Of Tea Party folks and Racial Slurs...

[quote name='SpazX']Playing a video game is not inherently unhealthy. A soda is. Have you read that part of what I've said yet?[/QUOTE]

It's been what? 3 pages? I'm pretty sure he hasn't and isn't going to.

It is clear he thinks taxes of a certain food product are bad, but subsidies towards the manufacture of a certain food product are good.

When faced with somebody who won't process information, is there a point to continue discussion?

Any lurkers following this discussion won't side with Knoell.
 
I think its sad to see what has taken place to the Tea Parties. There is the Ron Paul group and then the Neocon Sarah Palin group who supports a larger Military, more government spending, more bills like the patriot Act, NAFTA, and GATT.

I have a feeling the good side will win out.
 
[quote name='IRHari']I think someone already mentioned this but it's a usage tax. If you don't use it don't worry about it.[/QUOTE]

When they came for the smokers, I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a smoker...
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']It's been what? 3 pages? I'm pretty sure he hasn't and isn't going to.

It is clear he thinks taxes of a certain food product are bad, but subsidies towards the manufacture of a certain food product are good.

When faced with somebody who won't process information, is there a point to continue discussion?

Any lurkers following this discussion won't side with Knoell.[/QUOTE]

Sigh, you know corn subsidies do more than give a discount to make HFCS products. Farmers would not survive with out them, what do you propose you replace them with?
 
[quote name='SpazX']Playing a video game is not inherently unhealthy. A soda is. Have you read that part of what I've said yet?[/QUOTE]

Sitting on a couch for an hour is not unhealthy. Neither is drinking a can of pop.

Ive heard what you said and you dont make sense. Any physician will tell you that a healthy diet, AND exercise will lead to a healthy lifestyle, they are not mutually exclusive, you need them both. Get it?

why are you fighting a tax that will help people get out of the house, and those who dont want to get out will just pay more? What is so bad about the government collecting money to help people with obesity?
 
[quote name='Knoell']Sitting on a couch for an hour is not unhealthy. Neither is drinking a can of pop.[/QUOTE]

The first part is good, the second isn't.

[quote name='Knoell']Ive heard what you said and you dont make sense. Any physician will tell you that a healthy diet, AND exercise will lead to a healthy lifestyle, they are not mutually exclusive, you need them both. Get it?

why are you fighting a tax that will help people get out of the house, and those who dont want to get out will just pay more? What is so bad about the government collecting money to help people with obesity?[/QUOTE]

Like I said before, getting out of the house isn't exercise. Also, playing video games isn't exercise and not playing video games isn't exercise.

Drinking soda is drinking soda and not drinking soda is not drinking soda. A tax on video games is indirect, a tax on soda is direct. Soda is liquid sugar (well, water and a lot of sugar), it's not healthy. More is less healthy, less is less unhealthy, none is healthy.

I have to ask, do you think smoking one cigarette a day is healthy? Just one? Is there a certain number where it becomes unhealthy? Or is it inherently unhealthy? I imagine you don't support taxes on them, but do you think they're actually healthy in moderation?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']It's been what? 3 pages? I'm pretty sure he hasn't and isn't going to.

It is clear he thinks taxes of a certain food product are bad, but subsidies towards the manufacture of a certain food product are good.

When faced with somebody who won't process information, is there a point to continue discussion?

Any lurkers following this discussion won't side with Knoell.[/QUOTE]

Now that's something I can agree to...
 
[quote name='SpazX']Playing a video game is not inherently unhealthy. A soda is. Have you read that part of what I've said yet?[/QUOTE]

You guys are going in circles.

See, here is the problem with your argument here. You guys are arguing over what's bad for you and what isn't. That's immaterial. What matters is, does the government think it's bad for you? Do you trust the government to decide what's bad for you? Do you support the government being your de facto parent and confiscating your allowance when you do something bad for you, like drink soda or not exercise?

The fact is, I don't trust the government with those kinds of responsibilities. Quite frankly, given the dismal record of the government on this sort of thing, I'm shocked that anyone does. It's also very funny that the vast majority of this forum are completely in favor of the legalization of marijuana, for example, but are also okay with heavy taxes on drinking soda. That makes, er, perfect sense to a chimp.

In any case, you should also realize that the government already thinks video games are bad for you. Why is California's video game law being taken to the Supreme Court? Why does Senator Lieberman every year get together with family busybody groups to denounce the "10 most horrible games this year"? Notwithstanding the moral argument that this is none of the government's business (and it isn't), it's foolish to believe that the logic you use wouldn't be applied to video games in the near future for heavy taxation.

EDIT: BTW, I am fully in agreement with myke's and FOC's ideas to end subsidies for HFCS and the like. Let's end all food subsidies and let the real cost be shown. If the real cost of soda or whatever product is higher as a result, so be it. If I want to drink a can of soda, the government has no business subsidizing it.
 
[quote name='SpazX']The first part is good, the second isn't.



Like I said before, getting out of the house isn't exercise. Also, playing video games isn't exercise and not playing video games isn't exercise.

Drinking soda is drinking soda and not drinking soda is not drinking soda. A tax on video games is indirect, a tax on soda is direct. Soda is liquid sugar (well, water and a lot of sugar), it's not healthy. More is less healthy, less is less unhealthy, none is healthy.

I have to ask, do you think smoking one cigarette a day is healthy? Just one? Is there a certain number where it becomes unhealthy? Or is it inherently unhealthy? I imagine you don't support taxes on them, but do you think they're actually healthy in moderation?[/QUOTE]

How do buying ten video games, and buying 10 12 packs of pop differ? You are paying the tax for each one before you consume. You are then making the concious choice to either sit on the couch and play those 10 games for hours on end, or drinking the 10 12 packs in a row, or both.
You may also make the choice to only play 1 game, or only drink 1 can or both. You may choose to get up and get outside and exercise in between games, or you may choose to have a glass of water instead of the second can of pop.

They are the same situations, each one has conditions in which you dont have to consume them.

Stop making excuses, you can at least admit that raising the price of video games artificially through taxes would get less people to buy them which means less people would be getting fat by not moving around. Why are you against this? it is your own tax that is there "to help discourage people from unhealthy activities while raising money to combat related diseases"
 
[quote name='elprincipe']You guys are going in circles.

See, here is the problem with your argument here. You guys are arguing over what's bad for you and what isn't. That's immaterial. What matters is, does the government think it's bad for you? Do you trust the government to decide what's bad for you? Do you support the government being your de facto parent and confiscating your allowance when you do something bad for you, like drink soda or not exercise?

The fact is, I don't trust the government with those kinds of responsibilities. Quite frankly, given the dismal record of the government on this sort of thing, I'm shocked that anyone does. It's also very funny that the vast majority of this forum are completely in favor of the legalization of marijuana, for example, but are also okay with heavy taxes on drinking soda. That makes, er, perfect sense to a chimp.

In any case, you should also realize that the government already thinks video games are bad for you. Why is California's video game law being taken to the Supreme Court? Why does Senator Lieberman every year get together with family busybody groups to denounce the "10 most horrible games this year"? Notwithstanding the moral argument that this is none of the government's business (and it isn't), it's foolish to believe that the logic you use wouldn't be applied to video games in the near future for heavy taxation.[/QUOTE]

Thank you. This is where I was going from the beginning, but he sidetracked me.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']You guys are going in circles.

See, here is the problem with your argument here. You guys are arguing over what's bad for you and what isn't. That's immaterial. What matters is, does the government think it's bad for you? Do you trust the government to decide what's bad for you? Do you support the government being your de facto parent and confiscating your allowance when you do something bad for you, like drink soda or not exercise?

The fact is, I don't trust the government with those kinds of responsibilities. Quite frankly, given the dismal record of the government on this sort of thing, I'm shocked that anyone does. It's also very funny that the vast majority of this forum are completely in favor of the legalization of marijuana, for example, but are also okay with heavy taxes on drinking soda. That makes, er, perfect sense to a chimp.

In any case, you should also realize that the government already thinks video games are bad for you. Why is California's video game law being taken to the Supreme Court? Why does Senator Lieberman every year get together with family busybody groups to denounce the "10 most horrible games this year"? Notwithstanding the moral argument that this is none of the government's business (and it isn't), it's foolish to believe that the logic you use wouldn't be applied to video games in the near future for heavy taxation.

EDIT: BTW, I am fully in agreement with myke's and FOC's ideas to end subsidies for HFCS and the like. Let's end all food subsidies and let the real cost be shown. If the real cost of soda or whatever product is higher as a result, so be it. If I want to drink a can of soda, the government has no business subsidizing it.[/QUOTE]

That's not what we've been arguing. He asked me if I would support a 20% tax on video games, saying that it's the same situation and I've been trying to explain the difference to him. Whether the government does one thing or another against your will depends on your control of the government. You don't have to "trust" them to do anything, that's a choice you can make.

Saying one tax inevitably leads to another is a slippery slope unless you have some real reason to connect them. Taxes on cigarettes have been around for quite a while and you could say that they will use the same logic to tax video games too, so it's unnecessary to say that using the same logic as a soda tax they could tax video games if you believe that's the same logic ("bad" thing taxed) And as I explain here and have before, taxing video games vs. soda or cigarettes is not the same logic, not by me.

[quote name='Knoell']How do buying ten video games, and buying 10 12 packs of pop differ? You are paying the tax for each one before you consume. You are then making the concious choice to either sit on the couch and play those 10 games for hours on end, or drinking the 10 12 packs in a row, or both.
You may also make the choice to only play 1 game, or only drink 1 can or both. You may choose to get up and get outside and exercise in between games, or you may choose to have a glass of water instead of the second can of pop.

They are the same situations, each one has conditions in which you dont have to consume them.

Stop making excuses, you can at least admit that raising the price of video games artificially through taxes would get less people to buy them which means less people would be getting fat by not moving around. Why are you against this? it is your own tax that is there "to help discourage people from unhealthy activities while raising money to combat related diseases"[/QUOTE]

I've already addressed this - not playing video games doesn't equal exercise in the same way that not drinking soda equals not drinking soda. Again you haven't addressed the inherent unhealthiness in one versus the other. The only situation where soda is good for you is when you don't consume it. The only situation where playing video games is bad for you is if you're not doing anything else to exercise.

Yes, taxing video games would probably lead to fewer people buying video games, but that's it, it wouldn't get them to exercise. Taxing soda would probably lead to fewer people buying soda, which is itself the goal. The soda is itself the unhealthy thing you want people to consume less of, in the case of video games it's simply the opposite of what you think people should do more of. Direct, indirect. Therefore I think it makes more sense to tax soda, I would support that tax vs. the other. They are not the same thing.
 
[quote name='SpazX']That's not what we've been arguing. He asked me if I would support a 20% tax on video games, saying that it's the same situation and I've been trying to explain the difference to him. Whether the government does one thing or another against your will depends on your control of the government. You don't have to "trust" them to do anything, that's a choice you can make.

Saying one tax inevitably leads to another is a slippery slope unless you have some real reason to connect them. Taxes on cigarettes have been around for quite a while and you could say that they will use the same logic to tax video games too, so it's unnecessary to say that using the same logic as a soda tax they could tax video games if you believe that's the same logic ("bad" thing taxed) And as I explain here and have before, taxing video games vs. soda or cigarettes is not the same logic, not by me.



I've already addressed this - not playing video games doesn't equal exercise in the same way that not drinking soda equals not drinking soda. Again you haven't addressed the inherent unhealthiness in one versus the other. The only situation where soda is good for you is when you don't consume it. The only situation where playing video games is bad for you is if you're not doing anything else to exercise.

Yes, taxing video games would probably lead to fewer people buying video games, but that's it, it wouldn't get them to exercise. Taxing soda would probably lead to fewer people buying soda, which is itself the goal. The soda is itself the unhealthy thing you want people to consume less of, in the case of video games it's simply the opposite of what you think people should do more of. Direct, indirect. Therefore I think it makes more sense to tax soda, I would support that tax vs. the other. They are not the same thing.[/QUOTE]

Just the first page of google.
http://children.webmd.com/news/20040702/video-games-tv-double-childhood-obesity-risk
http://www.healthcentral.com/drdean/408/60891.html
http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/health/2933099/detail.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/040318073351.htm
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/topics/obesity/calltoaction/fact_adolescents.htm
http://www.emedicinehealth.com/obesity_in_children/article_em.htm
http://www.health.am/ab/more/do-video-games-lead-to-obesity/

If video games do not cause obesity why do all these health professionals say to not let your children play games so much and let them get outside. If video games were more expensive wouldn't parents be less inclined to buy them for their children? Im not saying this logic is correct, but it is the same logic that is being used when proposing the sugary drinks tax.

Not that I agree that video games cause obesity, I think obesity is caused by a number of combined factors, not just simply pop, and not just simply inactivity. If you are going to tax one supposed cause of obesity, why not nip the problem in the bud and tax them all? I just want to know how you cannot see the governmnet proposing a tax like this in the future?
 
[quote name='Knoell']If video games do not cause obesity why do all these health professionals say to not let your children play games so much and let them get outside.[/QUOTE]

It's unbelievable how motherfucking dumbtarded you are.
 
How so? At least know the issue before you discount that it will never happen.
http://www.suite101.com/blog/solidbob/a_tax_on_violent_games
http://www.heartland.org/full/25345/Pennsylvania_Considers_Sin_Tax_on_Some_Video_Games.html
http://reason.com/archives/2008/05/01/sin-tax-creep

In case you guys are too lazy to look at the links.

Instead of piling on the usual culprits, alcohol and tobacco, the coalition wants to impose a 1 percent tax on television sets and video games, agents of vice that presumably leave children inside. (Other politicians want to use such gimmicks to require kids to stay inside. In December a Wisconsin state senator proposed a video game tax to fund a juvenile detention program.)

Pennsylvania lawmakers are pondering whether to add violent video games to the list of products subject to state “sin taxes.”

The great majority of states place surtaxes on alcohol and cigarettes, purportedly to discourage drinking and smoking. The Children and Youth Committee of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives discussed imposing such a tax on video games during a March 6 hearing in Philadelphia.

The proposal involves a 5 percent tax on the sales of violent games, with revenues going to a program teaching parents about voluntary video game ratings.

They went after the smokers and the drinkers. They want to go after those who enjoy McDonald's and Oreo cookies. Now there's been discussion of a sin tax for violent video games in Vermont​


 
None of those three make the argument 'just like fast food makes you fat, video games make you sit on your ass and gain weight. therefore we are going to tax this bad behavior.'

In fact one of them makes an argument about ratings. Another one (in New Mexico, I think?) was to raise revenue for the state, lawl.

If you're going to make the bullshit argument, then its your job to cite the bullshit articles. I'm not doing your job for you.
 
[quote name='SpazX']That's not what we've been arguing. He asked me if I would support a 20% tax on video games, saying that it's the same situation and I've been trying to explain the difference to him. Whether the government does one thing or another against your will depends on your control of the government. You don't have to "trust" them to do anything, that's a choice you can make.

Saying one tax inevitably leads to another is a slippery slope unless you have some real reason to connect them. Taxes on cigarettes have been around for quite a while and you could say that they will use the same logic to tax video games too, so it's unnecessary to say that using the same logic as a soda tax they could tax video games if you believe that's the same logic ("bad" thing taxed) And as I explain here and have before, taxing video games vs. soda or cigarettes is not the same logic, not by me.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I know what you were arguing. And yes, it is going in circles. The real argument between you is what I stated.

It's not a slippery slope at all. Sin taxes used to include cigarettes and alcohol. Now they are in the process of being expanded, or attempted expansion, to things like soda or fattening foods. That already shows us where the path goes on this sort of thing. Why would video games not be down that path? Because they are not foods? I just don't see the logic in that argument, and plenty of figures in government already have shown themselves more than ready to impose regulations (and surely taxes) on video games.
 
It isn't the video games that are bad for you, it's sitting on your ass and only moving your fingers that is. You'd get the same effect if you sat on your ass all day reading books.Though at least you'd learn something from reading.

Soda directly effects you by adding calories to your daily caloric intake.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Calories aren't bad for you.[/QUOTE]
Not themselves of course, but if you aren't burning those calories they're stored as fat. Not to mention all the other shit that soda has in it that can dehydrate you or otherwise mess up your urinary tract. Ask a urologist about how soda can effect you.
 
It really pisses me off that these fuckers seem to think they somehow own revolutionary imagery and symbolism. The Sam Adams Alliance? Come the fuck on.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Not themselves of course, but if you aren't burning those calories they're stored as fat. Not to mention all the other shit that soda has in it that can dehydrate you or otherwise mess up your urinary tract. Ask a urologist about how soda can effect you.[/QUOTE]

I would be surprised if there was a urologist who would speak out against the occasional soda.

It's all about moderation. Yes, too much soda is bad for you. Too much of virtually anything is bad for you.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Not themselves of course, but if you aren't burning those calories they're stored as fat. Not to mention all the other shit that soda has in it that can dehydrate you or otherwise mess up your urinary tract. Ask a urologist about how soda can effect you.[/QUOTE]

So how do you burn those calories? What could the government possibly think would be hindering you from burning those calories? Wouldn't raising the tax on television and video games make staying in the house far less attractive?

Im not arguing that these taxes work, I dont think they do lol nor do I think that video games are bad for your health, but this IS most certainly the way the government thinks.

Diet soda has everything regular soda has except the sugar. Why are they not taxing diet too then? And for that matter, what about coffee?

And if your problem lies with the empty calories tell me why these arent taxed.
Candies
Gums
Chocolate bars
White bread
White rice
Pastries
Cakes
Biscuits
White pasta
Refined cereals
Mayonnaise
Mustard
Fast Food
Flavored low sugar drinks.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Sigh, you know corn subsidies do more than give a discount to make HFCS products. Farmers would not survive with out them, what do you propose you replace them with?[/QUOTE]

Yes, the article you linked to many pages ago stated farmers use the suppressed price of corn to feed more cows, pigs and chicken.

If the price of corn was suppressed, the price of beef, pork and poultry would go up. That would cause people to eat less calorie-rich foods such as meats and more calorie-poor foods such as vegetables.

http://www.mayyoubehappy.com/caloricdensity1.html

Before you went off on your bullshit tangent of taxing video games, you ignored my simple question of "Do you know what happens when you eat more meat and less vegetables?" twice. The link above can give you an idea.

Now, I would be more than happy to review your data about how many farmers would go belly up without corporate welfare.

I would also like to know how it is more efficient and better for the free market to provide enough welfare for these inefficient farmers to own and operate a farm and all of its equipment such as tractors and combines than, say, some food stamps.

However, I'm sure you're far too busy figuring out where to move the target next.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Yes, the article you linked to many pages ago stated farmers use the suppressed price of corn to feed more cows, pigs and chicken.

If the price of corn was suppressed, the price of beef, pork and poultry would go up. That would cause people to eat less calorie-rich foods such as meats and more calorie-poor foods such as vegetables.

http://www.mayyoubehappy.com/caloricdensity1.html

Before you went off on your bullshit tangent of taxing video games, you ignored my simple question of "Do you know what happens when you eat more meat and less vegetables?" twice. The link above can give you an idea.

Now, I would be more than happy to review your data about how many farmers would go belly up without corporate welfare.

I would also like to know how it is more efficient and better for the free market to provide enough welfare for these inefficient farmers to own and operate a farm and all of its equipment such as tractors and combines than, say, some food stamps.

However, I'm sure you're far too busy figuring out where to move the target next.[/QUOTE]

From what I know corn prices are already low, and people still arent eating their vegetables. What do you suggest we do? A little more detailed than your standard " get rid of corporate welfare" please.
 
[quote name='Knoell']From what I know corn prices are already low, and people still arent eating their vegetables. What do you suggest we do? A little more detailed than your standard " get rid of corporate welfare" please.[/QUOTE]

I don't have to go into more detail than "get rid of corporate welfare". Corporate welfare is a huge component of the problem. Here's some proof for you to ignore.

http://www.good.is/post/why-does-a-salad-cost-more-than-a-big-mac/

http://user.cloudfront.goodinc.com/community/andrewprice/saladbigmac.jpg

saladbigmac.jpg


"That makes meat and dairy artificially cheap, so we end up consuming more of it than we should, and getting fatter."

I know it is hard for you to follow many things. So, I want to get rid of the subsidies and let the real price of food occur.

If your $1 cheeseburger suddenly costs $3, you have an $2 incentive to pay $1 for a can of vegetables, drive home and cook them.

Before you go off on some tangent about how I want raise the price of junk food, I'm simply in favor of the free market price instead of the artificially low price created by corporate welfare.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Before you go off on some tangent about how I want raise the price of junk food, I'm simply in favor of the free market price instead of the artificially low price created by corporate welfare.[/QUOTE]

This.

Government picking and choosing which foods to tax is just as bad as the government picking and choosing which foods to subsidize.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']This.

Government picking and choosing which foods to tax is just as bad as the government picking and choosing which foods to subsidize.[/QUOTE]

Isn't it weird that you and mykevermin are advocating less government spending here and one of the Tea Party's supposed planks is for less government spending, but Knoell is in favor of more government spending here?
 
veggies should be cheaper than meat and milk but they aren't. I think I paid $4 something just to get two good tomatoes, when I could have bought a 1lb of beef and a jug of milk and probably still had money left over for some cheap corn chips.

Subsides need to go.
 
Companies like McDonald's would fight that tooth and nail. How else can they make the shit they sell so cheap, not that I'd mind myself, but these restaurants have money to fight things like this.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']This.

Government picking and choosing which foods to tax is just as bad as the government picking and choosing which foods to subsidize.[/QUOTE]

If people would look past the rhetoric and at actions in this area, they would see that many politicians who claim to be all for capitalism and free markets aren't really for that when some of their constituents would lose government $$$. Both parties are neck deep on this one (surprise).
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Isn't it weird that you and mykevermin are advocating less government spending here and one of the Tea Party's supposed planks is for less government spending, but Knoell is in favor of more government spending here?[/QUOTE]

Trust me, I am for limited or less government spending, but I am also for necessary spending, and Im not an expert on subsidies so bear with me.

Your chart shows that there is .37% spending on fruits and vegetables in total subsidies for all foods. Unless im misunderstanding it then fruits and vegetables really dont even qualify for subsidies correct? Then what is stopping the price from becoming true on its own? Is it just meat subsidies that are stopping people from buying vegetables? I am doubtful that it is. I know you are saying if the price of meat goes up people will buy more vegetables, but is there evidence of this relationship? if tomatoes are $4 dollars, and a hamburger is a dollar, if we take out subsidies wont tomatoes fall to $2 dollars and a hamburger rise to $3? I dont know about you, but when I go to eat lunch a hamburger sounds alot better than 3 or 4 tomatoes for lunch regardless of the price.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Trust me, I am for limited or less government spending, but I am also for necessary spending, and Im not an expert on subsidies so bear with me.

Your chart shows that there is .37% spending on fruits and vegetables in total subsidies for all foods. Unless im misunderstanding it then fruits and vegetables really dont even qualify for subsidies correct? Then what is stopping the price from becoming true on its own? Is it just meat subsidies that are stopping people from buying vegetables? I am doubtful that it is. I know you are saying if the price of meat goes up people will buy more vegetables, but is there evidence of this relationship? if tomatoes are $4 dollars, and a hamburger is a dollar, if we take out subsidies wont tomatoes fall to $2 dollars and a hamburger rise to $3? I dont know about you, but when I go to eat lunch a hamburger sounds alot better than 3 or 4 tomatoes for lunch regardless of the price.[/QUOTE]

Surely you're not arguing that subsidizing foods that you enjoy as opposed to those you don't is "necessary" spending? If you want a hamburger, great, there should be no government interference in that personal choice. That includes subsidizing your purchase. I certainly don't need the government to attempt to influence such personal choices, and I'm dismayed to see so many on this thread supporting such an intrusion on personal freedom.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Surely you're not arguing that subsidizing foods that you enjoy as opposed to those you don't is "necessary" spending? If you want a hamburger, great, there should be no government interference in that personal choice. That includes subsidizing your purchase. I certainly don't need the government to attempt to influence such personal choices, and I'm dismayed to see so many on this thread supporting such an intrusion on personal freedom.[/QUOTE]

Im not saying the subsidizing is necessary spending, but he lists one of the benefits of cutting it is people will eat more vegetables. Is there evidence to support this is all Im asking. Would we have to tax burgers in order to get that effect?
 
[quote name='Knoell']Im not saying the subsidizing is necessary spending, but he lists one of the benefits of cutting it is people will eat more vegetables. Is there evidence to support this is all Im asking. Would we have to tax burgers in order to get that effect?[/QUOTE]

A basic rule of economics is that when something becomes more expensive, demand lessens because less people can afford it, and vice versa. Ergo, were vegetables less expensive and meat more expensive, yes, absolutely I'd expect to see more vegetable consumption and less meat consumption, or at least proportionally more vegetable consumption. Why would you think differently?
 
I still find this reasoning kind of funny. People be pissed off that they smell smokers and impose a a sin tax and this is fine for most of the country. However if someone were to try to subsidize better foods to promote health, it's an invasion on personal freedoms.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']A basic rule of economics is that when something becomes more expensive, demand lessens because less people can afford it, and vice versa. Ergo, were vegetables less expensive and meat more expensive, yes, absolutely I'd expect to see more vegetable consumption and less meat consumption, or at least proportionally more vegetable consumption. Why would you think differently?[/QUOTE]

Because vegetable prices are already fairly low. They may decrease a bit more but I dont think the drop would be significant enough to increase consumption over meat even if meats price rises.

Anyways wouldnt that just create the opposite problem? Unless you are on a very well developed and rounded vegetarian diet, you definately need meat as much as you need vegetables.
 
You could not live in a world with dollar cheeseburgers without massive subsidies knoell.

Ever read Fastfood Nation, watch Food Inc.?
 
[quote name='Knoell']Because vegetable prices are already fairly low. They may decrease a bit more but I dont think the drop would be significant enough to increase consumption over meat even if meats price rises.

Anyways wouldnt that just create the opposite problem? Unless you are on a very well developed and rounded vegetarian diet, you definately need meat as much as you need vegetables.[/QUOTE]

Do you see what you did there?

We took an idea and moved it a small step.

Then, you took the idea and walked it to the other end of the spectrum.

Imposing the real cost of food on the consumer isn't going to turn everybody into vegans and you should know that.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Anyways wouldnt that just create the opposite problem? Unless you are on a very well developed and rounded vegetarian diet, you definately need meat as much as you need vegetables.[/QUOTE]

Vegetarian isn't too bad really, if you eat eggs and dairy you're pretty much good, especially considering the vitamin additives they put in things now. It's a little more difficult to pull off a good vegan diet unless you have a good variety of foods available to you. All you're really looking for from the meat is protein, calcium, iron, and B12 (might be missing one or two things). And B12 can be stored in your body for quite a while, so it's not that big of a deal.

In any case most Americans could eat like 10% of the meat they currently do and they'd still have everything they need nutritionally.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']I still find this reasoning kind of funny. People be pissed off that they smell smokers and impose a a sin tax and this is fine for most of the country. However if someone were to try to subsidize better foods to promote health, it's an invasion on personal freedoms.[/QUOTE]

Subsidizing food isn't invading personal freedoms, although it is bad policy as it promotes government interference in an area the government has no business interfering in. I think the complaint about personal freedoms being violated is more about taxing foods and other things the government doesn't like (because, as we all know, government knows best and should act as our parent).

Smoking is a different thing as you are now talking about harming someone else's health through your actions, unless you mean smoking in the privacy of your own home. I'm sure this will again move this topic further OT, but personally, I don't think anyone has the right to smoke where I have to breathe their disgusting pollution in. If you want to smoke, fine, just make sure you are only harming yourself.

[quote name='Knoell']Because vegetable prices are already fairly low. They may decrease a bit more but I dont think the drop would be significant enough to increase consumption over meat even if meats price rises.

Anyways wouldnt that just create the opposite problem? Unless you are on a very well developed and rounded vegetarian diet, you definately need meat as much as you need vegetables.[/QUOTE]

You're confusing what I am arguing (no subsidies) with the promotion of vegetarianism, something I don't practice and wouldn't suggest to anyone, although people should be free to do as they choose.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Subsidizing food isn't invading personal freedoms, although it is bad policy as it promotes government interference in an area the government has no business interfering in.[/quote]

To put it in right wing titty baby terms, it is violating my freedom by taking away my money and giving it to others without the courtesy of asking my permission first.

I think the complaint about personal freedoms being violated is more about taxing foods and other things the government doesn't like (because, as we all know, government knows best and should act as our parent).
Click to expand...

No one cares.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I'm sure this will again move this topic further OT, but personally, I don't think anyone has the right to smoke where I have to breathe their disgusting pollution in. If you want to smoke, fine, just make sure you are only harming yourself.[/QUOTE]

Well, it's my topic and it hasn't been on topic for a long time, so let's go with this. ;)

I assume, when you say "where I have to breathe", you don't mean inside of buildings where the owners are okay with people smoking, right?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Do you see what you did there?

We took an idea and moved it a small step.

Then, you took the idea and walked it to the other end of the spectrum.

Imposing the real cost of food on the consumer isn't going to turn everybody into vegans and you should know that.[/QUOTE]

Sorry to be off topic again but I don't like to leave my views misinterpreted.

I didnt say that it was going to turn everyone into vegans, but you seem to think your end of the spectrum is correct and low meat prices, and supposedly high vegetable prices is making everyone eat too much meat. All I was asking was if the opposite would happen if meat prices suddenly spiked and vegetable prices fell?

Like me and a few other people were saying moderation is the key. After this discussion I do have to say the government should not be trying to micro manipulate our eating habits through subsidies or taxes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top