Comments on: Stossel on the food police

By: Melvin H.

Melvin H. — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 08:56:23 +0000

It is worse than that: Remember, Trans-fats were pushed by “health groups” 20+ years back as replacements for (if I remember) the fats in such as butter, and it was supposed to be “good for your health”–only to find out the exact opposite, with the same groups then pushing FOR trans-fats now pushing BANS on it!
This woman is really scary–she sounds like she’s better than most of us because she “know better” about the “right” things to do; she thinks that the companies, websites, etc. that cater to big people for clothes, chairs, household items, etc. are “enablers” (whatever THAT may mean!), and to her that would be a “bad thing” too…which needs to be taxed on top of the (extra) cost of big clothes, chairs, etc. Is that next?

By: Darleen Click

Darleen Click — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 02:19:28 +0000

This woman has no clue why someone would rather buy a box of GS cookies rather than just fork over $1-5. People like something for their money, even if they are buying knowing some portion is going to charity. Ditto school bake/candy sales. Kids have no problem forking over 50 cents to a $1 for a cupcake but will refuse to just donate the $1 otherwise.

Schools are dead wrong in banning bake/candy sales. It is whacko enough that when my twin grandsons had their 6th b-day, their mom was told she could NOT bring cupcakes to their kindergarten class. You know, nothing says “Happy Birthday” like sugar-free Jello cups.

By: Lee Brink

Lee Brink — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 15:16:02 +0000

Stossel has one thing wrong: New York State does NOT specifically tax soda. It is covered by the normal NYS sales tax because it is not classified as “food”.

That is different from the ATTEMPTS to tax SUGARED soda and not DIET soda. It’s a Patterson gimmick to cover the massive tax shortfall, but do far the legislature hasn’t passed it.