The Tyrant Bloomberg Strikes Again

[Doewhacker]

The Oval office would match his shape, he reminds me of Humpty Dumpty.

[moog5050]

I can't believe I just spent 5 minutes reading this thread (but it was amusing at times). I agree that the law will not result in the intended purpose, if that purpose is to limit the amount of soda intake and, thereby reduce obesity. On the other hand, if the Mayor's ultimate goal is to reduce the medicaid costs for his area, the soda addicted obese may very well flee the city to another county in NY to buyt their beloved soda. Its reverse "baiting." So obvious.

Beyond the sarcasm, while I am not a drinker, people have the right to buy as much alcohol as they like and consume it in whatever quatities they like. With that in mind, it seems silly to pass legislation with an intended purpose to reduce soda intake. I am not a dietician, but the Big Mac has a bout a billion grams of sodium and 50 plus grams of fat - heart attack city. Let's pass a law limiting how many can be bought by an indiviudal during a certain time frame. Again, just silly.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

I can't believe I just spent 5 minutes reading this thread (but it was amusing at times). I agree that the law will not result in the intended purpose, if that purpose is to limit the amount of soda intake and, thereby reduce obesity. On the other hand, if the Mayor's ultimate goal is to reduce the medicaid costs for his area, the soda addicted obese may very well flee the city to another county in NY to buyt their beloved soda. Its reverse "baiting." So obvious.

Beyond the sarcasm, while I am not a drinker, people have the right to buy as much alcohol as they like and consume it in whatever quatities they like. With that in mind, it seems silly to pass legislation with an intended purpose to reduce soda intake. I am not a dietician, but the Big Mac has a bout a billion grams of sodium and 50 plus grams of fat - heart attack city. Let's pass a law limiting how many can be bought by an indiviudal during a certain time frame. Again, just silly.

BINGO!!! and why not pass legislation making it illegal to sell food in a restaurant or fast food/deli that is over a serving size.

[WNYBuckHunter]

I heard a report saying Bloomys next target is salty foods. Pretty sure it wont be the first time hes gone after salty foods though.

[virgil]

Moog and Culver make fair points. I agree that the law will likely have little to no effect and that there is no way to tackle obesity with legislation alone. But, something needs to be done. The 'soda tax' would have been a good start. I don't think there will ever be meaningful change until people's insurance premiums are tied to the costs related to illnesses that result from their poor habits/decisions.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Virgil,....Now that we can agree on!!!

[Culvercreek hunt club]

I heard a report saying Bloomys next target is salty foods. Pretty sure it wont be the first time hes gone after salty foods though.

I think you better go back and reread that article. I think it said he was going after salty seaman

[WNYBuckHunter]

Yikes!

[WNYBuckHunter]

Moog and Culver make fair points. I agree that the law will likely have little to no effect and that there is no way to tackle obesity with legislation alone. But, something needs to be done. The 'soda tax' would have been a good start. I don't think there will ever be meaningful change until people's insurance premiums are tied to the costs related to illnesses that result from their poor habits/decisions.

Yep, that would be called personal responsibility. Unfortunatley people would rather waste time and money with feelgood BS laws that do diddly.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Moog and Culver make fair points. I agree that the law will likely have little to no effect and that there is no way to tackle obesity with legislation alone. But, something needs to be done. The 'soda tax' would have been a good start. I don't think there will ever be meaningful change until people's insurance premiums are tied to the costs related to illnesses that result from their poor habits/decisions.

Not baiting or BSing....how do we tie it to people that do not pay for health insurance? I have not info or facts to back this up, just personal observations and maybe jaded opinion...but.... I woul dbet there is a higher percentage of lower income or poverty level people that are obese or overweight. SO if we start taxing them in one pocket won't popular opinion be asking to put more public money in the other pocket anyway? Tough circle to break.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Culvercreek hunt club

[moog5050]

I am a conservative and hate paying all of the taxes I do as I think the government makes poor financial decisions with my hard earned money. But I also recognize that as a society we should help those in need -- not those that are taking advantage of the system as many do. There needs to be reform of both welfare and medicaid that requires some personal responsibility by the recipient to work to get off of the public system at some point. That said, legislating how much of a food product one can sell will not achieve those goals and is a further waste of our tax dollars.

Culver, I agree its a tough circle to break, especially when those affected have votes that the politicians need/want to stay in office.

I didn't read the legislation - are two liter soda bottles allowed to be sold? Slippery slope.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

grocery stores can sell 55 gallon bottles. it is just restaurants and fast food/deli type places.

[moog5050]

grocery stores can sell 55 gallon bottles. it is just restaurants and fast food/deli type places.

Making the legislation even less effective to achieve the intended purpose. Me thinks the real goal is to raise revenue through additional sales tax and uncollected bottle fees. Despite Elmo's comment above (which is true), I'll stick to water.

[nyantler]

Maybe you should worry more about the 'tax dollars' that we could have been generating if the proposed 'soda tax' had been approved.

Yeah that's what we need.. more taxes... maybe we ought to tax the diners and restaurants that give you more food for your money than the government thinks you ought to have... that's how ridiculous you sound.

[nyantler]

nyantler, as your post demonstrates, some people are just not smart enough to make intelligent decisions and need laws to keep them from doing harm to themselves and dragging society down with them.

I think people are perfectly cabable of making their own choices when it comes to what they want to drink.. by the way.. it's called freedom.. in case you were wondering. The only thing dragging society down are people like you that allow the government to do whatever they want because they think they know better than everyone else about how people should live their lives.

[erussell]

Making the legislation even less effective to achieve the intended purpose. Me thinks the real goal is to raise revenue through additional sales tax and uncollected bottle fees. Despite Elmo's comment above (which is true), I'll stick to water.

I really stuck it to the gov. the other day with bottle fees, I was on a walk a few weeks ago and noticed the amount of 5 centers laying in the ditch. So the next time I went out I grabbed a garbage bag and started picking them up. over the next few weeks I had my wife drop me off on different roads and walked back to the house collecting cans. Turned them in today for close to 50 bucks the gov was going to keep. God bless NY drunk drivers! You really dont know how much NY is making on unreturned cans till you get out and check the garbage cans and the ditches. Heck do a little math and figure up how much money you throw out if you just throw out one can a day.

Edited September 21, 2012 by erussell

[wdswtr]

Well this might make you feel a tad better. Might I say lol. The numbers are pretty large, I think it was around 120 million dollars in unclaimed bottle tax last year. 80% of that is turned over to the state and the last 20% stays with the bottling company. But her is a bill that passed and it turns the unclaimed funds over to enviormental protection funds.

New York State Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele, Jr. (I, D, WF-Sag Harbor) announced the Assembly’s recent passage of legislation which will require retained deposits on unredeemed containers to be deposited into the Environmental Protection Fund.

This bill, A.7137-A/S.5403-A would provide a net increase in the amount of funds being added to the Environmental Protection Fund as a result of the Returnable Beverage Container Law, commonly known as The Bottle Bill, beginning in fiscal year 2013-14, in phased 25% increments annually.

This initiative will ensure that income earned by implementation of a part of the Environmental Conservation Law would be devoted to programs benefiting the environment, consistent with the original stated intent of proponents advocating use of the retained deposits for public purposes.

Assemblyman Thiele a co-sponsor of the legislation stated, “New York’s “Bottle Bill” is one of the State’s most successful recycling and anti-litter initiatives. It is only right that the unredeemed bottle deposits are used to support environmental initiatives in the State.”

A.7137-A passed the Assembly in a vote of 140-0

[erussell]

120 million dollars just layin in the ditches. Looks like I need to expand my operation.

Edited September 21, 2012 by erussell

[virgil]

Antler, you seem to be too bitter and angry to consider anything objectively- you're right, I'm dragging this country down. Just curious, how do you feel about all of the taxes on cigarettes? If everyone is capable of 'making their own choices', how did the great protectors of freedom like yourself allow that to happen?

[nyantler]

Antler, you seem to be too bitter and angry to consider anything objectively- you're right, I'm dragging this country down. Just curious, how do you feel about all of the taxes on cigarettes? If everyone is capable of 'making their own choices', how did the great protectors of freedom like yourself allow that to happen?

Thinking something is ridiculous is far from being bitter or angry... if you don't see the silliness in your thought process, then surely you wouldn't understand. Do you have any more "sensible" taxes that you think need to be imposed? Maybe we should tax or ban any belts that have too many holes allowing overweight people to loosen their belts as they get larger, not being able to loosen their belt will make fat people stop eating... thats right in line with your logic.

[Doc]

Doc, you give yourself too much credit. You didn't hit a 'sensitive spot' because, as I said, i think your post and accusation are nonsense. You make a lot of assumptions regarding my thoughts- then, you again compare that assumption to 'historical believers in government public behavior modification'????? I do not believe in giving up 'freedoms' easily. However, I also don't believe in 'biting off one's nose to spite his face'. In this case, the general public is being asked to endure a very minor inconvenience for the greater good- not that big a deal.

No there are no assumptions. Your messages lay out your love affair with behavior modification very clearly. There simply is no other way of reading it. And I am just simply drawing comparisons with other champions of that philosophy. See your last sentence lays it all out very clearly. Many things can be justified with that phrase "for the greater good". And I do realize that for you it's not that big a deal. For some of us governmental behavior modification is a big deal.

[virgil]

antler, you didn't answer my question.

[nyantler]

antler, you didn't answer my question.

About cigarettes? Thats a whole other can of worms.. lets stick to one ridiculous liberal "feel good" tax before moving on to another. Plus.. that is one that we can no longer do much about and that I am also against... I'm okay with restrictions on smoking in public places, but defintiely not on taxing tobacco products. I love how liberals are okay with legalizing pot smoking but want to ban cigarettes... makes absolutely no sense. Maybe you want it legalized so that you can tax that too.

[ants]

I have often wondered ....If the government is so freaked out about how bad cigarettes are ( and I agree that they are bad) then why don't they ban them entirely instead of taxing the crap out of them and taking their cut? Makes you wonder if they really care about all of the stupid people out there who don't realize the risks of smoking because the dangers of smoking have been kept such a secret for oohhhhh 60 years or so. (Sarcasm)

[nyantler]

I have often wondered ....If the government is so freaked out about how bad cigarettes are ( and I agree that they are bad) then why don't they ban them entirely instead of taxing the crap out of them and taking their cut? Makes you wonder if they really care about all of the stupid people out there who don't realize the risks of smoking because the dangers of smoking have been kept such a secret for oohhhhh 60 years or so. (Sarcasm)

Yeah It's funny how we think that suddenly people realize how bad smoking is... like they didn't know that eons ago... everyone smoked then including politicians... all of a sudden its bad for you and needs to be taxed... smoking a cigarette is probably no worse than eating a Hot Pocket..lol... lets see.. less smokers today and more cancer.. so it must not be just the smoking... I say tax the Hot Pockets! LOL