obviously Patterson has not SEEN this commercial

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X23MoTtVplE&feature=related

Not when those uses cause harm that cost us still more money. Then we may be better off burning the stuff.

It seems to me that the subsidy program is not designed to maintain a cushion for our food supply. It results produce not just a cushion but massive overproduction designed to support people in farm states who have two Senators and a presidential primary season that starts in Iowa.

Continuing to promote corn-based ethanol has stunted our energy policy at the expense of other more promising sources. Our agriculture exports are so cheap that African countries routinely complain that local farmers can't compete, which harms their economy and their food security, and if it harms their political security, then it poses a risk to us. And today's Kristof NY Times op-ed (referenced above) cites a recent study stating that the number of Americans with diabetes is four times what it was in 1980, and that the total direct and indirect cost to Americans is $218 billion. If higher prices for sweeteners resulted just a fraction of a cut in those numbers, it would probably cover the cost of burning the crops that helped cause it (Wikipedia says that farm subsidies averaged $16 billion/year between 1996 and 2002).

If the issue were food security, there are other ways to address it that wouldn't result in the apparently massive overproduction we have today. And I think the overproduction is massive given how much of the product must go to cattle, chickens, sodas, and exports. Surely those uses could be drastically reduced while still providing a reasonable food security cushion.

But this system isn't set up for food security; it's set up to satisfy political demands from farm states. I understand the food security argument, but it's hard for me to believe that we're not paying far more than we need to for that goal, both in terms of subsidies and the many harmful consequences of those subsidies.

This is simply NY government trying to pretend to be your doctor, while attempting to get paid at the same time.

This is a PERFECT example of where government goes beyond the basic principles put forth by the founding fathers. Its completely 100% stupid horseshit.

This is simply NY government trying to pretend to be your doctor, while attempting to get paid at the same time.

So you'd rather have the tax proposed without any health-based rationale to accompany it.

The government would never get a tax like that passed under any other premise other then the health one. Which should have been the case, it should never have passed.

I'll agree that it's hard to imagine the First or Second US Congress accompanying imposition of taxes on spirits and tobacco with a health-based rationale. But impose these taxes they did.

All those taxes mentioned, if any were enacted based on a health rationale (such as this one) they would all amount to a poor mans health tax. People with any money need not alter there diets, those that are lower on the income scale will be forced to.

Basically how can you interrupt this law as anything other then if I have money I don’t need to worry about what I drink???? Stupid stupid stupid politicians.

Yes I agree.



IMO the old “rights” arguments were fine when one person didn’t affect another. Everyone had space, if something was in short supply or if you didn’t like what your neighbor did, you simply moved west.

The black and white line has been gone a long time. Should my neighbor be allowed to poison his land and water? Should he be allowed to store WMD, hunt, or play loud music…?

In our society, what each person does affect the others – and everyone should be held responsible for their actions. This goes for property rights, water use and rights, pollution…




So, if you can’t pay for your own heath care then “we” might motivate you to stay healthy without it. If you are wealthy enough to pay the taxes then hopefully you are wealthy enough to pay for your own heath care. I wish there were a stronger link!



I'm often espousing this is general terms - if we paid the true cost of the goods we consume the market could and would govern them.

We'd stop taking advantage of the poor in other countries, and the governments that control them...I'm drifting (as usual).

Right now I would rather see less use of corn syrup in most packaged food. It is expensive to eat healthy in our dense society. I often choose my families food base on what I know about diet. Personally I feel very privileged to be able to afford to eat a healthy diet/ Part of that means avoiding many lower cost brands because of the sweeteners in them.

Well, I have some sympathy for that view. Just about any consumption tax is going to have regressive effects.

But what about mandatory helmet laws, which are based on the same health premise: that changing behavior will result in an overall reduction in societal expenses (and therefore create tax savings)?

And more important, what are the alternatives to resolve the budget crisis? If it's cutting spending, what should be cut? If it's higher taxes, who should pay? I'd guess any plan will probably have to have some combination of the two.

Note that proposed taxes complained about above are upon things we really don't need.