The article seems to be shittily written in my opinion but I figure if you watch the video (about a minute) it will get the point across.

My question lies in, do you think this will benefit the health of the people moving forward, or do you fear it being weaponized to endorse or threaten companies to comply with the mention of Kennedy being tied to its future as mentioned in the end of the article

  • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 hours ago

    Then remove the fucking subsidies! What you’re proposing is that taxpayer money in the form of subsidies goes into the pockets of wealthy agricultural corporations, and then more tax payer money in the form of sin taxes goes to the government to purchase those products, which the government turns around and gives right back to the same corporations. Sheesh! Should we tip them too while we’re at it?

    • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 hours ago

      “Repeal farm subsidies” is one of the few things you could walk into congress and have overwhelming opposition to from both sides.

    • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      I didn’t propose anything.

      But your summary makes absolutely no sense. A tax on manufactured corn syrup after subsidizing corn is functionally the same thing as removing the subsidy for just corn used to make corn syrup.