Soda Taxes

Pouring Cold Water on San Francisco's Proposed Soda Tax

|

Last month the San Francisco city council board of supervisors introduced a proposal to tax soda at a rate of two cents per ounce. The tax, which would have to be approved by voters, would add a whopping $1.44 to the cost of a six-pack of soda. The council supervisors liked the idea so much that they soon introduced a competing proposal to tax soda at exactly the same rate.

While San Francisco's dual, dueling taxes might be unique—and appear likely to be merged into one proposed tax before reaching voters—the city is hardly alone in considering soda taxes. Still, despite much noise about soda taxes, it's noteworthy that the city would become the first in the nation to enact such a tax.

Why haven't any soda taxes caught on? Among voters, at least, they appear to be about as popular as New Coke. Residents in two California cities last year considered and rejected proposed soda taxes by wide margins. And just this month, Telluride, Colo. voters rejected a soda tax by a similarly wide margin.

Despite voter opposition, cities and even national governments see taxes on foods like soda as a double whammy—a popular move that fills government coffers while cutting obesity. But the truth behind these shortsighted efforts is that they are often unpopular, aren't great tools for raising revenue, and don't cut obesity.

Indeed, data on soda taxes shows they simply don't work.

As I noted in a column last year, Denmark's so-called "fat tax" on foods containing greater than 2.3% saturated fat was such a debacle that the country's left-leaning government not only repealed the law, installed by its conservative predecessors, they decided to scrap the idea of a soda tax as well.

What was wrong with the law? The tax didn't help Danes lose weight. And Danish consumers outsmarted the tax by buying food in neighboring countries like Germany, where food prices are about one-third lower than in Denmark. One thing the tax did help Denmark lose is jobs (at least 1,000, by some reports), mostly those in the small-business sector.

Research also shows soda taxes don't work. For example, a 2010 study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine suggested that even an enormous soda tax of 40 percent would not make people healthier.

The study concluded that even that steep tax would be ineffective at reducing obesity among either high- or low-income earners, reported the Wall St. Journal. Its impact would be felt "only… in middle-income households," and only then to the tune of one pound per year.

"[A]s a weapon against obesity, such a tax isn't necessarily that effective, the study found," reported the Journal. I'll say.

Subsequent studies have bolstered the results  of the 2010 study, while others have suggested dramatically different results.

Soda taxes do have supporters outside of the San Francisco city council board of supervisors.

For example, Jill Filipovic, a Brooklyn-based columnist at The Guardian, cheers soda taxes and blasts what she calls the "pseudo-libertarian claim of 'the right to drink as much soda as you please[.]'" (What makes the claim "pseudo-libertarian" as opposed to actually libertarian is anyone's guess, as Filipovic doesn't elaborate.)

If San Francisco voters do approve a soda tax, they'd likely find the city suffering from the same lack of merriment as did poor Yorick's progeny.

"It's the 'the small business, entrepreneurs, the taco trucks' that will pay," I told the San Francisco Chronicle's Debra J. Saunders earlier this month.

Let's hope that San Francisco voters have the same sense on this issue as those in Colorado, Denmark, and other California cities.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

284 responses to “Pouring Cold Water on San Francisco's Proposed Soda Tax

  1. would not make people healthier.

    Stop giving them the benefit of the doubt, you know goddamn full fucking well that’s not the point.

    1. You can’t knock down the castle’s keep until you’ve knocked down the castle’s walls. You can’t knock down the castle’s walls until you’ve knocked down the army outside the gates. You can’t knock down the army until you’ve knocked down the sentries and pickets.

      And so on. You can’t knock down the real arguments until you’ve also knocked down the false ones.

    2. Google is paying 75$/hour! Just work for few hours & spend more time with friends and family. On sunday I bought themselves a Alfa Romeo from having made $5637 this month. its the best-job Ive ever had.It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it out http://www.Buzz95.com

    3. yea but it isn’t even a 40% tax…that is a fucking 100% tax on soda if not more! I only buy 12 packs when i can get them at 2-3 dollars. I normally get them about $2.50 per 12 pack on average. This is so damn stupid. It is like taxing the hell out of smokes! Are smokes even taxed at 100+%?

  2. The council liked the idea so much that they soon introduced a competing proposal to tax soda at exactly the same rate.

    “I say your two cent titanium tax doesn’t go too far enough!”

  3. Our bodies, our choices only seems to refer to one particular choice.

    1. Just be glad the mandatory dick in your ass provision of obamacare never made it to the floor. I refer only to the literal assfucking provision, not the figurative assfucking built in to the rest of the act.

      1. You disappoint Jesse.

        1. Everybody does at some point.

    2. The choice to get morbidly obese and wear skimpy outfits?

      1. You mean like German men at the beach?

    3. Uh… ‘My body, my choice’ has been nicked by the people that wish to kill their offspring. Might try something similar though. Like: ‘My body, my coke.’

      Not as catchy, but avoids curious violence when someone calls you a baby-killer for downing a Mountain Dew.

  4. and appear likely to be merged into one proposed tax before reaching voters

    “Hey, if we merge these proposals, that means we add the two percentages together right?”

    1. Or multiply them. Or exponentiate them.

      1. It’s not percentages, it’s cents per ounce, so no matter how you swing it, it’ll still come out to just 4 cents/oz.

        2+2=4
        (2)(2)=4
        2^2=4

        1. No shit Sherlock.

          1. hey probably 50% of the US wouldn’t get that so he was trying to help any stray readers that come here from google or something

  5. Can they put a tax on those “You might like” Taboola things instead?

    1. please Please PLEASE OH GOD PLEASE.

      That shit is more irritating that a Tony/Wh*te Ind*an Marathon.

  6. I was rewatching Caddyshack the other day….

    “…Hey, that’s only 50cents change!”

    “Lou raised the price of Coke.”

    “I AINT PAYIN NO FIFTY CENTS FOR A COKE!”

    1. THEN A YOU AINT A GETTIN A NO COKE.

      “YOU COME OUT OF THAT BOX NOONAN!”

      1. “pick up that blood”

  7. OT, but right on cue: Are we sure the 22nd Amendment? It seems so… racist.

    In an opinion piece published in the Washington Post, Jonathan Zimmerman, a history and education professor at New York University, says deciding whether a president deserves a third, fourth or more terms should be left to the American people, not the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, which placed a two-term limit on the position.

    Jon Zimmerman, BuSab agent or nihilist?

    1. It would be epic to see Obama actually lose a presidential election.

      1. They haven’t found the dead boy hooker in the trunk of the presidential limo yet.

        1. Damn, I’ll never be elected god-king of the continent now!

          1. Blackface might help.

            … and change yer last name to Jackson.

    2. “…deciding whether a president deserves…”

      The president deserves? Deserves? I dont think Joe knows what the word means or when to use it appropriately.

      Maybe we should be talking about what Joe deserves.

      1. That particular claim, ‘deserves’, always sends me into a rage.

        So, what you said, times two.

    3. The 22nd Amendment is nothing more than un-democratioc Republican obstructionism.

    4. Maybe instead of adding more terms as a carrot, we could add a stick to the system to motivate the president. Obama could program one of his drones to target and eliminate himself automatically when his approval rating falls below some threshold, say 50% (because that’s so democratic). Oh, wait too late, better make that 25%.

      What about it? It reflects the will of the people!

      (Again, that was sarcasm, for the sarcasm impaired.)

      1. I don’t see the sarcasm, I really want to take you literally, where can we put this on some sort of referendum? I mean, a referendum that has real teeth?

      2. Dunno, I think he’ in his respect the law phase of the month

        http://thinkprogress.org/immig…..portation/

        1. Or he’s just too fucking lazy and doesn’t care to violate this particular law.

    5. I believe Sloopy called this over a year ago.

      Not that that makes him a great prognosticator, progs gonna prog, but credit where it’s due.

      1. Several regulars. I thought that was too crazy for anyone to take seriously. I guess sloopy and P Brooks are more realistic than I.

        1. Poor, sweet, dear, naive Brett.

          1. At least he’s getting street wise before the baby comes.

        2. This kind of talk came up quite a bit at the end of Clinton’s 2nd term, this is normal (it is just that before Clinton, there had not been a Democrat elected twice to the Presidency since FDR).

    6. I stopped reading at “professor”.

  8. Using taxes as a means to cure social ills is the last resort of banal minds.

    1. What exactly is a “sociall ill”?

      1. To progressives it’s stuff like poverty, global warming, poor health etc. Therefore, all is subject to tax to discourage ‘bad habits’ as they see it.

        1. define it rather.

          1. Social Ill: Any gathering place for the populus — such as bars.

            Notably, bars only dealt with liquor, tobacco, and soda. The first two are nicely in hand. If they get the trifecta with sodas, then they can finally get rid of gin joints and other places that adults gather to shoot the breeze and the 8-ball.

        2. Demands for a Black Friday tax are coming.

          1. Always with the racist Fridays.

            1. African-American Friday*

        3. Tax the poor. Voil?! No more poor people!

          1. Isn’t this essentially the logic behind the penaltax? The poor don’t buy healthcare, so tax the poor into buying it. Don’t worry, they’ll subsidize their payments. Of course, the subsidy won’t nearly cover the increase in premiums as a result of this program, leaving the poor effectively paying a tax for being poor. Compassion!

        4. Poverty and poor health are actual social ills; taxation just can’t fix them.

          (Global warming, OTOH, is just the latest “the world will end tomorrow” scare.)

          1. Poverty and poor health a subjective terms. Poor health is so ambiguous, it is meaningless.

        5. To progressives it’s stuff like poverty, global warming, poor health etc.

          Well, progressives only see poor health as a social ill so long as it can’t be twisted to fit a feminist narrative.

          Because if you point out that morbid obesity is bad for your health and dangerous when feminists are trying to have a pity party, you’re just a goddamn fat shamer.

          1. Holy fuck, I hadn’t finished reading that article. If I had, I would have quoted this gem:

            It’s obvious that weight, food and body image are emotional, complicated topics for her and she is still working through a lot of issues, and one could even wonder if her disordered eating turned into an ostensibly “healthy” fitness fixation. But here’s the problem: Her issues are her own.

            This coming from Jezebel, a website that constantly feels the need to project the neurotic self-loathing of its own members onto the rest of society.

          2. Identity politics ?ber alles.

          3. As I said the last time this showed up, why is it so obviosuly evil to shame the fat women posting photos of themselves in lingerie on Facebook, but so obviously required that we make fun of the fatties in Walmart?

            1. It’s all echoes of false consciousness, isn’t it? Shopping at Walmart is a bourgeois patriarchal conservative habit. Such people should be pilloried shamed edified, ergo they’re free game for snarky, smug lefty condescension.

              The compassionate class, folks.

            2. Similarly, racist and sexist and homophobic comments are out of bounds, unless thrown at conservative/libertarian/Republican blacks or women or gays.

          4. Pride ? defined by Merriam-Webster as “a feeling that you respect yourself and deserve to be respected by other people”

            Also one of the 7 deadly sins…along with gluttony.

            here is the full definition:

            pride
            noun \?pr?d\

            : a feeling that you respect yourself and deserve to be respected by other people

            : a feeling that you are more important or better than other people

            : a feeling of happiness that you get when you or someone you know does something good, difficult, etc.

            No surprise that Jezabel left out the second one.

      2. What exactly is a “sociall ill”?

        Among other things… anything the lower classes eat, drink, or wear.

  9. Hey, isn’t this Melissa Harris-Perry’s (whatever he name is) idea?

    http://mafiatoday.com/

    Is it me or does WaPo take more critical stances against Obamula than most maintstream papers? Its resident conservative, Krauthammer, at least IS conservative unlike Brooks over at NYT.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..eological/

    Last, heard Charlie Baker on Boston radio last night. He helped implement Romneycare and made some points based on that experience about Obamacare. The first was the plain insane idea of passing a massive Federal bill without GOP support. The Republicans tabled amendments only to be ignored or threatened to be vetoed. The second was how can you impose a Federal law on what is really a local issue like insurance? It was bound to be epic in its failure.

    Here I can point to Canada. For all its mediocrity and Byzantine bureaucracy, universal health care’s Federal charter and its puny 20 pages or so is administered and controlled by the Provinces. In fact, at this point, I think Canadian provinces have more autonomy or power than Americans states have.

    What both countries are experiencing, however, is the funneling of power more and more concentrated in the Executive.

    1. I listen to a bunch of different non-US broadcasters, including a 10-minute CBC bulletin two or three days a week. Yesterday morning’s news contained an abridged version of this story, which is awash in “we need more government regulation” propaganda.

      If you guys couldn’t do a gun registry, how the hell are you going to do a defibrillator registry?

      1. Canada has lost its self-respect when it comes to over-reliance of the government for everything. That started when kids were dying in hockey rinks. People freaked out there were no laws governing that sort of stuff. Crazy.

        If it’s not regulated it’s because they haven’t thought of it yet. But the ‘we know what’s good and just’ mentality pretty much assures they can find justification (justifuckation to me) for any type of regulation.

        1. And you guys have an 800-pound gorilla media outlet to push the propaganda.

        2. justifuckation

          *giggles*

          I’m stealing that!

          1. Public domain now, eh?

    2. “How did so many get the wrong idea? (That obama is not an ideologue)”

      How many times does jugears have to tell us that everyone is wrong but him before you people can see his brilliance?

    3. To add about Baker, he conceded that Mass. insurance is very expensive (among the highest if not highest in the country) but argued it’s because of its strict standards. However, he also admitted it’s been bogged down by, get this, an expanding bureaucracy where excessive paper work that don’t enhance people’s health are wasting time and money!

      Who would have thunk it?

      1. “an expanding bureaucracy where excessive paper work that don’t enhance people’s health”

        WEBSITE!

  10. Sounds like a pretty solid plan to me dude.

    http://www.Ano-VPN.tk

  11. The SF Chron article was actually decent. I didn’t expect that.

  12. I will just leave this here— http://www.theonion.com/articl…..all,34149/

    1. Wow a pithy Onion joke. That’s got to be a first.

  13. What do Rockstar Games and O care have in common? Overwhelmed servers on a Saturday.

    http://my.chicagotribune.com/#…..-20131130/

    Disclaimer: My opinion of Rockstar Servers is based on Saturday morning GTA online play… Of which I’ve seen interruptions up to an hour. Oh the humanity.

    1. If Rockstar Games can’t provide a better experience, gamers will go to a company that does.

      Of course, people don’t have that option with Obamacare. (Everybody here knows all this, though.)

      1. Yes but on Saturdays I let my monocle polishers sleep in. This requires that I make my own Exploitation Roasted non-fair trade coffee…. I’ll be damned if I also have to dirty my claws to change the xbox game disc.

        Your Future Reptile Overlords are going to remind you of this actual online travesty in due time.

        1. Yes but on Saturdays I let my monocle polishers sleep in.

          Well there’s your first problem.

    2. Tasty. You just beat me to this exact OT article. What do you mean President Empty Suit’s artificial completion deadline might be trespassed?

      1. “What do you mean President Empty Suit’s artificial completion deadline might be trespassed?”

        Already has:
        “However, last-minute fixes by a team of specialists began Friday night and continued into Saturday morning, with officials indicating that they need until the very end of the month to complete the upgrades that they expect to be functioning by Sunday, the first day of December.”
        http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/30/…..index.html
        What’s a minor delay, right?

      2. Oh, the horrors that await those who have violated royal proclamation!

        Bahahahaha, like there will be any consequences.

  14. “Non-Hispanic black children and adolescents consume more sugar drinks in relation to their overall diet than their Mexican-American counterparts. Non-Hispanic black and Mexican-American adults consume more than non-Hispanic white adults.”

    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db71.htm

    The tax on sugary soft drinks is racist.

    It would tax poor minorities, disproportionately, and then use their money to fund programs that benefit the middle class.

    1. They can stay thin by smoking menthol cigarettes.

      1. Honestly, progressivism is the most objectively racist, mainstream, political ideology out there.

        Any group that advocates forcing individuals to sacrifice their rights for the benefit of the majority should naturally be shunned by minorities.

        I suspect my fellow libertarians are reluctant to emphasize how bad progressivism is for minorities–only because we don’t want to sound like the disingenuous, phony, anti-racists on the left, but we need to get over that.

        Ceding that part of the battlefield to the left hurts us. It’s one of the reasons why so many people think we’re racists–because they never see us denouncing racism.

    2. Yes, but it’s the good kind of racism, progressive racism!

      (That was sarcasm if you don’t get it.)

      1. If you have to explain it….

      2. Yeah, we need to start using the progressives’ own tactics against them.

        The reason they use those tactics is because they work.

  15. Christian conservatives:

    “Having sex with the wrong people is bad for you; we’re going to outlaw it.”

    Progressives:

    “Drinking the wrong kind of beverage is bad for you; we’re going to outlaw it.”

    1. Opposite sides of the same coin. Progressivism is a religion to some, but for many others it has crossed the line into reaching cult status.

      1. Just because they have little kids sing hymnals to their dear leader?

      2. Well no, he’s using two different coins. Religious folks, of any stripe, disapprove of sex without permission. Marriage, largely, whether civil or religious.

        But ‘sex with the wrong people’ is definitively a progressive issue. This is usually folded into the permission apparatus, however. Whites can’t marry Blacks, need a blood test, and so on. But then there’s the other breeding issues such as the State sterilizing the ‘wrong sort’ or people for crimes or wrong opinions. As well as abortion, of coure, which cut it’s teeth in the USA as a way to deal with what happened when the wrong people had sex.

        Here and now, as another noted, this is the wrong people drinking sweet drinks. In every case it’s a progressive issue. And, within the US, in every case it’s been the Democrat party.

    2. Yeah, for some reason, the progressives got the idea that using the government to inflict your own morality on other people is only wrong if it has a religious basis.

      If Christians started associating themselves with good diet, the progressives might actually back off.

      And there are a lot of connections between dietary concerns and evangelical Christianity.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B…..Sanitarium

      1. If Christians started associating themselves with good diet, the progressives might actually back off.

        And the progressives win again…

        Hey Ken, if everyone does exactly what the progressives tell them to, they might back off.

        1. I think Ken is saying that if you could convince progressives that eating healthy was a christian idea they (the progressives) would reflexively stop pushing the idea out of hate for christians.

          1. Regardless, the correct position is that it’s a personal choice and no one has the authority to inhibit you. Nothing more need be said in countering the progressive position. It’s a matter of personal liberty.

            Playing political games over such issues lends them (progs) credibility.

          2. +1

            Not only would they probably stop reflexively stop pushing dietary concerns, they would denounce dietary considerations as a stupid redneck thing–like the way they think of NASCAR.

          3. Just as how the pope’s anti-capitalist jeremiad caused progressives to embrace free markets…?

  16. Wall Street Journal uncovers something sinister – Glenn Greenwald is paid to write articles for the CBC. More on this scandal as it develops.

    http://utdocuments.blogspot.co…..onald.html

  17. Author of discredited GMO study threatens to “attack with lawyers” against the journal which ran, then retracted said study.

    1. Cool story, bro.

  18. “Experts back ‘nanny state’ health efforts”
    http://www.sfgate.com/health/a…..022777.php
    What you’ll find is the ‘backing’ is: ‘Yeah, the government should do something. And I don’t give a shit about liberty’.
    Absolutely nothing regarding any effects, as if that made a difference anyhow.

    1. I’d expect experts to back nanny state efforts.

      The experts are the nannies in a nanny-state.

      And they hate to talk about qualitative preferences–since no one’s a better expert on my qualitative preferences than I am.

      Some people really would rather be diabetic than give up sugar sodas.

    2. As usual the ‘experts’ are members of academia. Experts in academia remind me of teenagers. They think they are discovering something new and coming up with new ideas when in fact they are just trotting out the same old tired bullshit that has been put forward and tried a hundred times before. Do any of these experts ever bother reading history books?

      What comes to mind is a conversation I had once with a girl of 19. She started going on about how sex today with young people is so daring and avant garde. She was speechless when I showed her some clay sculptures I have of incas having sex in every conceivable position, in threesomes, foursomes, with dogs, llamas…..and then showed her illustrations from ancient India of the same, and pointed out that more than half of the children born in the new world colonies to the puritans were out of wedlock and to underage girls.

      All of these ‘experts’ should go sit on a sharp stick.

      1. I think that’s a common baby boomer thing.

        They seem to think the blowjob was invented sometime in the ’60s. I’m even skeptical of the whole concept of a “sexual revolution”.

        There may have been a “communication revolution”, where people started talking about things openly that no one in polite conversation ever talked about before. But the stuff they think was invented in the 1960s…um…wasn’t.

        And the unavailability of abortion and birth control didn’t really stop people before, either. I’ve read that in almost a third of the marriages around the time of the American Revolution, the bride was pregnant.

        http://www.jstor.org/discover/…..3020968697

        1. The baby boomer generation has a lot of narratives that aren’t really true, sexual revolution being an obvious one.

        2. I’ve heard that it was commonly believed that first children were often “early” (born less than nine months after the wedding). I got the sense that this wasn’t always stated with a wink.

      2. The lack of historical knowledge among progressives and reformers is astounding. “Why, it’s just obvious that this should work!”

  19. MSNBC is beating the “Walmart is evil” drum today. It’s Melissa’s turn.

    Surprise.

    “We’re gonna hear from the other side, next.” Welch?

    1. “Today we talk with Raziq al-Mujahid X about whether the sinister Elders of Zion are conspiring to enslave the gentiles.

      “Now, to give the other side, is Rabbi Cohn of the local synagogue, who *claims* he doesn’t know anything about this conspiracy.”

      1. It’s amazing how the media airing criticism of progressivism is “false balance,” while airing ridiculous left-wing claptrap and then having the target group’s spokesman issue a denial is “airing both sides of the controversy.”

    2. Are they also going to beat the ‘Dillards, Macys, Target, Olive Garden, Outback is evil’ drum also?

      1. Or is it just Walmart and McDonalds that are evil?

      2. Wait, are you saying you don’t think Olive Garden is evil?

  20. The previous asshole was blathering about how he doesn’t like to shop on “black Friday” and it’s even worth it to spend a few extra bucks to *not* fight those crowds, which is exactly what I said the other day. But I don’t care if those other people see the “error of their ways”.

    Goatfucking Jesus, what a bunch of smarmy bullshit artists.

    1. Seriously, how can you watch that shit? It is pure, unadulterated shit. I mean, I am glad you watch it so that I don’t, but still…

    2. God forbid poor people who only get one friday off a year try to buy nice things for their families.

  21. Go Buckeyes! Beat that scUM!

    1. I was pulling for Michigan just to shut up the Ohiophiles with their absurd talk about playing in the championship game.

      I’d take one-loss Auburn or Mizzou over undefeated OSU. One loss playing in a real conference beats running the table in Big Joke.

      1. SEC this year is the most over-rated conference in the country. But oh, they’ll probably do well in the bowls again, with most of the games they play in essentially being home games.

        How I’d love to see an SEC team play somewhere north of the Mason-Dixon line in December or January, especially against one of those “Big Joke” teams.

  22. The poor downtrodden Walmart working poor don’t make a living wage!

    I haven’t heard any of these bozos ask where the money goes.

    How many kids do they have?
    How many cars?
    What do they pay for cellphones and cable?
    What do they spend on clothes and shoes?
    What other discretionary spending do they have which is so “essential” it prevents them from providing for their most basic needs?

    What makes anybody think more money will lead to better decisionmaking?

    1. It can be a living wage. Split a 3 or 4 BR house; don’t eat out; budget your money. If those fail, live with your parents if they’ll let you.

      Admittedly the only one of those I do is not eat out (much). But I’m older, and have developed skills that allow me to get paid to live that way.

    2. I’m sure others here have been in traffic behind a car full of fat people, obviously headed towards a lower-income neighborhood, with fast food trash stuffed all in the rear windshield. A more serious effort to ingrain high school students with basic consumer economics skills would do a lot more good than “living wage” legislation.

    3. As I posted last night to someone bitching that the average Wally World associate ONLY made $25K a year…

      A living wage ($25K/yr) for stocking shelves and running a cash register? I did that for $3.35 an hour. That’s $6700 a year.

      So…eat me! You want a living wage, find a job that pays better.

      1. That’s also one wage earner. If you’ve got two wage earners in the family, both working at Wal Mart, you’ll be making a solid middle class income of $50,000.

        The break up of American families has done more to increase poverty than fucking Wal Mart.

      2. I made $18 000 a year as a teller.

        1. Until ATMs cost you your job!

          1. That was supposed to happen but tellers are still around. Turns out people still want human interaction afterall.

      3. And does “average” include part-timers? Many people want to work part-time.

  23. Walmart is just like segregation.

    1. Yeah, why do progressives think that minorities and the poor shouldn’t have access to everyday low prices?

      1. Wal-Mart was historically opening stores in Southern, rural areas and the progressives are fixated on that legacy. Progressives still think Wal-Mart caters to poor, rural whites (“white trash”) the most despised demographic amongst progressives. They still can’t comprehend that Wal-Mart is building stores in highly populated urban areas because minorities and poor people want quality consumer goods and discount prices. Progressives developed their Wal-Mart narrative around 1992, and they are incapable of changing their opinion, because that would be an admission that they were wrong, racist, classist, and elitist.

        1. quality consumer goods

          at Walmart???

          1. Absolutely.

            They typically have the lowest price around for stuff like the oil I use in my motorcycles. You can get some quality camping gear on the cheap.

            Guns and ammo. Electronics. Is there a cheaper way to get an eye exam than Wal*Mart?

            They’re certainly bringing quality stuff to urban areas where there isn’t a lot of competition. When I lived in a crappy area of LA, one of the problems was that the local grocery store sucked. The produce section sucked. …but then they didn’t have any competition!

            Wal*Mart sells groceries. Same stuff you’re gonna get everywhere else–just for less.

            I’m more of a Whole Foods kinda guy myself, but I’m not looking at Wal*Mart from a poor ass perspective anymore.

          2. Have you ever been in a walmart Guy?

            Yes, they have quality goods at cheap prices. In fact, I would say they have done more to raise the living standard of the poor than anyone else in the last 50 years.

            1. Have you ever been in a walmart Guy?

              That REALLY needs a comma.

              1. I ran out last night. I could not sleep and ended up commenting more than usual. I know I know I should have planned ahead.

                I will go to town later and pick up an ample supply.

                1. Of walmart Guys?

                2. Get a law passed to force Sandra Fluke to pay for your commas!

            2. I’m not your *guy*, buddy.

          3. Guy, er, are you serious?

          4. Automotive batteries. Their house brand is actually one of the best values for price vs. longevity. Weird, I know.

        2. Remember when that moron on the DC city council said that WalMart shouldn’t be allowed in DC because her constituents would not be able to resist the urge to steal all of the merchandise on display?

          Just imagine if any republican or just random internet commenter said the same thing.

        3. Wasn’t Hilary on Walmart’s Board of Directors?

        4. the most despised demographic amongst progressives.

          That used to be their #1 support demographic.

          Then the poor white trash figured out progressivism only made their lives worse.

  24. I won’t pay the SF soda tax, because I haven’t had a carbonated soft drink in over 2 years and plan to keep it that way.

    As mentioned above, of course that’s not what they want, because they’ve already figured up how they want to spend the new monies, same as Chicago’s effort to ban e-cigarettes because city tobacco taxes are pushing people towards alternatives (and into Indiana).

  25. What a smarmy juvenile cunt.

    Are these people outraged because some low wage workers are getting “government subsidies” while working, or that they have to work at all?

  26. Oh, no, the Walton family are RICH. And they got rich by stealing the labor of the MILLIONS of people, by forcing them at gunpoint to work on their slave plantation.

    Oh, the humanity!

  27. Making do with less, can make you less, according to Princeton psychology professor Eldar Shafir.
    The cost is an undue focus on the necessity at hand, which leads to a lack of curiosity about wider issues, and an inability to imagine longer-term consequences. The effect of this scarcity-generated “loss of bandwidth” has catastrophic results in particular in relation to money. While the poor have a much sharper idea of value and cost, an obsessive concentration on where the next dollar is coming from leads not only to poor judgment, a lessened ability to make rational choices or see a bigger picture, but also to a diminishing of intelligence (even “feeling poor” lowers IQ by the same amount as a night without sleep), as well as a lowering of resistance to self-destructive temptation.

    1. This “scarcity trap” provides an explanation for unpalatable truths, the authors argue. It shows why the “poor are more likely to be obese? Less likely to send their children to school? [why] the poorest in a village are the ones least likely to wash their hands or treat their water before drinking it.” And the explanation is this: “the poor are not just short of cash. They are short on bandwidth.” When an individual ? any individual ? is primed to think about his money troubles, his ability to perform tests and tasks is measurably reduced. Reminded that they are poor, individuals “showed less flexible intelligence, less executive control. With scarcity on his mind, he simply had less mind for everything else

      1. It is an interesting study. I am guessing the motivation for posting it is a suggestion that it undermines some cardinal assumptions of libertarianism. While I concede that an unfortunately large number of libertarians seem to have a belief that egalitarian schemes are wrong because the poor are lacking in intelligence, moral fiber, or what have you, and that such a finding may undermine that claim, for myself and many libertarians there is no assumption about the poor being to blame for their plight, just a fundamental tenet that remedies using coercion can not be justified and/or will usually do more harm than good (in the short or long run).

        1. The fact that leftists think we want to assign “blame” is just more projection. Noting that certain behaviors carry with them a greater risk of entering in or remaining in poverty is not blame, it is social science at its most basic.

          1. Only the most obtuse believe that all of the poor are “lacking in intelligence, moral fiber, or what have you.” The problem with the left is that they don’t want to admit that any of the poor are that way for those reasons, when it should be obvious to any objective observer. They think the very existence of the poor is proof of racism, the ravages of capitalism, etc.

      2. And since large government programs make people poorer, this actually supports my pre-existing arguments.

        Thanks for posting articles that prove how accurate the libertarian worldview is, Guy!

        1. -And since large government programs make people poorer

          Irish, by ‘make people poorer’ do you mean they have an overall retarding impact on the economy (by taking money from private hands and investment and using it inefficiently) or that they tend to make the actual recipients of the government programs poorer? Because I doubt the second.

          1. Retarding economic activity results in greater long-term poverty. The actual recipient might be wealthier *in the short term* but there will be more people joining him in poverty shortly.

            I’d also argue that the recipient can very well be made poorer by a government program. If taxes go up to pay for the program, then businesses are less able to make a profit with marginal workers. Those marginal workers then go unhired instead of getting a job. This results in said marginal workers having no skills and no references to rise up and eventually get a better job.

            When people get stuck in a welfare cycle, they are absolutely made poorer than they would have been if government malfeasance hadn’t ruined their ability to get a job.

            1. OK, I totally agree with that.

              Look at your current labor force participation rates. They are incredibly low. We are becoming a society where half have become charges of the other half.

            2. I agree, but it can directly make them poorer, also. Knowledge that the government will pay for an out-of-wedlock baby means more out-of-wedlock babies, and thus more poverty.

      3. “This “scarcity trap” provides an explanation for unpalatable truths,”

        Yes, obsessing about things makes you less attentive to other things. And brain-dead lefties will attempt to make hay out of that any way they can, right brain-dead lefty?

      4. More excuses for failure.

        Don’t worry left voting block, it’s not your fault that you’re poor, it’s not your fault that you’re obese…

        It’s those thin successful people who are to blame. And guess who is going to make it right for you?

        Perhaps being poor is the effect rather than the cause? Perhaps poor people are poor because they aren’t smart enough or hard working enough to be rich? Perhaps fat people are fat because they have no willpower or choose not to care?

        No more excuses. You have a choice. You can be successful or you can be a failure. Not my fault, it’s yours. Do something about it or shut the fuck up.

        1. -The fact that leftists think we want to assign “blame” is just more projection. Noting that certain behaviors carry with them a greater risk of entering in or remaining in poverty is not blame

          .cf

          -Perhaps poor people are poor because they aren’t smart enough or hard working enough to be rich? Perhaps fat people are fat because they have no willpower or choose not to care?

          You can be successful or you can be a failure. Not my fault, it’s yours. Do something about it or shut the fuck up.

    2. Left’s make sure we understand the agenda here:
      “In a world increasingly polarised by wealth,”
      Interesting that the world’s increased prosperity is somehow seen as ‘polarizing’, rather than reducing what this propagandist claims to dislike: poverty.

      “Though he spent a lifetime proving the fundamental weakness of human beings in predicting the outcomes of any relatively complex choice,”
      Again, ignoring the world’s increased prosperity; seems the choices he focuses on have little to do with human welfare.

      And the money quote:
      “The implications of such findings, that poverty of all kinds literally reduces imagination and the ability to shape one’s own life,”
      ‘Implications’ are not findings, and you’ll note the innuendo “poverty of *all kinds*”, wherein the propagandist reserves the right to identify “poverty” as suits the agenda.
      And lefties pass this on as if it were other than propaganda.

      1. And, of course, if those mechanisms were truly major, nobody would ever rise out of poverty, except perhaps by luck. And yet countless millions have done it. Heck, scores of millions have done it in China in just the last generation.

    3. The real problem with the study is that the truly debilitating causes of poverty don’t require extraordinary IQ to avoid.

      1. DON’T FUCK DIFFERENT RANDOM GUYS EVERY DAY AND HAVE KIDS WITH A RANDOMLY SELECTED SET OF THOSE RANDOM GUYS.

      2. DON’T COMMIT RANDOM PETTY CRIMES BECAUSE YOU’RE BORED OR ANGRY.

      There, I just solved 85% of poverty.

      These simple realizations do not require a high IQ. So unless the cognitive impairment the study author uncovered knocked the IQ’s of the poor below 75, the impairment is irrelevant to the question at hand.

      1. Being stigmatized by the government for having a drug conviction doesn’t help either, especially when it’s still harder to get ahead as a minority anyway.

        I mean, say what you want about the crips and the bloods, but they won’t discriminate against you for being black.

  28. Research also shows soda taxes don’t work. For example, a 2010 study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine suggested that even an enormous soda tax of 40 percent would not make people healthier.

    But would it lead to less soda consumption?

    I’ve always firmly believed that if you tax something you get less of it. Are these studies saying taxing soda won’t lead to less consumption or are they saying less consumption won’t lead to weight loss and better health?

    If the former, must we abandon our (my) claim that taxing economic activity results in less economic activity?

    1. Soda is being blamed as if it is the sole cause of people’s ill health. There are probably thousands of factors that contribute to one’s good or poor health. A tax on soda will reduce soda consumption, but will have zero effect on the other thousand health factors.

    2. I never get this, wouldn’t it make more sense to scale back corn subsidies that lead to cheap sugar than to try to tax the end product?

      1. Yes yes yes.

  29. The findingfurther undercuts the theory that poor people, through inherent weakness, are responsible for their own poverty ? or that they ought to be able to lift themselves out of it with enough effort. This research suggests that the reality of poverty actually makes it harder to execute fundamental life skills. Being poor means, as the authors write, “coping with not just a shortfall of money, but also with a concurrent shortfall of cognitive resources.”

    1. So we just remind poor Americans that they are actually among the wealthiest people on the planet, and boom! Problem solved.

    2. That paragraph contradicts itself.

      Look at this sentence:

      The findingfurther undercuts the theory that poor people, through inherent weakness, are responsible for their own poverty

      and compare to this sentence:

      Being poor means, as the authors write, “coping with not just a shortfall of money, but also with a concurrent shortfall of cognitive resources.”

      In other words, the study actually found that poor people suffer from an inherent mental weakness…and the author somehow professes that the study found the exact opposite. I’d also argue that the reason poor people suffer from a lack of ‘cognitive resources’ is because our society infantilizes them and buoys them up with welfare cash. I have an aunt who went on welfare and I can profess from first hand experience that people actually do begin acting more childish and making worse decisions when the money they’re spending wasn’t actually earned by them.

      Of course, these hyper-political studies are all junk anyway. It’s an attempt to use the trappings of science to provide a pre-existing view with pseudo-scientific evidence for its position. I’m willing to bet that if you actually read the study instead of a synopsis, which I can’t do because you fucked up the link, it wouldn’t be that hard to tear the study apart just like every other political study.

      1. From previous paragraphs he posted I gather the study makes some claim that the cognitive weakness detected was preceded by poverty (see the claim that ‘even “feeling poor” lowers IQ by the same amount as a night without sleep’).

        1. It’s not even that direct.
          In short, it says obsessing over an issue makes you lees attentive to what’s in front of you.
          The idjit running the study just focused on being poor rather than, say, having an auto accident.

          1. I see, but I think the point that ‘being poor’ is equivalent to having an ongoing auto accident would suggest what the author wants to suggest, that the poor do not ‘deserve’ their poverty.

            1. Bo Cara Esq.|11.30.13 @ 11:56AM|#
              “I see, but I think the point that ‘being poor’ is equivalent to having an ongoing auto accident”

              If ‘being poor’ is the focus of your entire life, that would be correct.
              I remember being poor and, say, enjoying a book or a decent meal I made or the company of friends, etc.
              ‘Being poor’ is only a constant occupation if you chose to make it so.

              1. Again, I do not take the author to be claiming poor people walk around obsessed with the abstract state of being poor, just that they think a lot more about things like ‘do I have enough money for X?’ or ‘oh no, how much is dinner going to cost?’ And it is that focus which drains their overall cognitive abilities.

        2. (see the claim that ‘even “feeling poor” lowers IQ by the same amount as a night without sleep’).

          Doesn’t this kind of contradict the entire left-wing worldview? Leftists TELL PEOPLE to obsess about how poor/oppressed/violated they are.

          If this study is accurate, then the constant exhortations by the left that black people are being kept down by vile white privilege would actually have the impact of causing black people to obsess over this argument…which would in turn harm their cognitive abilities and destroy their lives.

          1. I think by obsession they mean ‘how am I going to pay the bills’ rather than ‘who is to blame for me not being able to pay the bills.’

            1. I know a lot of people who aren’t poor and think they’re poor primarily as a result of propaganda. I’ve personally spoken to people with two cars, a house, and multiple T.V.s who tell me how poor they are.

              This is not actual poverty. It’s poverty invented by left-wing media which then results in people who are not poor convincing themselves of the contrary.

              1. I’ve tussled a few times with friends who view things only in terms of “Where am I compared to the most wealthy people alive today” instead of “Where am I compared to my grandparents’ generation, or even my parents’ generation” This usually leads to me saying something along the lines of “You have hot and cold running water, summer fruit in the dead of winter and a computer in your pocket that would make Alan Turing shit himself repeatedly. By all means aspire for more, but be grateful that you aren’t pushing a plow by hand hoping the frosts don’t come early.”

                1. I think a lot of this happens to people who watch too much television.

                  I see this show in reruns, sometimes, about a fat UPS worker who has a totally hot wife and can somehow afford to live in a million dollar house in New York City.

                  That’s gotta play with people’s expectations.

                  1. “I see this show in reruns, sometimes, about a fat UPS worker who has a totally hot wife and can somehow afford to live in a million dollar house in New York City.

                    That’s gotta play with people’s expectations.”

                    That’s right.

                    I’m saying that The King Of Queens is anti-reality, anti-reason, and, therefore, anti-life!

                    LOL

                    1. A UPS driver in New York could easily make $75K or more. If you figure his wife is making another $45-50K as a paralegal, and no kids, is it really that unrealistic?

              2. This is not actual poverty. It’s poverty invented by left-wing media which then results in people who are not poor convincing themselves of the contrary.

                It is the genius of the progressive machine.

                When capitalism lifts people out of poverty, they maintain their constituency (the poor) by simply redefining poverty.

                jesse nails it below.

                Capitalism doesn’t make us all equal, but it does make us all better off than we were. Just as socialism makes us all worse than we were, but makes us more equal.

                1. Or jesse nails it above, rather.

                  1. jesse nails it below.
                    Or jesse nails it above, rather.

                    Yes.

          2. Irish: Yes, indeed. You have put your finger on one of the core contradictions of leftism.

            1. Now fergawdsakes WASH YOUR HANDS.

  30. Lower your expectations, please.

    White House officials, fearful that the federal health care website may again be overwhelmed this weekend, have urged their allies to hold back enrollment efforts so the insurance marketplace does not collapse under a crush of new users.

    At the same time, administration officials said Tuesday that they had decided not to inaugurate a big health care marketing campaign planned for December out of concern that it might drive too many people to the still-fragile HealthCare.gov.

    With a self-imposed deadline for repairs to the website approaching on Saturday, the administration is trying to strike a delicate balance. It is encouraging people to go or return to the website but does not want to create too much demand. It boasts that the website is vastly improved, but does not want to raise expectations that it will work for everyone.

    “We said it would work, so just take our word for it. Come back later.”

  31. If the website again crashes repeatedly, Mr. Obama’s critics are sure to pounce and some of his Democratic allies may become anxious and apprehensive. Since the website went live eight weeks ago, the botched system has become a symbol of what Republicans say is an overreaching, incompetent federal government. The debate about the website’s failures, and the broader role of government, may shape the outcome of next year’s congressional elections.

    Those dastardly nitpicky unbelievers, pouncing on minor insignificant glitches and trying to blow everything out of proportion!

    1. Meh. Short term political gain. The website being a piece of shit is kind of a red herring. The right will bitch and complain about it, but it doesn’t truly discredit the actual legislation itself. If ACA remains law, it will get implemented eventually, regardless of the shitty website, and that’s the REAL tragedy.

      If I were the republican leadership, I’d stress the people being dropped from their current insurers, the increase in price, the requirement to buy unwanted services, people losing their doctors… Those are the REAL “I told you sos.”

  32. Listend to this on the way back home from the hockey game (Sharks and Blues)

    http://www.californiareport.or…..11291630/a

    What we’re talking about is basically putting an extra $15 billion a year into the pocketbooks of those households in California that spend every dollar they earn. It would be one of the largest economic stimulus packages in California history, funded entirely by the private sector.

    I highlight private sector, because how does the private sector come up with the money?

    For example, Wal-Mart, under a $12 an hour minimum wage, would only go up 1 percent. They would only have to raise their prices 1 percent and I just can’t see businesses moving over the state line because of a 1 percent cost increase. They would just raise their prices 1 percent to cover the cost.

    But wait, didn’t you previously say:

    The bottom line is ordinary workers in California are paid too little money. Because they are paid so little, they can’t even shop at Wal-Mart.

    So to help workers who are too poor to shop at walmart, we will raise the prices at Walmart. Good job California.

    1. Ugh, HTML fail.

      1. Just as well, your summary was painful enough. No need to read the whole thing.

    2. Semi-relevant, seen on FB:

      A good illustration of the fundamental problem with the charity model: it makes receiving help a function of your ability to demonstrate just how bad you have it. Yet another problem that could be substantially avoided with a guaranteed minimum income.

    3. Perhaps the author meant to say ‘the ordinary Wal-Mart workers in California,’ in which case the suggested increase in the minimum wage might be thought to more than offset the 1% rise in prices. Or perhaps he meant to imply, as many on the left often do, that a mandated minimum wage on an industry will have some ‘spillover’ into all similar segments of the economy, raising most of the working poor’s income to compensate for the rise in Wal-Mart prices.

      Either way it does not matter to me. When liberals talk to me about a minimum wage law I like to remind them that what they are ultimately talking about is threatening an employer with imprisonment because he has offered an employment opportunity to another the terms of which the law disapproves of.

    4. The bottom line is ordinary workers in California are paid too little money. Because they are paid so little, they can’t even shop at Wal-Mart.

      That is unbelievable bullshit. The average floorworker at Wal Mart makes $10.50 an hour. That’s $21,000 a year.

      You’re telling me you can’t shop at Walmart for over 20 grand? If they can’t shop at Wal Mart then where are they shopping?

      1. If they can’t shop at Wal Mart then where are they shopping?

        This. Wal Mart isn’t known for high prices.

      2. Irish, I imagine they are thinking of something like ‘families of four,’ for which the poverty line is 23,000, and making the claim that a worker who is the sole income source for such a family could not afford to buy what their family needs at a salary below that 23,000.

        1. That’s exactly what they do. They base everything on the poverty line for a family of four and imagine that every worker at Wal Mart is the sole bread winner for such a family.

          It’s ludicrous. The people making the least at Wal Mart are people like the Wal Mart greeters who tend to be well past the age where they’d need to raise a family of four. There are also the people who stock inventory who are frequently under the age of 18.

          The very old and very young Wal Mart workers drag down the average wage, but those people aren’t the ones who need to feed a family.

          1. Yes, good points.

          2. This. Irish.

          3. That’s exactly what they do. They base everything on the poverty line for a family of four and imagine that every worker at Wal Mart is the sole bread winner for such a family.

            Which should lead us to the next LOGICAL question:

            Why do you have a family of four if you are working at Wal Mart?

            Individual responsibility…how does it work?

      3. Hmm, I thought Walmart associates here in LA made around 9.00-9.50 an hour.

        I have, um, fine arts degree from a prestigious school and I worked as an office clerk. Took orders, did payroll, etc. When I apply for some sales or retail positions, I don’t get calls back.

        I seriously don’t understand why Walmart employees are complaining about. I know for a fact these retailers have image in mind for certain departments. If you were hired there, you might have edged out random people who are better qualified because…. you’re easier to look at.

        Maybe they’re overconfident about their job security?

      4. $21K a year is OK.

        The problem is the sky-high taxation that cuts that down. FICA, federal, state withholding. Throw in some municipal income tax as well. Add in 10% sales taxes. Throw in taxes on utilities.

        The real problem with the minimum wage is bloated government already claims $4 of every hour of it. Add in Quantitative Easing (federal stealth taxation) and the claim is closer to $5 every hour.

        Instead of playing games with the minimum wage, let’s make the standard income tax deduction $12,000 per dependent.

  33. Wal-Mart’s ‘crime’ consists in offering employment and sales opportunities the terms of which some people do not like, so I have always thought the criticism silly. However, I can not help but notice how one of the popular arguments aimed at Wal-Mart-that given our welfare system a business model like theirs will mean public subsidy of their workforce-seems analogous to arguments I see various ‘paleo-libertarian’ and other, shall we say, right-leaning posters make here regarding immigration or gay marriage (that we should not allow either given our current welfare system/subsidization of marriage).

    1. Bullshit. Our welfare system would still be subsidizing these people if they didn’t work at Walmart and probably even more so without the income they receive from working. Whereas (asshole lawyer speak) immigration and gay marriage may involve a new, additional “benefit” that I get to pay for e.g. SS spousal benefits, welfare, Medicaid, etc. So let’s sum it up: existing cost to the system partially mitigated by working at Walmart vs. brand new cost to the system. ANALogous? Umm, no. Typical Team Blue “logic.”

      And for the record I support enhanced immigration and am totally in favor of getting government out of the marriage business entirely including restrictions AND benefits.

      Oh, and the pretension doesn’t actually make your arguments any more intelligent.

      1. You are assuming that every one of them that would not be working under the Wal-Mart model would be totally charges of the state (or rather perhaps they that criticize Wal-Mart are assuming the opposite, that if not for the Wal-Mart model they would all be working jobs that do not need subsidization).

        And what about immigrants who will not go on benefits and who will, indeed, pay taxes?

        1. The problem there is that that’s a totally ridiculous thing to assume.

          While I know there are people who take jobs for less money than they could earn elsewhere (because, beyond a certain income threshold, other things are more important to them), I doubt anyone working at WalMart is capable of making more money in another job – if they were, they’d be doing *that* job.

          1. I think what they imagine is that if Wal-Mart with its current business model suddenly ceased to exist it would be replaced by some other company which would employ roughly the same amount of people but at better wages/benefits. Of course, the economy does not quite work that way. But I am not sure it is any more or less fair than anti-immigration arguments which do not realize that many, if not most, immigrants will come into the country and work/pay taxes rather than go onto the dole.

    2. End the Walmart subsidy! Fire the workers! Nothing but welfare for them, instead of some pay and some welfare!

      You are a retard.

  34. Sometimes when you build it, nobody comes.

    Anaheim, Calif.-based Fisker, which planned to build cars at a former General Motors plant in Delaware, filed for bankruptcy protection last week, ending a long, downward spiral that began after it received a $529 million loan commitment from the US Department of Energy. Fisker drew $192 million on the Obama administration’s green-energy loan before DOE officials suspended funding in 2011 after the automaker failed to meet several sales milestones for its Karma luxury vehicle.

    The Energy Department recovered about $28 million before selling the remainder of its loan last week for $25 million to Hybrid Technology LLC, resulting in a loss to taxpayers of $139 million. Delaware taxpayers are on the hook for about $20 million in loans and grants provided to Fisker in hopes of resurrecting vehicle production at the shuttered GM plant in Wilmington.

    I absolutely admire their bravery and inspiration, but I would prefer they had found their financing in the private sector. Federal bureaucrats and elected officials do not make good venture capitalists.

    1. “resulting in a loss to taxpayers of $139 million. Delaware taxpayers are on the hook for about $20 million in loans and grants provided to Fisker in hopes of resurrecting vehicle production at the shuttered GM plant in Wilmington.”

      I linked an article last week that pointed out that the $139M was just part of the loss, but can’t remember where the remaining money is going.
      It was not a trivial amount.

      1. but can’t remember where the remaining money is going.

        It’s going to Obama’s cronies.

    2. I absolutely admire their bravery and inspiration, but I would prefer they had found their financing in the private sector. Federal bureaucrats and elected officials do not make good venture capitalists.

      The reason they went to the government is because their idea was so unfeasible that no private investor would give them money. That federal bureaucrats don’t make good venture capitalists was something the were *counting* on.

  35. Vancouver to ban doorknobs.

    The quote that turned my spine to ice and sent my testicles running to the relative safety of my nether-gut:

    And as it goes in Vancouver, so will it go in B.C., Canada, and perhaps even the world.

    Will everywhere eventually and inevitably be like California or Vancouver? Is there any way, short of violence, to stop the nanny state in its tracks?

    1. Remember the regular toilet? Try to find one. Low-flush is all there is to be had. The incandescent light bulb? Sorry, just energy-saving fluorescent or LED now in most stores.

      The government…making life worse, one regulation at a time.

    2. I am pretty sure I haven’t seen an actual doorknob in any new construction during my lifetime (44 years), anywhere. I have a feeling it’s already banned in many places?

      1. I think levers are just the “in” thing right now.

        1. Well, they’ve been “in” for decades and on multiple continents. Doorknobs are dead – let them go.

          1. If fewer people know how to operate doorknobs, that makes doorknobs a security device.

  36. How “fixed” is the O’care web site you ask? This “fixed”:
    “His tech team created a new “queuing” feature that, in peak periods, will suggest a better time to return to the site. The administration has also directed users to visit it during off-peak hours in the morning, evening and weekend.”
    Yes, folks, it’s “fixed” such that it tells you to get lost.

    1. Its hard to get an automobile in the soviet union. They are owned mainly by elite bureaucrats. It takes an average of 10 years to get a car. 1 out of 7 families owned automobiles. You have to go through a major process and put the money out in advance. so this man did this and the dealer said “okay in 10 years come get your car.” “Morning or afternoon?” The man replied. “well what difference does it make?” Said the dealer. “The plumber is coming in the morning.”

    2. visit it during off-peak hours in the morning, evening and weekend.

      How are these not peak hours?

      1. “Peak hours” are 9-5 M-F, just like HyR.

  37. From the Life is not Fair files:

    But it didn’t matter. The doctors still refused to give Maverick a new heart.

    At first, Maverick’s mother was confused, but then she said it dawned on her: This supposed propensity for infections and tumors was a smokescreen.

    She felt the real reason the doctors were denying their baby a life-saving transplant was that children with Maverick’s genetic condition grow up to have disabilities. They don’t want to give Maverick a heart because he won’t grow up to be “normal,” she thought.

    At another meeting, she looked one of the doctors in the eye.

    “You’re discriminating,” she said.

    It sucks. It’s horrible. But sometimes children are born broken, and don’t make it.

    But go ahead and blame the doctors, so you feel like you’re doing something.

    1. I cut her some slack because of the unimaginable grief she must be going through with the prospect of losing a child. But shame on CNN for running with it.

      1. Agreed. The doctors made the right choice. If a child has that kind of disability, then they should give the heart to someone who’s more likely to live a full life.

        There’s probably another kid that’s going to get that heart who doesn’t have the same disability. I feel for the family but these ghoulish reporters disgust me.

        1. And while we are on the subject, can I bring up Lou Reed, famous drug addict and socialist, getting a liver transplant last year?

      2. Although FTA they seem to have found someone to treat the baby and he seems to be doing okay. So who knows?

      3. I cut her some slack because of the unimaginable grief she must be going through with the prospect of losing a child.

        I don’t. These types of situations create bad law. Stories that tug at people’s heart strings are directly responsible for creating policy based upon emotion rather than reason.

        Grief is not an excuse to abandon logic.

        Sorry for your loss…that said, you are irrational. Shut the fuck up!

        1. Come on, man. Try being human for a minute. We all understand the right answer but still pray (in any sense that works for you) that we will not be put to the test. Emotion gets to all of us sometimes, and in such an extreme situation let her have it. That doesn’t mean changing the decision or making law. It just means a little understanding and compassion.

          It even seems that her emotional refusal to accept no as a final answer led her to finding a good alternative answer in this case. So who are you to say shut the fuck up?

          1. That doesn’t mean changing the decision or making law.

            But, in many, many cases, IT DOES!

            How much bad law is made on EXACTLY these sorts of stories? Parents of dead kids on crusades?

            Dozens of state and federal statutes are named for children who died too soon: Megan’s Law and Jessica’s Law, the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act, the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. There’s Kendra’s Law, Leandra’s Law and Lauren’s Law, three Jacob’s Laws and at least three Laura’s Laws.

            Giving these people a platform because we feel sorry for them is why this emotion based legislation gets passed. The left plays this little game all the time. Wait for a tragedy and then try to shame those on the side of logic by calling them inhuman and incompassionate if they disagree.

            I’m inhuman because I won’t place emotion above reason? Fine.

    2. Of course under a regime of actual self ownership, organs could be sold, which would lead to an increase in supply. Thus tragic stories like this would happen less frequently.

      1. We all need to RTA – the kid is doing relatively well after a treatment (other than transplant) of some sort.

      2. It seems a bit unlikely that the supply of hearts would increase significantly if people could sell their organs…….

        1. If I kick it early, I would be more likely to sell my heart on my terms than donate it at the whim of the folks who run the DMV.

        2. Well what is a “significant” increase? You’d see some increase, and every heart is a potential life saver.

          It has more challenges then most markets, to be sure, but I do think more freedom would make things better.

  38. can’t remember where the remaining money is going.
    It was not a trivial amount.

    An evil vulture capitalist from Hong Kong bought discounted debt, and is apparently trying to parlay it into ownership of the company in the bankruptcy process.

    Is that it?

    1. Nope.
      There were other conditions on the guarantee that weren’t mentioned in that article and most others.
      I think it was a WSJ link that pointed out there were ‘way more direct losses to the taxpayers.

  39. Denmark’s so-called “fat tax” on foods containing greater than 2.3% saturated fat was such a debacle . . . What was wrong with the law? The tax didn’t help Danes lose weight.

    Of course not. The science is clear that dietary fat does not cause weight gain.

    1. I heard they put mayonnaise on their freedom fries in Denmark.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remoulade#Use

      1. My ex made sure I had pommes frites sauce at a McDonald’s in Germany. It was a nice alternative to ketchup.

        1. I’m sure she was delightful.

          1. I’m sure she was delightful.

            Well, this is awkward.

            Do you ever read anyone else’s posts, Ken?

            1. Did I miss something big? Actually, that isn’t a big deal to me.

              I’m sure whoever was delightful.

            2. Is Jesse boys-only? I thought he was on the boys side of the Kinsey scale, but not exclusively so. But maybe I just wasn’t paying enough attention.

              1. Boys only. I like boobs, but don’t want to have sex with the women attached to them. That may have caused the confusion.

        2. I once made myself sick eating hummus with an ex-girlfriend that she wanted me to try.

          I’m allergic to garbanzo beans. I almost stopped breathing, but she was totally worth it.

          1. It was Thai food for me. No allergy, but the stuff tastes awful to me. Most of it reminds me of bad fish and soap.

            1. Thai food is coriander/cilantro heavy, no? Maybe you’re a mutant.

              I have a few friends like that and it was very limiting when we lived in a town where the only good ethnic food was Mexican and Thai/Lao.

              1. Someone substituted the stuff for Romaine in a salad I had once, and yes it was disgustingly soapy. But in normal amounts such as the flake-sized bits found in Mexican I like it.

              2. I cook (western) Mexican food. It was the first kind of food my mother learned how to make. Tex-Mex is OK too, though I consider it something completely different. (Real tortillas are made in a press and are not shells!)

                A little cilantro or coriander is okay. A lot brings back my Dennis The Menace years.

    2. The science is clear that dietary fat does not cause weight gain.

      As I recall, it had something to do with consuming more calories than you burned, or some such nonsense.

      1. On a low carb, high fat diet I can eat more than 3000 Calories a day and lose weight.
        On a “balanced” diet I can eat less than 1500 Calories a day and gain weight.
        Experiments with humans, pigs, rats and mice all show the same.
        Calories don’t mean much.

        1. Well, if you’re doing a ketogenic diet that’s a bit different from normal eating; you’re kicking your body into an altered metabolic state. If you’re not in ketosis then it makes more sense to talk about calories consumed/calories burned, although you could probably argue that fat and protein provide a better sense of satiety than starches and are still a better choice for reducing overall calorie consumption.

          1. Anyone who can sleep through the night goes long enough without eating to become ketogenic.

            The nutritional calorie is a concept simplified to the point of biological meaninglessness. The non-energy fates of food are more than I care to list, and the few that do have to do with energy can cause caloric anomalies of two orders of magnitude.

            Yes, starches and sugars have the effect of inducing new hunger soon after ingestion for those who have insulin resistance. That’s (in part) because the leptin signal to the brain is impaired while insulin levels remain high. Your body doesn’t know it’s fed.

  40. Although FTA they seem to have found someone to treat the baby and he seems to be doing okay. So who knows?

    Yes. The kid had a huge turnaround without a heart transplant, in Boston. Strange how CNN completely ignores the variability of care issue to focus with laserlike intensity on the civil rights issue.

    1. Do you think CNN realizes that the family could not have shopped around under the system CNN advocates?

  41. The reason they went to the government is because their idea was so unfeasible that no private investor would give them money. That federal bureaucrats don’t make good venture capitalists was something the were *counting* on.

    Yeah, well… there is that. Also, would private venture capitalists have let Solyndra piss away all that money on a Taj Mahal of a building, instead of making them work out of an ugly nondescript warehouse in some backwater industrial park?

  42. Do you think CNN realizes that the family could not have shopped around under the system CNN advocates?

    Government doctors are uniformly noble and brilliant.

  43. Is pouring cold water on someone a violation of the NAP?

    But a tax is a thing, not a person, so I guess it’s fine.

    1. Under the NAP taxation counts as initiation of force, so pouring cold water on the proposer of a tax would be just fine.

  44. Tax it! Tax it all!!! (Inside the mind of any politician.)

  45. Research also shows soda taxes don’t work. For example, a 2010 study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine suggested that even an enormous soda tax of 40 percent would not make people healthier.

    I guess we’ll have to up the tax to 60%!

    /prog

    1. with a prog its only manner of degree, never of direction

  46. until I looked at the check which was of $4814, I be certain that…my… mom in-law could actually bringing home money in there spare time on-line.. there aunt started doing this for under 20 months and at present cleared the debts on their appartment and got a top of the range Ford Mustang. why not try this out

    ==============================
    http://www.JOBS83.com
    ==============================

  47. until I looked at the check which was of $4814, I be certain that…my… mom in-law could actually bringing home money in there spare time on-line.. there aunt started doing this for under 20 months and at present cleared the debts on their appartment and got a top of the range Ford Mustang. why not try this out

    ==============================
    http://www.JOBS83.com
    ==============================

  48. thats a rule.hahaha.. nice post

  49. Listening to “This American Life” earlier today there was a story where a defense attorney in San Francisco needed to find a chicken that played tic-tac-toe. They found one in San Francisco via a chicken trainer. (it seems that ‘chicken trainer’ is an actual job) When they contacted the owner in San Francisco it was a dead end. It turns out that San Francisco had passed an ordinance banning tic-tac-toe playing chickens.

    Now, pause for a moment to consider a city that finds the problem of tic-tac-toe playing chickens to be significant enough to warrant a change to the legal code.

  50. My guess would be that Filipovic considers herself to be Libertarian yet is in favor of nanny state rules on food and drink. Therefore being against the nanny state rules makes you a ‘pseudo-libertarian’.

  51. until I looked at the draft that said $8761, I have faith …that…my best friend had been actualie erning money part time at their laptop.. there mums best friend has been doing this 4 only about 8 months and resently repaid the morgage on there villa and purchased a brand new Aston Martin DB5. see here now
    ==============================
    http://www.fb49.com
    ==============================

  52. Still, despite much noise about soda taxes, it’s noteworthy that the city would http://www.purevolume.com/listeners/esamnagy

  53. eres un encanto besitos

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.