pudding cups, those lids are tough, but then I realized.oh..that's not too healthy, hee hee hee.
Oops. But they would be popular, and you can get them for a quarter on sale!

I wonder if people think to get those strawberry cream candies like they have around Valentines. I think they now sell those and orange creams all year. Those are a great change from the chocolate, and fewer calories.
29 October 2009
at 9:32 p.m.

Read full entry
0 comments

WyndKnight (Anonymous) blogs…

What has this country come to

One more tax to drag the consumer down
29 October 2009
at 10:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tangential_reasoners_anonymous (Anonymous) says…

“tange, you were just a bad memory waiting to be remembered….”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BPNaY…
31 October 2009
at 4:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Irish (Irish Swearingen) says…

Ronda, I think we should all be left to make our own decisions. I have been a vegan for several years and now I think meant just tastes bad, but I have nothing against those who eat it. Not my business.
I don't tell parents what to feed their children. Not my business.
I am sticking to a diet and exercise plan because now I see it as my choice and not something imposed on me. I also drink water or soy milk. Chocolate soy milk is very good and maybe kids would like it.
My daughter and I have the water filters that you attach to the tap.
And, then too, overweight is bad for you both mentally and physically, your core muscles support your internal organs and your back, they really aren't there so you can look good in a bikini.
I feel better each day. I have had to buy some new clothes and I am wearing different styles.
I am not sure where I am going with this. There are many things people could do to live healthier safer lives, but who is going to monitor all those people?
1 November 2009
at 5:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

RETICENT_IRREVERENT (Anonymous) says…

I don't tell parents what to feed their children. Not my business.
Except when it comes to breastfeeding…
2 November 2009
at 9:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Overtherainbow (Anonymous) says…

Something nobody seems to have mentioned: If sugary sodas have no (or even negative) nutritional value, then why are food stamp recipients allowed to use federal USDA money to buy them? Will the proposed beverage tax be taken out of their monthly food stamp allotments? Should sodas be put on the food stamp “no-no” list along with cigarettes and alcohol?
2 November 2009
at 9:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

costello (Anonymous) says…

“The 'we' to whom Ronda constantly refers is government. Are we really so stupid and easily controlled that we're willing to hand over the reigns of our lives to government officials? Shameful.”

I agree. I don't want the government telling me what to eat. I don't trust the government to tell me what to eat. The government are idiots!

No one can argue that soda pop - diet or otherwise - is good for you. But what's next on the chopping block? Butter? Cream? Steak? Don't we all know that fat is bad for you? Especially saturated fat?

Well, I don't happen to agree with the government's views on nutrition. I eat a high fat diet. My doctor agrees with my diet. It has improved my health. Why should the government get a vote in the matter?

I say 'no' to taxes on certain foods in order to discourage their consumption and 'no' to subsidies on other foods to encourage their consumption.

Here are a couple of clips from Fathead.

The first is of the McGovern Committee in 1977. (“We don't have time to actually learn the facts before we tell people what to eat.”)

http://www.youtube.com/user/FatHeadMo…

The second is a cartoon of a vegetarian saving us from ourselves, using “his twin powers of taxation and regulation.”

http://www.youtube.com/user/FatHeadMo…
2 November 2009
at 10:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Multidisciplinary (Anonymous) says…

Make your own seltzer water ..or soft drinks at home..this is cool.
http://www.sodastreamusa.com/

2 November 2009
at 1:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

You all make some valid points (well, except Ret).

Irish, congrats on your continued good health and weight loss. It is never easy to change our habits and I admire you for eating vegan. Something I've always wanted to try but for whatever reason too lazy or ill prepared.

multi, thanks for the link. I love homemade Italian sodas…one of my favorites and they certainly are not a healthy choice. I also love popcorn balls. The popcorn I give is still unpopped so it can be made at the discretion of the parent or caregiver. One has to be careful of choking with younger children still. And your suggestion of pudding cups isn't a bad one in my mind. Some are made with low fat milk and have some nutritional value. Make mine butterscotch, please! ;)

Overtherainbow, very good point. Should we add insult to injury by taxing or disallowing items such as mentioned to the slim budgets of those with food stamps? I don't know if they can buy 'junk' food (yeah, yeah, I know. What is junk food to me is your gourmet good eats) with food stamps. I know they are limited to some purchases - I think it is wise to disallow certain foods for consumption with food stamps. Let them have the most nutritious bang for their bucks. It isn't about punishing anyone. It is about helping people be the best they can be.

Costello, well written! And thanks for the great links. I am glad your plan works for you. We need to remember that every 'body' is different. No two are alike and a plan that works for one may not for another. I understand your reluctance to put your health into the reins held by government - but we need to get control somehow.

Any suggestions anyone cares to share? We know that information, education doesn't seem to be working.
2 November 2009
at 2:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

costello (Anonymous) says…

“Costello, well written! And thanks for the great links. I am glad your plan works for you. We need to remember that every 'body' is different. No two are alike and a plan that works for one may not for another. I understand your reluctance to put your health into the reins held by government - but we need to get control somehow.”

I think the assumption behind the proposed tax is that every 'body' is the same. We're all identical and the government knows what's best for us.

Why do we need to get control somehow? And what do we need to get control over? And why does the government need to exert that control?

I want the government out of my private life.

This is almost enough to turn me into a Republican. Or a Canadian.
2 November 2009
at 2:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Irish (Irish Swearingen) says…

reticent_irreverent, now, now, I just said that I am against breast feeding. I don't care if someone else does this. I just don't want to have to see it.
Ronda I hope this is what you were asking.
Eligible Food Items
Foods for the household to eat, such as:
— breads and cereals;
— fruits and vegetables;
— meats, fish and poultry; and
— dairy products.

Seeds and plants which produce food for the household to eat.
In some areas, restaurants can be authorized to accept benefits from qualified homeless, elderly, or disabled people in exchange for low-cost meals.

Households CANNOT use benefits to buy:
Beer, wine, liquor, cigarettes or tobacco;
Any nonfood items, such as:
— pet foods;
— soaps, paper products; and
— household supplies.
Vitamins and medicines.
Food that will be eaten in the store.
Hot foods.
I didn't make this up.
2 November 2009
at 2:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kmat (Anonymous) says…

Costello is taking this tax thing a little too far. The govt isn't trying to tell you what you can consume. You can still buy all the cr*p food and drink you want. BUT, to help pay for health care coverage for all, they have proposed a tax on beverages that are just high fructose corn syrup and water. There is absolutely zero benefit from drinking it and the overconsumption of it causes so many health problems, many of which we pay for as a society. Pop is a luxury and has no nutritional value or need.

My gawd, Irish will get upset if she sees someone breast feeding. Heaven forbid a boob is used for its intended purpose! This country is so obsessed with boobs. Who cares if you see a little boob because a mom is feeding her child? We need to be more like Europeans when it comes to boobs. They don't treat them like they're taboo and they aren't overly infatuated with them.
2 November 2009
at 3:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Irish (Irish Swearingen) says…

Kmat, why are you so interested in my opinion? I think you are overreacting. I am not trying to make anyone mad or offend anyone.
I am simply giving my opinion.
2 November 2009
at 3:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Irish (Irish Swearingen) says…

If you have questions about food stamps, or SNAP(supplemental nutritional assistance program) as it is now called write to:
Retailer Management and Issuance Branch
Benefit Redemption Division
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
USDA, Food and Nutrition Service
3101 Park Center Drive, Room 404
Alexandria, VA 22302
or e-mail:
brdhq-web@fns.usda.gov
2 November 2009
at 4:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

Irish, thanks for the information. I don't think it looks too horrible, but then it isn't me having to follow these guidelines. A bit of soap, laundry detergent and tp thrown in the mix might be nice! ;) Tooth past, etc…..

costello, “Why do we need to get control somehow? And what do we need to get control over? And why does the government need to exert that control?”

We need to get control over our own bodies and our ability to care for them as best we can. We can't give someone self control, unfortunately, but we can give incentives such as taxes and education to help guide people through the electric fences of life. hehe. Sorry, even I disgust myself sometimes.

I'm with Kmat, Irish. What in the world is wrong with breast feeding? A breast is a breast is a breast - or a boob by any other name. We are from the animal kingdom. Rejoice in our ability to feed our young such a healthy, nutrition and well balanced meal. Always at the right temperature, very handy (no, Ret, stay back), and giving a lot of immunity to the receiver. Bonding between mother and infant. What isn't to love? Skin is skin regardless of where it is.
2 November 2009
at 4:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

http://health.yahoo.com/experts/drmao…

2 November 2009
at 4:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

costello (Anonymous) says…

Gosh, kmat, thanks for setting me straight.

This tax was orginally proposed by people looking for a way to reduce obesity by making pop more expensive. It's still being pushed by those same groups. Those groups are opposed to all kinds of foods they view as “unhealthy.” I don't agree with those groups or their views. Pop clearly is unhealthy. It isn't that clear for other foods these groups would target.

“… Obama's comments drew the immediate wrath of industry and consumer-choice groups.

“'The tax code should not be used as a method for social engineering, and that's what this is,' said Justin Wilson, senior research analyst for the Center for Consumer Freedom, which gets money from food and beverage companies.

“Obama acknowledged that the idea could lead to charges that Uncle Sam is trying to dictate personal diets, but he hinted the benefit may be worth it.

“'Look, people's attitude is that they don't necessarily want Big Brother telling them what to eat or drink, and I understand that,' Obama said.

“'It is true, though, that if you wanted to make a big impact on people's health in this country, reducing things like soda consumption would be helpful.'”

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/polit…
2 November 2009
at 4:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

costello….okay, that picture of Obama was another shocking good laugh. Scary to be President when pictures of whatever we're doing are captured for any imaginable use. Maybe he was sipping water! ;)
2 November 2009
at 5 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

costello (Anonymous) says…

“We need to get control over our own bodies and our ability to care for them as best we can. We can't give someone self control, unfortunately, but we can give incentives such as taxes and education to help guide people through the electric fences of life. hehe. Sorry, even I disgust myself sometimes.”

Honestly, Ronda. Re-read what you wrote. Can you not hear how patronizing you sound?

You're not talking about controlling your own body or about self-care. You're talking about about controlling other people and their choices - the choices they're making that you disagree with. And you're talking about enlisting the government to “encourage” people to make the choices you would have them make.

I don't want the government to “encourage” me to eat the way it thinks best, because I don't trust any nutrition information coming from the government. Government nutrition advice is about politics, not science.

The government started telling us to eat low-fat in the 1970's. They simplified the science, ignored dissenting voices, and based their advice on politics. Forty years of cutting fat from our food - and adding sugar to replace the fat - has helped create an obesity/diabetes epidemic.

God forgive me, I'm about to quote Reagan: “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'”
2 November 2009
at 5:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

costello (Anonymous) says…

“okay, that picture of Obama was another shocking good laugh.”

Yeah. I'm seriously glad I'm not famous. No one's following me around with a camera. ;-)

I do envy the President his leanness, though. I'm guessing he can eat anything he wants and stay lean.
2 November 2009
at 5:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

And he does seem to have a lot of energy. He very rarely looks tired. He was a bit chubby as a child though from pictures I've seen. Maybe it was those good Kansas eats! ;)

And you might be surprised to find out who is following you around with a camera…or running after you naked with iPhone. You never know these days.
2 November 2009
at 5:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Irish (Irish Swearingen) says…

He works out for a hour six days a week. I don't think he drinks milkshakes on a regular basis.
I resisted change for a long time because I perceived it as something being forced on me by nice, middle class women because were the people who were giving lectures to me, the lower class woman. So, I would get angry and eat a lot of Blue Bunny ice cream to spite them.
Only I wasn't hurting them, I was hurting me.
Once I accepted that and accepted that me and only me decides what I eat and how often I exercise my life style changed.
I do want to say that I have learned from people who comment on here and I do appreciate it. I now love the swimming pool and walk around in a swim suit with ease.
I have changed in the past months.
2 November 2009
at 5:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

costello (Anonymous) says…

Well, ok, my picture isn't going to end up all over the Internet. I'm far too dull for anyone to care about me or my picture.

Are naked people running after me with iPhones? That's an alarming thought!
2 November 2009
at 9:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

Irish, I could be a true friend to you and take your Blue Bunny ice cream off your hands (and hips) for you! ;) Seriously, I would do that for a friend. lol

costello, yes, I know it is alarming - and perhaps even frightening, but I hear people do run naked with iPhones. And they do get some great pictures with them. You'd be surprised what people will do with a photo of you. Just ask multi. I believe it is referred to as rule 34…….but I may be off a rule or two. I have never been adept at following rules.