Re: Occupy America I wonder, do they still have home economic classes in highschools? I know mine didn't. Maybe those could focus on preparing nutritional meals. I honestly have no idea what happens in a class like that.
Re: Occupy America Look, I'm not saying I'm an expert healthy food chef or anything - but I know for a fact that I can feed more people on pasta and spam with cheese sauce than I can on fresh vegetables and lean fresh meat. And while I haven't made lunch for kids any time recently, I know that the food I would happily eat as a kid included some very cheap crap, and some much less cost effective healthy stuff. I'd certainly be better off if my mum had told me to shut the fuck up and eat the healthy but awful shit. But I understand why a parent wouldn't want to deal with a whiny ingrate child when they're struggling to make the budget work. Fuck it, feed them crap if it'll shut them up is an easy decision. Corn subsidies are bad IMO - because at a fundamental level it's the govt bailing out unprofitable businesses that are never going to become profitable. It prevents the land from ever being repurposed for something useful, it hinders the children of those farmers in finding a valid set of life skills and the protectionist policies that keep external markets from fairly competing keeps the third world from actually having an agricultural economy which fucks up the food supply in Africa. If it does contribute to the obesity problem - it's probably not as significant as the failure to regulate marketing aimed at children, and nutritional content of fast food. I understand that the American dream is partly about being into freedom of speech and freedom of choice, and expressing that by eating 10,000 calories in a sitting, 3 times a day. I too enjoyed Dennis Leary's performance in 'Demolition Man'. And I'm fine with that. I just don't see why that shouldn't first be taxed like cigarettes and alcohol, and second, be treated like any other unhealthy adult recreation, and considered inappropriate for children. If someone actually wants to do a for the children campaign that feels like they actually give a fuck about children's interests and not their own busy body repressed sexuality - lets start one that says feeding your kids unhealthy crap gets the same punishment as making your kids smoke cigars and drink rum and coke.
Re: Occupy America What's the health insurance industry's stance? I am not really familiar with their methods on this. Does your personal choice of smoking 3 packs a day mean you pay higher premiums? Do they do the same for morbidly obese people? Does the government just pick the the medicaid check unbaised to any poor persons eat/smoking/drinking habits (ie do they make the poor person pick up more of the tab if they are fat?) As I remember hearing under the new law companies' couldn't turn you down but also couldn't charge you any differently based on your health history (really really not sure where I heard this, not sure if its in any way true).
Re: Occupy America Being a poor college student isn't poverty, but it does teach you ways to eat cheap. If you buy in bulk, you can get by on pasta, rice, potatoes, chicken breasts, eggs, milk, cereal, frozen veggies and the occasional fruit pretty easily on even the most restricted budget. Is it an ideal diet? No, but it's orders of magnitude healthier than the dollar menu, and costs the same or less.
Re: Occupy America How is this not an ideal diet? Considering the alternative of nothing, this sounds like a no brainer to me. I'm willing to challenge ANYONE on this myth and willing to put money on this. Sometimes you've got to be creative and you might have to eat the same thing for left overs for lunch the next day, but you can eat way healthier for the same amount of money. Maybe it's just me but whenever I had very little money I would go through many a book and websites looking for recipes and ways to save money on my food bills. I was feeding both my girlfriend, my son (admittedly he was eating mostly breast milk at this point but still) and myself on $25 a week at one point and always had fresh foods and booze in my fridge at all times.
Re: Occupy America Yes, if you smoke you pay higher premiums with most companies. Some will not even cover you because youre a liability. The problem with taxing unhealthy food as opposed to smoking is whos going to go around and determine which food is healthy and which isnt? Is a nutrionist going to analyze the entire menu of every restaurant? Cigarettes and tobacco are pretty standardized as to what they are. But why on earth tax it anyway? To generate income? Thats the problem when the government controls the healthcare industry or any other industry: they can judge what you can and cant do based on cost. Its the ultimate monopoly, only it runs like well-oiled shit. If competition is open, the market will set the playing field one way or another. Everyone knows smoking is wrong. Everyone knows eating a shitload of fast food is wrong. The reason is the government gives you the information, and you get to decide. Killing entire industies via taxation because some government officials deemed them unhealthy for the masses is bullshit.
Re: Occupy America I'll weigh in on the food thing. Corn subsidies are pure bullshit, but they are entrenched. We need to end that shit. Corn has NO NUTRITIONAL VALUE. It's pure shit. I'm shocked how many people consider it a vegetable. What does corn make in this country? Corn syrup, corn chips, cheetos, fritos, bugles, more corn syrup, and shitty ass, 0 nutritional value corn flake cereal with a 1000% multi-vitamin added to fool you into thinking you are not eating pure crap. 99% of all cereals are pure crap and non-food. They are just outlets for the surplus of corn and cheap grains. Even pure corn straight off the cob has no nutritional value. But enough of that. As for food budgeting, the crap foods are much, MUCH cheaper than healthy foods. This is because you can buy non-foods and extremely cheap foods. Fast Food is more expensive than produce and meat, but produce and meat is more expensive than the cheapest shit you buy in the store. I challenge you to find any food in the grocery store that has more Calories Per Dollar than a 20 lb bag of white rice (rice is crap) or an economy size bag of pasta (excluding the expensive tomato sauce). Nothing in the entire store beats rice (2nd place) or pasta (1st place) in terms of calories per dollar. Nothing. Now pasta is shit food and will make you blow up like a balloon to boot, despite it being tasty in several Italian dishes. Also, I agree wholeheartedly that a poor person, or a stressed out person really, will readily buy 2 Tombstone pizzas and a 2 litre of Coke a lot more readily than healthy food. It's proven that poor people like having "mini luxuries" as well and this might manifest itself in pizza and soda.
Re: Occupy America I'd like to see food taxed in brackets determined by total calories, presence of trans or saturated fats, and glycemic index or glycemic load. Tax high calorie and high GI/GL foods above low calorie, low GI/GL foods, and tax the crap out of trans and saturated fats, with exceptions for whole, un preserved fruit and vegetables sold raw. Then required labeling of grocery items that requires a display as percentage of total daily intake for an average adult, GI in a nice color coded box so you can see if it's low/medium/high at a glance, and a warning label if it has any trans or saturated fats. Anyone with a smart phone who passed 5th grade math can figure out a typical restraunt menu's calorie counts and GI/GL in a day, two tops. Two days to figure out major new tax implications for your business is nothing. And really, fuck the income. The taxes are there to discourage undesirable behavior and encourage desirable behavior. Any revenue generated from it will be trivial compared to the amount of money McDonalds will spend marketing the benefits of fresh fruit and whole grains when they have a higher margin selling that shit, than pure sugar white bread with a side of fries.
Re: Occupy America That's correct only if you're buying an individual policy. If you get your insurance through your employer the premium you pay is based on the aggregate health of your group, which typically is the company. So if there's a lot of unhealthy people in your group that have a lot of medical bills you're going to be paying higher premiums even if you're the epitome of healthy living.
Re: Occupy America I dont know how it works in other countries, but the US Food and Drug Administration already requires nutritional labels on food you buy, along with a listing of all ingredients. Restaurants dont have to do it, but many do voluntarily. But why should the government encourage or discourage behavior at all? Unless its directly affecting the safety of someone else, (drunk driving, secondhand smoke, etc) it should stay away from lifestyle regulation. I dont understand the motivation behind it if not to generate tax revenue. The US has some huge problems right now, bureaucracy and over-regulation in some areas is one them. The last thing the government should be doing is inhibiting commerce by imposing more taxes, especially when the largest impact would be on people with lower income. I agree with providing the information on what theyre engaging in, but in the end, let them decide whether or not they do it.
Re: Occupy America I've stayed out of this thread because... well, just because. But I wanted to address the food stamp issue: THIS is one of the most glaring examples of wasteful spending, government ineptitude, and modern day slavery you could ever imagine. And I see it EVERY day, even more so now that The Wife has taken a new job with a government program where she deals with mostly, if not all, wellfare recipients. Ask yourself this simple question- what would be a reasonable amount of money for your monthly grocery bill? I have a family of three, and I probably spend somewhere between $400-$600 a month on our family's groceries. And with that, I eat pretty damn well. The Wife recently had to deal with an out-of-work single mother of two who "couldn't afford to clothe and bathe her kids and get ;em to school 'less the go-ment gave her mo money". Last month, she received $1350 in food stamps. $1300 and fifty fucking dollars. Think about how much you yourself could buy with $1350 a month in grocery money. Plus she received money from social security, as well as had her utilities paid for by a new program. I can't remember if she had her housing paid for or not. She's never had a job in her life. I can't tell you how many times I've gone to the grocery store and saw a group of people pushing around 2-3 grocery carts loaded up to overflowing with JUST meat. There was no more left on the shelves- the loaded up with almost everything in the meat section. And I saw with my own two eyes that every single penny of it was paid for with food stamps. I heard one lady say that one cart was separate, and contained just the meat that they intended to cook, all that very day, for the big BBQ they were planning. There was another woman who's kid complained to The Wife's office, because the woman would buy bare minimum groceries with her food card, and physically lock it in the pantry and freezer so that nothing could be eaten in the house unless she allowed it. Why did she do this? So that she could trade her almost-full food stamp card for drugs. Another couple, who both don't work, couldn't get their kids to school despite receiving a rough monthly total of somewhere around $3500 in government assistance. That's more money than I make. These are NOT extreme cases, or examples of "just the bad eggs". There are thousands upon thousands of people, who never plan to get a job or to try to better there situation (because why would they tell their kids to learn or work hard when they could make more money by doing nothing?), and who are perfectly content to sit back, accept their checks from Uncle Sam, and blame everything on "the big, bad rich people keeping them down". The government workers don't care about cutting off the wasteful spending and fraud at the source (who care's if you sprained your ankle 5 years ago? You still NEED this extra $800 in disability benefits! George Bush can't take THOSE away from you!), because why would they? It's not their money they are giving out- it all comes from the government! They have all the money in the world, and if we don't use it, someone else will! They'll continue to give out enough money to eat like a king, give themselves a pat on the back for helping out those poor little poor people, and then be glad the system is the way it is because at least it gives THEMSELVES a job. And not only that, but they scream for MORE programs (and the taxes to throw at them) and MORE regulations (Oooo! We could pay for these entitlement programs with a fat tax! Sweet! Nevermind the fact that people can buy all of the junkfood and coca-cola they want with food stamps! Hell, lets start letting fast food chains start taking 'em, too! Just throw some more Gov'met at it, that'll fix it!) What does this lead too? And entire class of people who are locked into an endless loop of poverty, but even better, they all blame someone else, and will by default continue to vote for the people who are giving them that poverty. And I'm done with this, because politics aggravate the hell out of me and I don't come here for that. No question that a lot of you have a completely different world view and will completely disagree with this. But this is what I have seen with my own experience, so take that for what you will. Oh, and these protestors are assholes.
Re: Occupy America I just wanted to address this real quick: With health care costs skyrocketing, one of the easiest ways to lower those costs is to encourage healthy living. The diseases associated with obesity are costing hospitals, insurance companies, and individuals untold amounts of money a year. Diabetes alone is probably racking up the costs. If raising the taxes on fatty, bullshit foods gets people to stop purchasing said food, and maybe choosing a healthy alternative, then not only are they generating revenue from the people with no self control who are going to end up taxing the health care system anyway, but they're helping save the health care system money from people who might be encouraged to live slightly more healthy. That is the same logic behind the taxes on cigarettes and alcohol. They are clearly unhealthy behaviors that lead to health problems and risks that inevitably cost our government and other health care systems money. There is no simpler way to say it: people who smoke, who eat a lot, and who drink a lot, tend to be unhealthy (except us invincible TiBers, of course). Those people who are making unhealthy choices end up costing health care systems and insurance companies money. Once insurance companies and the health care systems lose money, they jack up MY premiums and pass the costs on to me to help cover the costs of those fatties who are constantly in the hospital because of their "Diabetus" (side note: Seriously, Wilford Brimley? It is Diabetes, but Diebetus) or liver failure or lung cancer and emphysema, and that isn't even taking into account the people who are on medicaid and are obese, who we are paying for anyway. Why SHOULDN'T they pay a little bit more in taxes, when they're the ones who are going to inevitably end up using the system more? Meanwhile, the people who aren't using the system more (i.e. people who don't smoke or eat unhealthy foods constantly) aren't being taxed as much. It just balances things out. Besides, at the end of the day, these taxes aren't going to hurt a company like McDonalds. They've still got massive over seas sales and other markets, and people will still buy their stuff. It isn't as if the Tobacco companies are bleeding money since the high cigarette taxes kicked in, why would it be different for the fast food/junk food companies?
Re: Occupy America You eat meat, right? What do you think feeds livestock? It's corn-based ethanol that's bullshit.
Re: Occupy America MMMM corn fed beef..... Not that feeding them corn is healthy or isn't cheap, but damn is it good. All that I have read too also has gone along with your point that ethanol is the bigger source of pricing problems with corn subsidies than food.
Re: Occupy America I couldn't agree with you more. I was talking with my mother about this the other day when she was over for dinner. She does a lot of volunteer work through her church at soup kitchens and such, and ends up having conversations with the people who work there about the problems with welfare/ food stamps/ etc. As I see it, all of the issues stem from a serious disincentive to leave the helping hands of welfare and, in some cases, better yourself as a person. As BD said it, why would they ever want to? They can do nothing, and be paid handsomely--sometimes, as BD cited, better than those who actually work and support a family. As far as I'm concerned, someone needs to step in and say, "If you need our money, that's fine and we're happy to help you. But here are the rules..." Spoiler 1. Your food stamps will only buy you healthy food. If you go to the grocery store and you buy a bunch of fresh fruits and vegetables, some boneless chicken breasts, and various other items (off of the approved list), then food stamps will cover all of that. If you toss up four 2 liter bottles of Coke, half a dozen bags of Doritos, and a sheet cake at the register, you'll have to pick up those items on your dime. The government is no longer paying for junk food because eventually your unhealthy behavior will become a drag on our healthcare system as well. 2. You submit to a drug test monthly. We need to protect our investment in you and we do not want our money going towards your vice habits. If you have a drug problem upon entering the welfare system, we will provide services to help you. You will be given two chances. With the first violation, you will be given a warning and placed in drug rehabilitation counseling. The frequency of your drug tests will increase and will occur bi-monthly. The second time, you will be denied welfare for 6 months, after which time you will only be allowed to receive benefits if you pass a drug test and have proof of active attendance in a rehabilitation program. 3. Your food card can only be used by you and with a valid photo ID. You will not be allowed to trade anything for its use. 4. You will only receive bonus benefits for a maximum of two children. If you're expecting to use your body as a clown car, do not expect the government to pay for that. 5. Welfare is a temporary service. As such, we will provide job search assistance throughout the duration of your welfare period. Certain benchmarks will need to be met quarterly and annually. If education is an issue, we will provide GED/ Associates Programs at a subsidized cost in order to help you find a job that will provide a living wage. 6. We will not immediately cut aid in the event that you find a job. In order for you to become independently successful, we understand that savings and a nest-egg is important. Once you receive a job, we will adjust your payments (based on your annual income) so that you will continue to receive some aid for 6 months and create savings. To me, 1-4 above are a no brainer and should be standard. 5 and 6 do become a little dicey. 5 is tough because finding a job with a living wage is tough for everyone right now, especially the under-qualified. Perhaps some kind of benefit can be given to companies who hire out of this welfare pool, but most of those types of tax benefits still do not give enough incentive for companies to hire. 6, to me, should be another no brainer, but with the current system, it's really not from what I've heard. Without some sort of continued aid after the person receives a job, they will not be able to save as much, if any, and the likelihood that they'll need to revert back to government assistance is that much higher. Now, obviously this is all overly simplified and would probably require a larger infrastructure and more regulators, but it would be a step in the right direction.
Re: Occupy America OK, fine, one or two of them know what they're talking about: When people say things like this without any sort of qualifications or thinking about where the food in question is coming from, it shows they haven't spent much time looking at actual food options in poor neighborhoods. Anacostia and the Bronx aren't exactly full of farmer's markets and Whole Foods. When the closest place that sells fresh fruit is two bus rides away, it's a lot easier to choose unhealthy options. Obviously cases like the one BD mentioned exist, but there are a lot of factors at play here besides a sweet tooth and sloth. Without thinking about how to encourage healthy food vendors to actually exist/sell in poor neighborhoods (perhaps tax breaks for companies that sell healthy food in specified areas), this policy is just plain mean. Maybe then they'll ignore the healthy food and continue eating like crap, but it seems unfair to force them to choose food that no one sells in their area. Also, restricting benefits for more than 2 kids seems fine from a disincentivizing perspective, but what about once the kids are already here? It's not like they can say, "Well, that's not good, no more welfare money, crawl up back inside my vagina." It seems unfair to actual, existing children.
Re: Occupy America Maybe I'm a cold bastard, but "it's a lot easier to choose unhealthy options" just doesn't tug at my heartstrings. It's also a lot easier for people on welfare to not work, and just sit and collect while they eat hotdogs from the corner store. The easy way shouldn't necessarily be the norm. ETA There should be extenuating situations built in for existing children. While I didn't say it, I meant that to be for any new children--addressing the fact that many people seem to be content just popping out babies and watching their check increase.
Re: Occupy America Agreed. I thought of a few more steps: 7. Anyone on welfare or assistance can be subject to a random spot audit. If youre found with a HD TV and you bought it with welfare money, you lose your benefits after a certain number of infractions. 8. And, only a small few will agree with this, but those on welfare cant vote. People voting for in a system that may or may give them free money is a conflict of interest. Like I said, it's controversial...
Re: Occupy America This is totally starting to cross the no politics line, but how many people in the United States DON'T have some sort of financial bias when it comes to voting? The same argument could be made for restricting, say, the very wealthy from voting. Every person who pays taxes has the opportunity to get "free money" by certain voting patterns. What makes the welfare recipient voting to preserve his or her benefits inherently different from the millionaire voting to preserve his or her low tax rates? Disenfranchising the poor would make our political system evenly more heavily weighted towards the interests of the rich and politically powerful than it already is.