Lunchtime Politics
There was a rare, yet interesting political discussion at the lunch table today. A few of us got into a debate over a law passed recently in Connecticut banning schools from selling soft drinks. Coke and Pepsi vending machines have overtaken the Connecticut schools and according to the state, schools should promote better eating habits and a healthy lifestyle instead of selling out to the soft drink industry.
The group at the table arguing the appropriateness of this law spanned the political spectrum. Although I am more conservative than I was a few years ago, I still was by far the most liberal person at the table. Next on the spectrum was RytheRed, also a Michigan grad. He is more moderate, but also more politically active (he was in the student government at UM). On the slightly conservative end was UNICorn. We also had a staunch Libertarian and a narrow minded conservative who only cares about one issue. His issue is paying as little in taxes as possible and I will call him StereotypicalActuary. RoopDogg should be able to figure out whom I am talking about. This guy is always the center of obscure lunch table conversations, though they are usually slanted towards work topics (until we flag him for talking too much about work).
I believed that this law is appropriate. I knew people in my high school that drank between 4-6 20oz sodas every day. The kids do not realize how terrible all that sugar is for your body and how all that caffeine can cause a terrible addiction later in life. I know people at work today that are seriously addicted to soda. They will develop diseases later in life like diabetes because of their soda intake, which are a huge financial cost to society. If the schools are too focused on selling out for extra cash instead of promoting healthy habits, then the government needs to step in and do something. Adults are capable of suffering the consequences of their actions, but I don’t believe that kids know better and their parents are not at school to monitor their eating/drinking habits. Banning soda sales may be excessive, but I have no problem with this new law.
The Libertarian at the table hates government. If he had his way, we’d probably all live on the honor system and pay no taxes. He was against legislating how the schools should behave, even if they were looking out for the health of the children. He has a point if you ignore the damage the children were doing to their bodies by drinking several 20oz sodas a day. If the children were only buying 1-2 sodas a wee from the vending machines at school, then I agree that this law was a bit overreaching.
StereotypicalActuary felt this was a gross misuse of his taxes. By passing this law, his tax money was being wasted because of the money it would cost to enforce the law. I don’t think the cost to enforce this law would be high, so that was a stupid argument. If the government wanted to discourage soda sales, StereotypicalActuary thinks there should be a large consumption tax offset by a reduction in state income taxes. Of course, his selfish reason for this opinion is that he doesn’t drink much soda, so he wouldn’t have to pay much of the tax. Furthermore, he believes in regressive taxes like this one would be since his share of the tax payment would be lower. Someone who makes $500k a year is not likely to drink ten times more soda than someone who makes $50k per year, so his proposed consumption tax would be covered mostly by poorer Americans. I strongly disagreed that this was fair, but we’ll never see eye-to-eye on any tax issue because I am not a selfish asshole. But I digress. I’m not really this closed minded about political opinions that are different than mine. Seriously, I’m not. I actually love debating political topics with StereotypicalActuary from time to time, even though we will never agree on anything.
I don’t remember RytheRed or UNICorn adding any controversial opinions, but the conversation was ten hours ago. I do remember that they found my argument with StereotypicalActuary to be quite humorous. UNICorn is welcome to comment with his thoughts if he wishes.
The group at the table arguing the appropriateness of this law spanned the political spectrum. Although I am more conservative than I was a few years ago, I still was by far the most liberal person at the table. Next on the spectrum was RytheRed, also a Michigan grad. He is more moderate, but also more politically active (he was in the student government at UM). On the slightly conservative end was UNICorn. We also had a staunch Libertarian and a narrow minded conservative who only cares about one issue. His issue is paying as little in taxes as possible and I will call him StereotypicalActuary. RoopDogg should be able to figure out whom I am talking about. This guy is always the center of obscure lunch table conversations, though they are usually slanted towards work topics (until we flag him for talking too much about work).
I believed that this law is appropriate. I knew people in my high school that drank between 4-6 20oz sodas every day. The kids do not realize how terrible all that sugar is for your body and how all that caffeine can cause a terrible addiction later in life. I know people at work today that are seriously addicted to soda. They will develop diseases later in life like diabetes because of their soda intake, which are a huge financial cost to society. If the schools are too focused on selling out for extra cash instead of promoting healthy habits, then the government needs to step in and do something. Adults are capable of suffering the consequences of their actions, but I don’t believe that kids know better and their parents are not at school to monitor their eating/drinking habits. Banning soda sales may be excessive, but I have no problem with this new law.
The Libertarian at the table hates government. If he had his way, we’d probably all live on the honor system and pay no taxes. He was against legislating how the schools should behave, even if they were looking out for the health of the children. He has a point if you ignore the damage the children were doing to their bodies by drinking several 20oz sodas a day. If the children were only buying 1-2 sodas a wee from the vending machines at school, then I agree that this law was a bit overreaching.
StereotypicalActuary felt this was a gross misuse of his taxes. By passing this law, his tax money was being wasted because of the money it would cost to enforce the law. I don’t think the cost to enforce this law would be high, so that was a stupid argument. If the government wanted to discourage soda sales, StereotypicalActuary thinks there should be a large consumption tax offset by a reduction in state income taxes. Of course, his selfish reason for this opinion is that he doesn’t drink much soda, so he wouldn’t have to pay much of the tax. Furthermore, he believes in regressive taxes like this one would be since his share of the tax payment would be lower. Someone who makes $500k a year is not likely to drink ten times more soda than someone who makes $50k per year, so his proposed consumption tax would be covered mostly by poorer Americans. I strongly disagreed that this was fair, but we’ll never see eye-to-eye on any tax issue because I am not a selfish asshole. But I digress. I’m not really this closed minded about political opinions that are different than mine. Seriously, I’m not. I actually love debating political topics with StereotypicalActuary from time to time, even though we will never agree on anything.
I don’t remember RytheRed or UNICorn adding any controversial opinions, but the conversation was ten hours ago. I do remember that they found my argument with StereotypicalActuary to be quite humorous. UNICorn is welcome to comment with his thoughts if he wishes.
posted by GaryGinew at 10:34 PM
3 Comments:
sometimes I wonder if you're retarded.
I'm curious why you're so against the "narrow minded conservative," yet you don't really say anything slandering the "staunch Libertarian." Chances are, they probably have somewhat similar opinions on the subject (mostly in that they both don't want to be paying the ridiculous amount of taxes that we are now).
and FWIW, I agree totally with the libertarian. "He has a point if you ignore the damage the children were doing to their bodies by drinking several 20oz sodas a day"? No, he has a point if parents fucking learn how to educate their children on good dietary habits. It's ridiculous that the government has to waste time (and thus, tax money) on creating legislation for this sort of stuff. How about we just be more responsible as a society, respect ourselves, and teach our children to do the same?
anyways, the real reason I stopped by was to say theroommate fedex'ed your stuff out (because she can do so for free via work) this morning. you should get it tomorrow.
I don't accuse all conservatives of being narrow minded. I called this particular person narrow minded because he freely admits that his vote depends solely on the candidate/party that will tax him less. That's a pretty narrow minded conservative if you ask me.
"Honestly, aren't there 500 more pressing issues with the education system than making kids wait until 3pm to get their Pepsi?"
word, roopdogg. I knew I liked you for a reason.
Post a Comment
<< Home