How stupid are left wingers? This stupid.

[ding]

With Sales Depressed by Soda Tax, Philly Grocers Look to Cut Jobs as Mayor Blames 'Greedy' Soda Industry

"I didn't think it was possible for the soda industry to be any greedier," Kenney said in an emailed statement to Philly.com reporter Julia Terruso. "They are so committed to stopping this tax from spreading to other cities, that they are not only passing the tax they should be paying onto their customer, they are actually willing to threaten working men and women's jobs rather than marginally reduce their seven figure bonuses."

Raise taxes on something and shocked that tax gets passed on to the customer. Democrats are ******* retards.

How stupid are left wingers? Incredibly stupid.

 

[AntonToo]

With Sales Depressed by Soda Tax, Philly Grocers Look to Cut Jobs as Mayor Blames 'Greedy' Soda Industry

Raise taxes on something and shocked that tax gets passed on to the customer. Democrats are ******* retards.

Wasn't the whole purpose of the tax to get people to drink less soda? Or is Philly the greed one?

No, I don't think that was the goal. If that was the goal, then they should not have increased spending based on the predicted income from the Soda Tax, to pay for people's health care.

Do you see the problem? "We're going to pay for our government health care by increasing taxes on soda!" and "Hopefully the increase in taxes will cause people to drink less soda"

These two goals are mutually exclusive. If people drink less soda, then you are not going to get tax revenue to pay for health care.

But the over all problem is that neither goal, included the resulting unemployment of workers. They just magically assumed they could tax something, and have zero economic impact. That's what is mind blowingly stupid.

Every single dollar that is collected in taxes, must come from somewhere. Someone in the economy must not get that dollar. It's either an employee that doesn't get that dollar in wages, or consumers who have to pay that dollar in higher prices.... which means it can't be used for something else.

Two ways to make profit, sell more product or charge more for the product. The ideal is to match price and production to maximize profit.

So it is with taxes. The do gooders want to dictate what we eat, drink and every other aspect of our lives. BUT they don't think we smart enough to do it ourselves. In lies the problem. Cutting the sales of soda pop would cause a decrease in the tax revenue. So they tax the crap out of the product, knowing people are going to use it any way. Thus they have shown themselves to be righteous but also maintain the tax revenue but in fact have done nothing but hurt the working poor.

The do gooders significantly cut consumption of soda in Philly while increasing tax revenues, thus achieving their do-gooder goals.

Conservative conclusion: Damn those do gooders are stupid.

Here is an article that looks to be neutral on the subject of taxing soda.

Snippets from article: Berkeley is one of the few cities in the US to successfully pass a soda tax, though similar laws have been proposed around the country and world. In July, Philadelphia passed a tax increase of 1.5 cents per ounce of sugar-added and artificially sweetened soft drinks — a tax expected to raise approximately $91 million over the next year.

And the purpose of the tax on the artificially sweetened drinks?

another snippet:

Berkeley is one of the few cities in the US to successfully pass a soda tax, though similar laws have been proposed around the country and world. In July, Philadelphia passed a tax increase of 1.5 cents per ounce of sugar-added and artificially sweetened soft drinks — a tax expected to raise approximately $91 million over the next year.

Now you can see the real reason for once again the government getting into social engineering. How many people die because of committing sodomy? Why not outlaw sodomy? Oh right that would be social engineering, can't have that.

Another snippet:

Per capita soda sales have dropped 25% since 1998, but the number of bottles and cans purchased is still rising. As consumers have become more nutrition savvy, many have cut soda consumption without government intervention. Adding soda taxes is simply another step in the battle between the soda business and nutrition advocates.

Seems to me that without direct government intervention the consumption per person has dropped significantly.

Whenever the government is saying they are doing what is good for you quickly grab your wallet.

A new study should have Coke and Pepsi terrified

Binary thinking - just because soda sales have dropped on their own doesn't mean they wouldn't drop even faster with tax. Philly experiment makes that a certainty since the volume dropped like a rock since tax intro.

Artificially sweetened drinks are probably worse than those with real sugar. That synthetic stuff doesn't even get digested.

BTW, you let me know when you figure out a way to tax anal sex...or maybe figure out a difference between taxation and criminal prohibition

 

[Freewill]

Wasn't the whole purpose of the tax to get people to drink less soda? Or is Philly the greed one?

No, I don't think that was the goal. If that was the goal, then they should not have increased spending based on the predicted income from the Soda Tax, to pay for people's health care.

Do you see the problem? "We're going to pay for our government health care by increasing taxes on soda!" and "Hopefully the increase in taxes will cause people to drink less soda"

These two goals are mutually exclusive. If people drink less soda, then you are not going to get tax revenue to pay for health care.

But the over all problem is that neither goal, included the resulting unemployment of workers. They just magically assumed they could tax something, and have zero economic impact. That's what is mind blowingly stupid.

Every single dollar that is collected in taxes, must come from somewhere. Someone in the economy must not get that dollar. It's either an employee that doesn't get that dollar in wages, or consumers who have to pay that dollar in higher prices.... which means it can't be used for something else.

Two ways to make profit, sell more product or charge more for the product. The ideal is to match price and production to maximize profit.

So it is with taxes. The do gooders want to dictate what we eat, drink and every other aspect of our lives. BUT they don't think we smart enough to do it ourselves. In lies the problem. Cutting the sales of soda pop would cause a decrease in the tax revenue. So they tax the crap out of the product, knowing people are going to use it any way. Thus they have shown themselves to be righteous but also maintain the tax revenue but in fact have done nothing but hurt the working poor.

The do gooders significantly cut consumption of soda in Philly while increasing tax revenues, thus achieving their do-gooder goals.

Conservative conclusion: Damn those do gooders are stupid.

Here is an article that looks to be neutral on the subject of taxing soda.

Snippets from article: Berkeley is one of the few cities in the US to successfully pass a soda tax, though similar laws have been proposed around the country and world. In July, Philadelphia passed a tax increase of 1.5 cents per ounce of sugar-added and artificially sweetened soft drinks — a tax expected to raise approximately $91 million over the next year.

And the purpose of the tax on the artificially sweetened drinks?

another snippet:

Berkeley is one of the few cities in the US to successfully pass a soda tax, though similar laws have been proposed around the country and world. In July, Philadelphia passed a tax increase of 1.5 cents per ounce of sugar-added and artificially sweetened soft drinks — a tax expected to raise approximately $91 million over the next year.

Now you can see the real reason for once again the government getting into social engineering. How many people die because of committing sodomy? Why not outlaw sodomy? Oh right that would be social engineering, can't have that.

Another snippet:

Per capita soda sales have dropped 25% since 1998, but the number of bottles and cans purchased is still rising. As consumers have become more nutrition savvy, many have cut soda consumption without government intervention. Adding soda taxes is simply another step in the battle between the soda business and nutrition advocates.

Seems to me that without direct government intervention the consumption per person has dropped significantly.

Whenever the government is saying they are doing what is good for you quickly grab your wallet.

A new study should have Coke and Pepsi terrified

Binary thinking - just because soda sales have dropped on their own doesn't mean they wouldn't drop even faster with tax. Philly experiment makes that a certainty since the volume dropped like a rock since tax intro.

Artificially sweetened drinks are probably worse than those with real sugar. That synthetic stuff doesn't even get digested.

BTW, you let me know when you figure out a way to tax anal sex...or maybe figure out a difference between taxation and criminal prohibition

Ask yourself, do you have the information concerning the sale of soft drinks in areas surrounding Philadelphia? In my area the city raised the sales tax 1 percent over the surrounding communities. I avoid going to the city to buy anything.

Sales per capital was dropping without the tax so why the tax? I guess because people, especially the poor, are not smart enough to take care of themselves, they need a village.

Probably as bad for a person? Feeling, nothing more then feelings.

That said the drink industry is a giant rip off. It cost less than 25 cents to produce a can of soda, yet it sells for over a dollar. Basically it is just water with sugar added. Time people wised up and stopped buying the stuff. What a novel idea, personal responsibility.

BTW, why didn't Philadelphia just ban surgery and artificially sweeten drinks?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

I'm from Philly and soda is the last thing many Philadephians need. We have an obesity issue and cutting out soda would do wonders for us.

This is why I hate liberals. Who the hell are you to tell anyone what to eat and how much? Go mind your own business I'm sure you have enough of your own problems to work on.

 

[danielpalos]

With Sales Depressed by Soda Tax, Philly Grocers Look to Cut Jobs as Mayor Blames 'Greedy' Soda Industry

"I didn't think it was possible for the soda industry to be any greedier," Kenney said in an emailed statement to Philly.com reporter Julia Terruso. "They are so committed to stopping this tax from spreading to other cities, that they are not only passing the tax they should be paying onto their customer, they are actually willing to threaten working men and women's jobs rather than marginally reduce their seven figure bonuses."

Raise taxes on something and shocked that tax gets passed on to the customer. Democrats are ******* retards.

they should just legalize pot and tax it.

Potheads don't complain about pot taxes; we are, Patriotic.

 

[Nia88]

I'm from Philly and soda is the last thing many Philadephians need. We have an obesity issue and cutting out soda would do wonders for us.

This is why I hate liberals. Who the hell are you to tell anyone what to eat and how much? Go mind your own business I'm sure you have enough of your own problems to work on.

And this is why I hate conservatives. They'll go hard for someone's right to eat junk that has nothing but adverse effects on the body but they'll shun something like marijuana that has shown multiple medical benefits and decrease the use of alcohol and opioids.

Never said people can't have soda. But making it more expensive would dissuade a lot of people from drinking. Its bad for you. Wears down enamel and makes you fat.

We tax cigarettes so why not junk food?

 

[FA_Q2]

Who are you to decide what people need, fascist snowflake?

Its our business when obesity puts a strain on our society.

They can have soda all they want but they should pay more for it.

No, it isn't.....

Obesity hasn't put a strain on America? Our life expectancy is dropping because of obesity.

"our' life expectancy is doing nothing. Those that live unhealthy lives have their life expectancy lowered. If you do not do so then there is no effect on you.

It is none of your business what others do and the effects that they have to go through because of it. Whatever happened to having the right to control your own body - to include what you put in the damn thing.

Maybe that is true for carefully compartmentalized ideological utopia in your head, but that is not how the world works.

Out of control sugar consumption levels by Americans have a cost to everyone here, it increases our healthcare costs and that cost is in your insurance premiums and your taxes. You just don't see it separately.

Want to do it? No problem, pay a bit more to help offset soda's externalized costs.

“Maybe that is true for carefully compartmentalized ideological utopia in your head, but that is not how the world works.”


Yes it actually is and your inability to say anything without an ad homonym shows the true weakness inherent in your argument.


That is actually the entire purpose of insurance companies – to assess risk and charge appropriately. The government didn’t assess squat with the tax other than they want more money. Again, an individual’s personal decisions are not yours to make demands of. Once again you are proving that the right to your own body is nothing more than a slogan that the left does not believe in.

 

[Rambunctious]

Democrats holding office know who will end up paying more, they know the costs will be passed down they are not that stupid. They don't give a rip about us. I just wish the rank and file liberals would finally figure that out.

 

[sealybobo]

With Sales Depressed by Soda Tax, Philly Grocers Look to Cut Jobs as Mayor Blames 'Greedy' Soda Industry

"I didn't think it was possible for the soda industry to be any greedier," Kenney said in an emailed statement to Philly.com reporter Julia Terruso. "They are so committed to stopping this tax from spreading to other cities, that they are not only passing the tax they should be paying onto their customer, they are actually willing to threaten working men and women's jobs rather than marginally reduce their seven figure bonuses."

Raise taxes on something and shocked that tax gets passed on to the customer. Democrats are ******* retards.

So don't buy it. You're too fat anyways

So don't tax it, it's none of your business....

Let's tax doctor visits instead. Got to tax something

 

[Rambunctious]

Let's tax doctor visits instead. Got to tax something

How about a 75% income tax on liberal rich folks. I wonder how that vote would turn out.

 

[Andylusion]

And yet Trump is telling you that a tax on goods from Mexico equates to Mexico paying for the wall.
How stupid are Trump followers?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

First, I never supported Trump in general. I only supported him because the only option you people on the left gave us, was a corrupt politician with a 25 year history of scandals, lying, and cronyism.

Second, this is exactly what the Unions have been demanding for ages, and you people on the left, typically support the Unions. Doesn't that make you stupid? You support Unions which demand these tariffs on imports, knowing that cost will be passed onto consumers, and yet when Trump proposes it, you magically think it's bad?

Third, I would generally support a flat tariff on all imported goods, if we intended to use that as our defacto revenue generating method.

You lefties in public schools may not know this, but our government was originally only funded by tariff revenue. Now of course that means you have to cuts all these government programs down to the level of tariff revenue. You people would pee your pants just thinking about that.

 

[Andylusion]

Did you see the hilarious tweet that politician made? That is hysterical.

View attachment 114100

I had this mental image of people jumping off a cliff, and some Democrat screaming that gravity is greedy for killing off his constituency.

So.... what's stupid about it, exactly?

Also, one person is all Liberals?

You asked this honestly, so I'm going to answer, and I am not trying to insult you or anyone, even though the answer may be insulting. I don't mean it to be, it's just the answer to the question.

Two things are stupid about this.

First, every single time that a left-winger puts in place a tax, or a regulation, that drives up cost on the company, or business or whatever....

Every single time, they always believe in this mythology that somehow magically these costs are going to paid for by the rich, or by the mega-corporation.

That is NEVER the case. Never meaning... NOT ONE TIME IN ALL HISTORY... is that the case.

Companies do not have money on magic trees in the backyard to pay for stuff. Every single penny that goes to pay for a tax, or a regulation of some sort... comes from only one of two places. Either A: from Consumers in the form of higher prices, or B: from Employees in the form of lower wages or fewer jobs.

Those are the only two sources for money to pay for taxes and regulations. Consumers, or Employees. That's it.

And while you say this is one guy... I've heard this exact argument hundreds of times even on this forum, that they expected the company to just pay the tax, and cut all the executives pay, and no employees should lose their jobs, and consumers should pay a higher price.

Instead people are just driving out of the area to buy soda, and employees in the area affected by the tax, are losing their jobs. Completely, and entirely expected, by all of us on the right-wing that understand basic economics.

The second stupid aspect is the knee-jerk responses of "greedy", to every single basic economic principal that comes to fruition.

Every time that a left-wing policy destroys the economy, and causes consumers to pay higher prices, and causes employees to lose their jobs.... the morons immediately jump to "greedy".

Yet if they themselves were the ones expected to earn a median wage as CEO of a major corporation, in order to pay ridiculous taxes... they would do the same thing.

Only in left-wing world, are people expected to work hard to lose money, for the benefit of government taxes, and societal jobs. You are basically expected to commit suicide for the "common good" or some such nonsense.

The entire concept is bonkers.

And even if you fired all the executives at all the soda companies, whoever you replaced them with, would all do the exact same thing.

The only way you can run a non-profitable business venture and still keep people employed, without going bankrupt, is to nationalize it. And we've seen how well nationalizing everything works. The Soviet Union almost starved to death. Prisons were being filled up with people who committed cannibalism.

This is why this right here is so stupid. Everything he's saying is a complaint against basic Economics 101.

Well, there are different views on tax. At the end of the day tax needs to be paid. Sometimes there are ideological fights over tax because one way means some people pay more than other, and sometime it just appears that way. A guy coming out and exposing his view doesn't necessarily point to him being stupid.

Your second point suggests it's liberals who destroy the economy. Well... the last economic recession started... well... it started with a US president going to too many costly wars, and a government (both sides) unwilling to deal with banks in a sensible manner.

The problem with your argument is you have the right which has set up a system which claims to create jobs, and yet benefits large corporations over smaller businesses on a massive basis. Is this good for jobs? Yeah, well, Walmart and their massively low wage jobs aren't exactly great.

You talk about things being overpriced but then it's the right who love the massively overpriced healthcare system which just sucks the blood out of people's pay checks just so others can leech off the system.

My point here is that both sides are "stupid", and yet you'll come out and criticize the left for being stupid while promoting policies which are also "stupid". Great.

He was acting surprised, and outraged, that taxes were passed on to the consumer and employees. That is stupid.

You have to be a moron, to think that jacking up taxes won't be passed on to the public, either through higher prices or less employment or wages. This qualifies you as a moron.

(by you, I mean not you, but anyone who thinks this way).

Now, if you accept the fact that taxes will have to be paid by consumers having a lower standard of living, and employees making less money and having fewer jobs... ok. Then that's fine. And every time you raise taxes and regulations, when you see prices to the public go up, and employment go down, I expect you to say "Ok good. The harm to society is worth it".

Then we can debate whether or not the harm to society really is worth it.

The last recession was caused by minimum wage laws, and government regulations on mortgages. Not wars. Had nothing to do with wars.

Further, a right-wing policy is a right-wing policy whether it's a Republican or Democrat who offers it. Equally a left-wing policy, is a left-wing policy, whether a Republican or Democrat offers it.

If Bush had pushed for more government regulation, and it ruined the economy, that's not a right-wing policy. Bush pushing more regulations (like raising the minimum wage for example), doens't magically make raising the minimum wage a right-wing policy. It's a left-wing policy.

Lastly, regulations inherently benefit large corporations. The best pro-small business system is the least possible regulated market. This health care deal is a perfect example. Health care regulations cost businesses millions of dollars. Which company has the ability to pay for that? A small 20-person business, or a large mega corporation? Well of course the mega-corp. So you harm the small business at the benefit of the large corporations.

Right-wingers are not making a system that benefits large corporations. Left-wingers are.

Lastly, you complain about over priced health care, but again, who is the cause of that? Left-wingers. It's your regulations and government programs that have driven up the cost of health care, more than anything else.

Everything you listed, is all the stuff that I would cite as proof of my claims.

The reality is that politicians play to their audience, and seeing as large amounts of the audience choose to be ignorant, choose to accept the simple, means that politicians will then go and appeal to them. Look at Trump. He's doing everything for those who accept the simple.

As for always blaming left wingers.... are you serious? There's a major problem in society and it's not about left and right, it's about society.

I blame, what is to blame. Everything you mentioned is due to left-wing policies. If you want, we can go through each and every single one of them, and I can detail exactly which policy is causing which effect, and how they relate.

Of course every politician play's to their audience. The only difference is that you think one particular group is more ignorant than another. That's not how it looks to anyone else. Left-wingers are just as ignorant and stupid as any other ignorant group of people.



I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage or for gas? Did Obama not play up to that level of ignorance? Of course he did.

What did you think all that "Yes we can" "Hope and Change" "Believe" crap was all about? Playing up to the stupid and easily deceived.

All politicians do this.

 

[Freewill]

So.... what's stupid about it, exactly?

Also, one person is all Liberals?

You asked this honestly, so I'm going to answer, and I am not trying to insult you or anyone, even though the answer may be insulting. I don't mean it to be, it's just the answer to the question.

Two things are stupid about this.

First, every single time that a left-winger puts in place a tax, or a regulation, that drives up cost on the company, or business or whatever....

Every single time, they always believe in this mythology that somehow magically these costs are going to paid for by the rich, or by the mega-corporation.

That is NEVER the case. Never meaning... NOT ONE TIME IN ALL HISTORY... is that the case.

Companies do not have money on magic trees in the backyard to pay for stuff. Every single penny that goes to pay for a tax, or a regulation of some sort... comes from only one of two places. Either A: from Consumers in the form of higher prices, or B: from Employees in the form of lower wages or fewer jobs.

Those are the only two sources for money to pay for taxes and regulations. Consumers, or Employees. That's it.

And while you say this is one guy... I've heard this exact argument hundreds of times even on this forum, that they expected the company to just pay the tax, and cut all the executives pay, and no employees should lose their jobs, and consumers should pay a higher price.

Instead people are just driving out of the area to buy soda, and employees in the area affected by the tax, are losing their jobs. Completely, and entirely expected, by all of us on the right-wing that understand basic economics.

The second stupid aspect is the knee-jerk responses of "greedy", to every single basic economic principal that comes to fruition.

Every time that a left-wing policy destroys the economy, and causes consumers to pay higher prices, and causes employees to lose their jobs.... the morons immediately jump to "greedy".

Yet if they themselves were the ones expected to earn a median wage as CEO of a major corporation, in order to pay ridiculous taxes... they would do the same thing.

Only in left-wing world, are people expected to work hard to lose money, for the benefit of government taxes, and societal jobs. You are basically expected to commit suicide for the "common good" or some such nonsense.

The entire concept is bonkers.

And even if you fired all the executives at all the soda companies, whoever you replaced them with, would all do the exact same thing.

The only way you can run a non-profitable business venture and still keep people employed, without going bankrupt, is to nationalize it. And we've seen how well nationalizing everything works. The Soviet Union almost starved to death. Prisons were being filled up with people who committed cannibalism.

This is why this right here is so stupid. Everything he's saying is a complaint against basic Economics 101.

Well, there are different views on tax. At the end of the day tax needs to be paid. Sometimes there are ideological fights over tax because one way means some people pay more than other, and sometime it just appears that way. A guy coming out and exposing his view doesn't necessarily point to him being stupid.

Your second point suggests it's liberals who destroy the economy. Well... the last economic recession started... well... it started with a US president going to too many costly wars, and a government (both sides) unwilling to deal with banks in a sensible manner.

The problem with your argument is you have the right which has set up a system which claims to create jobs, and yet benefits large corporations over smaller businesses on a massive basis. Is this good for jobs? Yeah, well, Walmart and their massively low wage jobs aren't exactly great.

You talk about things being overpriced but then it's the right who love the massively overpriced healthcare system which just sucks the blood out of people's pay checks just so others can leech off the system.

My point here is that both sides are "stupid", and yet you'll come out and criticize the left for being stupid while promoting policies which are also "stupid". Great.

He was acting surprised, and outraged, that taxes were passed on to the consumer and employees. That is stupid.

You have to be a moron, to think that jacking up taxes won't be passed on to the public, either through higher prices or less employment or wages. This qualifies you as a moron.

(by you, I mean not you, but anyone who thinks this way).

Now, if you accept the fact that taxes will have to be paid by consumers having a lower standard of living, and employees making less money and having fewer jobs... ok. Then that's fine. And every time you raise taxes and regulations, when you see prices to the public go up, and employment go down, I expect you to say "Ok good. The harm to society is worth it".

Then we can debate whether or not the harm to society really is worth it.

The last recession was caused by minimum wage laws, and government regulations on mortgages. Not wars. Had nothing to do with wars.

Further, a right-wing policy is a right-wing policy whether it's a Republican or Democrat who offers it. Equally a left-wing policy, is a left-wing policy, whether a Republican or Democrat offers it.

If Bush had pushed for more government regulation, and it ruined the economy, that's not a right-wing policy. Bush pushing more regulations (like raising the minimum wage for example), doens't magically make raising the minimum wage a right-wing policy. It's a left-wing policy.

Lastly, regulations inherently benefit large corporations. The best pro-small business system is the least possible regulated market. This health care deal is a perfect example. Health care regulations cost businesses millions of dollars. Which company has the ability to pay for that? A small 20-person business, or a large mega corporation? Well of course the mega-corp. So you harm the small business at the benefit of the large corporations.

Right-wingers are not making a system that benefits large corporations. Left-wingers are.

Lastly, you complain about over priced health care, but again, who is the cause of that? Left-wingers. It's your regulations and government programs that have driven up the cost of health care, more than anything else.

Everything you listed, is all the stuff that I would cite as proof of my claims.

The reality is that politicians play to their audience, and seeing as large amounts of the audience choose to be ignorant, choose to accept the simple, means that politicians will then go and appeal to them. Look at Trump. He's doing everything for those who accept the simple.

As for always blaming left wingers.... are you serious? There's a major problem in society and it's not about left and right, it's about society.

I blame, what is to blame. Everything you mentioned is due to left-wing policies. If you want, we can go through each and every single one of them, and I can detail exactly which policy is causing which effect, and how they relate.

Of course every politician play's to their audience. The only difference is that you think one particular group is more ignorant than another. That's not how it looks to anyone else. Left-wingers are just as ignorant and stupid as any other ignorant group of people.



I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage or for gas? Did Obama not play up to that level of ignorance? Of course he did.

What did you think all that "Yes we can" "Hope and Change" "Believe" crap was all about? Playing up to the stupid and easily deceived.

All politicians do this.

On Nov 8th I got the change I was hoping for.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So.... what's stupid about it, exactly?

Also, one person is all Liberals?

You asked this honestly, so I'm going to answer, and I am not trying to insult you or anyone, even though the answer may be insulting. I don't mean it to be, it's just the answer to the question.

Two things are stupid about this.

First, every single time that a left-winger puts in place a tax, or a regulation, that drives up cost on the company, or business or whatever....

Every single time, they always believe in this mythology that somehow magically these costs are going to paid for by the rich, or by the mega-corporation.

That is NEVER the case. Never meaning... NOT ONE TIME IN ALL HISTORY... is that the case.

Companies do not have money on magic trees in the backyard to pay for stuff. Every single penny that goes to pay for a tax, or a regulation of some sort... comes from only one of two places. Either A: from Consumers in the form of higher prices, or B: from Employees in the form of lower wages or fewer jobs.

Those are the only two sources for money to pay for taxes and regulations. Consumers, or Employees. That's it.

And while you say this is one guy... I've heard this exact argument hundreds of times even on this forum, that they expected the company to just pay the tax, and cut all the executives pay, and no employees should lose their jobs, and consumers should pay a higher price.

Instead people are just driving out of the area to buy soda, and employees in the area affected by the tax, are losing their jobs. Completely, and entirely expected, by all of us on the right-wing that understand basic economics.

The second stupid aspect is the knee-jerk responses of "greedy", to every single basic economic principal that comes to fruition.

Every time that a left-wing policy destroys the economy, and causes consumers to pay higher prices, and causes employees to lose their jobs.... the morons immediately jump to "greedy".

Yet if they themselves were the ones expected to earn a median wage as CEO of a major corporation, in order to pay ridiculous taxes... they would do the same thing.

Only in left-wing world, are people expected to work hard to lose money, for the benefit of government taxes, and societal jobs. You are basically expected to commit suicide for the "common good" or some such nonsense.

The entire concept is bonkers.

And even if you fired all the executives at all the soda companies, whoever you replaced them with, would all do the exact same thing.

The only way you can run a non-profitable business venture and still keep people employed, without going bankrupt, is to nationalize it. And we've seen how well nationalizing everything works. The Soviet Union almost starved to death. Prisons were being filled up with people who committed cannibalism.

This is why this right here is so stupid. Everything he's saying is a complaint against basic Economics 101.

Well, there are different views on tax. At the end of the day tax needs to be paid. Sometimes there are ideological fights over tax because one way means some people pay more than other, and sometime it just appears that way. A guy coming out and exposing his view doesn't necessarily point to him being stupid.

Your second point suggests it's liberals who destroy the economy. Well... the last economic recession started... well... it started with a US president going to too many costly wars, and a government (both sides) unwilling to deal with banks in a sensible manner.

The problem with your argument is you have the right which has set up a system which claims to create jobs, and yet benefits large corporations over smaller businesses on a massive basis. Is this good for jobs? Yeah, well, Walmart and their massively low wage jobs aren't exactly great.

You talk about things being overpriced but then it's the right who love the massively overpriced healthcare system which just sucks the blood out of people's pay checks just so others can leech off the system.

My point here is that both sides are "stupid", and yet you'll come out and criticize the left for being stupid while promoting policies which are also "stupid". Great.

He was acting surprised, and outraged, that taxes were passed on to the consumer and employees. That is stupid.

You have to be a moron, to think that jacking up taxes won't be passed on to the public, either through higher prices or less employment or wages. This qualifies you as a moron.

(by you, I mean not you, but anyone who thinks this way).

Now, if you accept the fact that taxes will have to be paid by consumers having a lower standard of living, and employees making less money and having fewer jobs... ok. Then that's fine. And every time you raise taxes and regulations, when you see prices to the public go up, and employment go down, I expect you to say "Ok good. The harm to society is worth it".

Then we can debate whether or not the harm to society really is worth it.

The last recession was caused by minimum wage laws, and government regulations on mortgages. Not wars. Had nothing to do with wars.

Further, a right-wing policy is a right-wing policy whether it's a Republican or Democrat who offers it. Equally a left-wing policy, is a left-wing policy, whether a Republican or Democrat offers it.

If Bush had pushed for more government regulation, and it ruined the economy, that's not a right-wing policy. Bush pushing more regulations (like raising the minimum wage for example), doens't magically make raising the minimum wage a right-wing policy. It's a left-wing policy.

Lastly, regulations inherently benefit large corporations. The best pro-small business system is the least possible regulated market. This health care deal is a perfect example. Health care regulations cost businesses millions of dollars. Which company has the ability to pay for that? A small 20-person business, or a large mega corporation? Well of course the mega-corp. So you harm the small business at the benefit of the large corporations.

Right-wingers are not making a system that benefits large corporations. Left-wingers are.

Lastly, you complain about over priced health care, but again, who is the cause of that? Left-wingers. It's your regulations and government programs that have driven up the cost of health care, more than anything else.

Everything you listed, is all the stuff that I would cite as proof of my claims.

The reality is that politicians play to their audience, and seeing as large amounts of the audience choose to be ignorant, choose to accept the simple, means that politicians will then go and appeal to them. Look at Trump. He's doing everything for those who accept the simple.

As for always blaming left wingers.... are you serious? There's a major problem in society and it's not about left and right, it's about society.

I blame, what is to blame. Everything you mentioned is due to left-wing policies. If you want, we can go through each and every single one of them, and I can detail exactly which policy is causing which effect, and how they relate.

Of course every politician play's to their audience. The only difference is that you think one particular group is more ignorant than another. That's not how it looks to anyone else. Left-wingers are just as ignorant and stupid as any other ignorant group of people.



I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage or for gas? Did Obama not play up to that level of ignorance? Of course he did.

What did you think all that "Yes we can" "Hope and Change" "Believe" crap was all about? Playing up to the stupid and easily deceived.

All politicians do this.

But it's not. You don't blame what is to blame. You're blaming what you WANT to blame.

I think one group is more ignorant than the other group? Come on, you're slamming the left, then claiming it's ME that's only looking at one side. Er... contradiction.

Obama worked on hope, Trump did the same thing. There's not that much difference between the messages of Obama and Trump, and neither was ever really going to provide the hope they promised. So what? Different party, same shit. Oh, but you'll just blame the left. Right. It's wearing thin this "it's all the left's fault".

 

[frigidweirdo]

You asked this honestly, so I'm going to answer, and I am not trying to insult you or anyone, even though the answer may be insulting. I don't mean it to be, it's just the answer to the question.

Two things are stupid about this.

First, every single time that a left-winger puts in place a tax, or a regulation, that drives up cost on the company, or business or whatever....

Every single time, they always believe in this mythology that somehow magically these costs are going to paid for by the rich, or by the mega-corporation.

That is NEVER the case. Never meaning... NOT ONE TIME IN ALL HISTORY... is that the case.

Companies do not have money on magic trees in the backyard to pay for stuff. Every single penny that goes to pay for a tax, or a regulation of some sort... comes from only one of two places. Either A: from Consumers in the form of higher prices, or B: from Employees in the form of lower wages or fewer jobs.

Those are the only two sources for money to pay for taxes and regulations. Consumers, or Employees. That's it.

And while you say this is one guy... I've heard this exact argument hundreds of times even on this forum, that they expected the company to just pay the tax, and cut all the executives pay, and no employees should lose their jobs, and consumers should pay a higher price.

Instead people are just driving out of the area to buy soda, and employees in the area affected by the tax, are losing their jobs. Completely, and entirely expected, by all of us on the right-wing that understand basic economics.

The second stupid aspect is the knee-jerk responses of "greedy", to every single basic economic principal that comes to fruition.

Every time that a left-wing policy destroys the economy, and causes consumers to pay higher prices, and causes employees to lose their jobs.... the morons immediately jump to "greedy".

Yet if they themselves were the ones expected to earn a median wage as CEO of a major corporation, in order to pay ridiculous taxes... they would do the same thing.

Only in left-wing world, are people expected to work hard to lose money, for the benefit of government taxes, and societal jobs. You are basically expected to commit suicide for the "common good" or some such nonsense.

The entire concept is bonkers.

And even if you fired all the executives at all the soda companies, whoever you replaced them with, would all do the exact same thing.

The only way you can run a non-profitable business venture and still keep people employed, without going bankrupt, is to nationalize it. And we've seen how well nationalizing everything works. The Soviet Union almost starved to death. Prisons were being filled up with people who committed cannibalism.

This is why this right here is so stupid. Everything he's saying is a complaint against basic Economics 101.

Well, there are different views on tax. At the end of the day tax needs to be paid. Sometimes there are ideological fights over tax because one way means some people pay more than other, and sometime it just appears that way. A guy coming out and exposing his view doesn't necessarily point to him being stupid.

Your second point suggests it's liberals who destroy the economy. Well... the last economic recession started... well... it started with a US president going to too many costly wars, and a government (both sides) unwilling to deal with banks in a sensible manner.

The problem with your argument is you have the right which has set up a system which claims to create jobs, and yet benefits large corporations over smaller businesses on a massive basis. Is this good for jobs? Yeah, well, Walmart and their massively low wage jobs aren't exactly great.

You talk about things being overpriced but then it's the right who love the massively overpriced healthcare system which just sucks the blood out of people's pay checks just so others can leech off the system.

My point here is that both sides are "stupid", and yet you'll come out and criticize the left for being stupid while promoting policies which are also "stupid". Great.

He was acting surprised, and outraged, that taxes were passed on to the consumer and employees. That is stupid.

You have to be a moron, to think that jacking up taxes won't be passed on to the public, either through higher prices or less employment or wages. This qualifies you as a moron.

(by you, I mean not you, but anyone who thinks this way).

Now, if you accept the fact that taxes will have to be paid by consumers having a lower standard of living, and employees making less money and having fewer jobs... ok. Then that's fine. And every time you raise taxes and regulations, when you see prices to the public go up, and employment go down, I expect you to say "Ok good. The harm to society is worth it".

Then we can debate whether or not the harm to society really is worth it.

The last recession was caused by minimum wage laws, and government regulations on mortgages. Not wars. Had nothing to do with wars.

Further, a right-wing policy is a right-wing policy whether it's a Republican or Democrat who offers it. Equally a left-wing policy, is a left-wing policy, whether a Republican or Democrat offers it.

If Bush had pushed for more government regulation, and it ruined the economy, that's not a right-wing policy. Bush pushing more regulations (like raising the minimum wage for example), doens't magically make raising the minimum wage a right-wing policy. It's a left-wing policy.

Lastly, regulations inherently benefit large corporations. The best pro-small business system is the least possible regulated market. This health care deal is a perfect example. Health care regulations cost businesses millions of dollars. Which company has the ability to pay for that? A small 20-person business, or a large mega corporation? Well of course the mega-corp. So you harm the small business at the benefit of the large corporations.

Right-wingers are not making a system that benefits large corporations. Left-wingers are.

Lastly, you complain about over priced health care, but again, who is the cause of that? Left-wingers. It's your regulations and government programs that have driven up the cost of health care, more than anything else.

Everything you listed, is all the stuff that I would cite as proof of my claims.

The reality is that politicians play to their audience, and seeing as large amounts of the audience choose to be ignorant, choose to accept the simple, means that politicians will then go and appeal to them. Look at Trump. He's doing everything for those who accept the simple.

As for always blaming left wingers.... are you serious? There's a major problem in society and it's not about left and right, it's about society.

I blame, what is to blame. Everything you mentioned is due to left-wing policies. If you want, we can go through each and every single one of them, and I can detail exactly which policy is causing which effect, and how they relate.

Of course every politician play's to their audience. The only difference is that you think one particular group is more ignorant than another. That's not how it looks to anyone else. Left-wingers are just as ignorant and stupid as any other ignorant group of people.



I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage or for gas? Did Obama not play up to that level of ignorance? Of course he did.

What did you think all that "Yes we can" "Hope and Change" "Believe" crap was all about? Playing up to the stupid and easily deceived.

All politicians do this.

On Nov 8th I got the change I was hoping for.

So, you were hoping for a different hair style and color of skin in the White House, and maybe more friction? Because Trump really isn't a change for America, he's just a temporary change.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

I'm from Philly and soda is the last thing many Philadephians need. We have an obesity issue and cutting out soda would do wonders for us.

This is why I hate liberals. Who the hell are you to tell anyone what to eat and how much? Go mind your own business I'm sure you have enough of your own problems to work on.

And this is why I hate conservatives. They'll go hard for someone's right to eat junk that has nothing but adverse effects on the body but they'll shun something like marijuana that has shown multiple medical benefits and decrease the use of alcohol and opioids.

Never said people can't have soda. But making it more expensive would dissuade a lot of people from drinking. Its bad for you. Wears down enamel and makes you fat.

We tax cigarettes so why not junk food?

Actually you stupid **** I don't care if you smoke weed. Go for it, kill all the brain cells you feel like you don't need. You want to move on to meth, go ahead, not my problem. This is the difference though. You think we owe people doing stupid things healthcare. We don't. Go smoke your bowls or do whatever the hell you do with meth that's fine with me. When you show up at the emergency room without insurance or cash? **** off. You're a smoker? Which I am, I will pay for my own insurance. You drink a lot of soda? Who ******* cares. Drink up but you are responsible for purchasing insurance all on your own for the end result.

You want to stop people from doing what they want because you think we all owe them healthcare. WE DON"T owe them jack shit. Do what you want that's what freedom is. Suffer the consequences, that's what freedom is.

 

[Marion Morrison]

In before cops beat a man to death for selling single sodas out the back of his van.

 

[AntonToo]

Its our business when obesity puts a strain on our society.

They can have soda all they want but they should pay more for it.

No, it isn't.....

Obesity hasn't put a strain on America? Our life expectancy is dropping because of obesity.

"our' life expectancy is doing nothing. Those that live unhealthy lives have their life expectancy lowered. If you do not do so then there is no effect on you.

It is none of your business what others do and the effects that they have to go through because of it. Whatever happened to having the right to control your own body - to include what you put in the damn thing.

Maybe that is true for carefully compartmentalized ideological utopia in your head, but that is not how the world works.

Out of control sugar consumption levels by Americans have a cost to everyone here, it increases our healthcare costs and that cost is in your insurance premiums and your taxes. You just don't see it separately.

Want to do it? No problem, pay a bit more to help offset soda's externalized costs.

“Maybe that is true for carefully compartmentalized ideological utopia in your head, but that is not how the world works.”


Yes it actually is and your inability to say anything without an ad homonym shows the true weakness inherent in your argument.

Ad hominem?

 

[AntonToo]

That is actually the entire purpose of insurance companies – to assess risk and charge appropriately. The government didn’t assess squat with the tax other than they want more money. Again, an individual’s personal decisions are not yours to make demands of. Once again you are proving that the right to your own body is nothing more than a slogan that the left does not believe in.

Are you disputing that soda consumption contributes to increased healthcare spending?

You statement about there being no public interest about personal decisions is straight CRAZY statement, considering all the laws, incentives and yes taxes on the books. You are just shooting from your ideological hip, but there is no connection to reality, it's simply not how the world works, sorry. You personal decisions are steered from the moment you are born by tv shows, advertisement, mortgage deductions, seat belts regulations, child credits, nutritional labels.

Proposition that paying a bit more for soda takes away from ownership of your body is NONSENSE. Especially so considering all the laws that prohibit, not small tax, what you can do with it.

 

[FA_Q2]

No, it isn't.....

Obesity hasn't put a strain on America? Our life expectancy is dropping because of obesity.

"our' life expectancy is doing nothing. Those that live unhealthy lives have their life expectancy lowered. If you do not do so then there is no effect on you.

It is none of your business what others do and the effects that they have to go through because of it. Whatever happened to having the right to control your own body - to include what you put in the damn thing.

Maybe that is true for carefully compartmentalized ideological utopia in your head, but that is not how the world works.

Out of control sugar consumption levels by Americans have a cost to everyone here, it increases our healthcare costs and that cost is in your insurance premiums and your taxes. You just don't see it separately.

Want to do it? No problem, pay a bit more to help offset soda's externalized costs.

“Maybe that is true for carefully compartmentalized ideological utopia in your head, but that is not how the world works.”


Yes it actually is and your inability to say anything without an ad homonym shows the true weakness inherent in your argument.

Ad hominem?

Yes - that is what this is:

carefully compartmentalized ideological utopia in your head

^an attack on character rather than argument. You declare it is a false utopia and then restate your assertion without any logic to bother backing it up.