Comments about ‘Vernal smoothie shop owner charges $1 'liberal tax'’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Jan. 15 2013 9:40 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
The Rock
Federal Way, WA

If I had a business in a liberal state, I would move to a conservative state, lay off all my liberal employees and hire new employees in my new home.

Oh, wait, I have two businesses in Washington State (just a little left of center), but no employees. One of the businesses is a non profit business (not the way I planned it). I also have a job so I can't move.

I can dream!

Provo, UT

Well, it's Utah. Business should be reduced by only 26%.

Far East USA, SC

Completely the business owners prerogative.

But, could you imagine the outrage on Fox if this occurred in the reverse?

South Jordan, UT

This is an honest business man, and there aren't too many of those around anymore!

Bountiful, UT

Back in the 60's, foods like smoothies would have been considered liberal fare. Hippies (liberals) advocated eating fruits, and nuts and granola and not eating steak (conservative food).

As time has progressed, it is quite commonly accepted that the liberals were right, at least on food and also on the Vietnam war.

Susan in VA
Alexandria, VA

This just reinforces what I've felt for years ... that conservatives have gone off the deep end and feel it's their way or you pay (one way or the other). Can you imagine the Headlines if a liberal charged extra to conservative customers? Rush Limbaugh would have a field day putting this down if the shoe was on the other foot. Outrageous doesn't even begin to describe this.

Ogden, UT

Interesting concept, even if it isn't grounded in reality. I'm afraid I would do it a bit differently if it were my shop, though. Any conservative who openly admits that they and many other conservatives benefit from services provided by the federal government and/or can describe to me the non-existent GOP plan to balance the federal budget gets a free smoothie. Automatons like Mr. Peterson will be charged the $5 banality surcharge. I'm guessing I would collect a lot of surcharges but give away very few smoothies.

Draper, UT

@JoeBlow It IS happening in reverse. What do you think all the liberal whinging for "the rich" to pay "their fair share" is?

Burley, ID

He's got the right idea. If people could actually see and feel the pain of how much liberal / progressive ideas cost the country; they would think twice before voting for representatives that support such issues as:

Climate Change (AKA Global Warming or is it freezing?)
Environmentalism (Save the owl, the snail darter, a fish, etc.)
Free rent, food, health care (Though someone has to pay for it.)

If there was a way to force just those who support such ideas to have to pay for them, while the rest of us got a free ride, there would be a lot less liberal / progressive thinking around.

Oh wait a minute, that's already what they do to those of us who don't support such ideas!

Far East USA, SC

Ah yes, the poor, abused rich.

Let me ask you? If the deck is so stacked against this group how is it that
they have managed to amass a bigger and bigger percentage of this nations wealth.

Kind of hard to feel sorry for them.

Meadow Lark Mark

The sad thing is and what perhaps many refuse to accept is that we need a less powerful federal government and stronger state governments. The social programs should be administered by the States for their individual circumstances, and the federal government should be for national defense and repair of the interstate highways. The federal government has too much power that it abuses.

Bill Shakespeare
Salt Lake City, UT

He's pretty brave drawing the ire of the vast throngs of liberals in Vernal. He wouldn't be pandering to commonly held views for the sake of sales, now would he?

Bill Shakespeare
Salt Lake City, UT

RE: ravalens2

I don't think you'd like to live in a country where the rich aren't forced share with the poor. You'd have putrid city scapes and millions homeless savage vagabonds roaming the land, threatening you and your loved ones. But you would have lower taxes.

Burley, ID

I disagree, there would be no outrage at Fox. Why? Because they would support the idea that it's clearly the business owner's choice to decide how they want to price their products.

Fox would also want the government should stay out of it, and let the people decide if they wish to support such a business. I believe Fox would say, "Let them fail or succeed based on the merits of what they offer the public."

It's liberals and progressives who would force the owner to offer not only equal pricing to all, but free smoothies to those who can't afford to pay for them.

If you support liberal / progressive ideas then support them with your money, just keep your hands off of mine.

Burley, ID

"The poor abused rich."

Yes, you got that right, at least for those who report earned income.

For the year 2010, the top 10% of Americans paid 69.94% of the income taxes in the U.S. That's almost 70% of the income taxes paid. (Souce: U.S. Government)

If you increase it to the top 25% then those citizens are paid 86.34% of the income taxes for the year 2010.

The rest of us, (Yes, including me.) paid only about 14% of the taxes.

American Fork, UT


Well, that's a good start. But what he should do is give the liberals only have of what they paid for and then give the other half to someone else (or just throw it away).

I love how liberals get upset over this stuff - real life application of their beliefs isn't so good.

Eagle Mountain, UT

Perhaps he could have people vote with $1 to a jar that defends his viewpoint on energy, or one that opposes it. I am a conservative person who thinks all viewpoints in our country should be listened to with respect, not derision. It ought to be safe for all of us to speak our minds.

American Fork, UT

I'm a staunchly conservative Obama supporter. Gimme the discount, and maybe think about how counter productive it is to label people.

one old man
Ogden, UT

Great comment, catcrazed. You nailed it.

Burley, ID

Putrid landscapes and millions homeless?

I seriously doubt it. There would be more than enough savings to maintain our parks, cities and yes, even offer some help to those who through no fault of their own are unable to support themselves, if we eliminated the bloated government bureaucracy, unnecessary wars and kicked the undeserving off of welfare and government handouts.

There is a truism in government. Whatever you subsidize, you get more of.

Want more people on welfare? Then give it out like it was free candy. Want more federal debt? Keep providing free food, housing, health care, et cetera and it will surely happen.

I for one, cannot support the idea of kicking our debt down the road leaving our children and grandchildren to pay off what we so stupidly spent.

That, in my opinion is "taxation without representation;" since they don't have a voice in how we are spending their money.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments