this country is so f*cked up its not even funny.

[dohdough]

You mean the time when I would back every claim up with an external source while you just talked out of your ass? Yep I remember that.

Oh you mean those sources that only espouse conservative views?

If you had an iota of intellectual honesty, you'd realize that jumping face first into an abyss of conservative ideology is the action of an uncritical thinker. You're an ideologue. There is absolutely no evidence that would ever change your mind, so explain to me why in the hell I should go through the effort of writing an essay with citations when you're not even versed or care to be well versed in the issues to begin with?

Do you think that the Daily Mail, Huffington Post,and DailyKos are legitimate sources of unbiased information? Would you accept them as unbiased factual analyses? Of course you wouldn't, so why should I accept your sources? Do you believe in vampires because a book called Twilight says that they exist? You're such a joke, dude. Make sure you talk about praxeology when you go back to school. Good luck and the last word is yours cause I'm going to marathon Real Time.

 

[slidecage]

Slidecage: Ok, that's a fair point. I recall an argument against it, but I can't remember it right now so I'll concede the point.

Next, how much do you think your insurance will go up? Or did it? Because I'm pretty sure nothing has even taken effect yet, until October 1st.

Regarding the cost of the Obamacare premiums, the Obama administration projects it at $328 per month for a mid-level plan. I am hesitant to believe that, as the administration has every reason act optimistically. However, the Congressional Budget Office projects the mid-level at $390. Again, that's for a mid-level plan, so conceivably people can also find a lower-level plan with a higher deductible.

Your example of Medicaid is a poor one, because Obamacare hasn't done anything to it yet. The expanded coverage will occur next year, and states have the option to stick with the current levels of funding and eligibility.

And while you say people get it for free, even the poor pay taxes. Here's an article from Forbes, which I consider a right-leaning magazine since it ran stories called "beware who might tell on you cheating on your taxes." I figure if a right-leaning publication is going to say that the poor also pay taxes, it MUST be true, because a left-leaning publication would claim they pay even more.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2013/09/12/most-americans-do-indeed-pay-federal-taxes-including-the-poor/

https://www.healthcare.gov/

gives you an idea of what your going to pay.

now you enroll in OCT But it dont kick in till Jan but someone said you will be billed as soon as you join?

my health care went from 2200 to 3000 per year (around those numbers i think i posted them somewhere before i need to find them) i know im paying around 250 a month now what is almost a 40% jump. . I am no longer able to pay yearly (what i did) now im forced to pay monthly and pay a monthly bill charge (unless i want to pay online)

what does not add up though i check on that site if you make like 24999 in my state 85% of the entire cost is covered yet if you make 25,000 only 12% is covered

not sure what this means

Enter annual income (dollars) does that make the entire amount you MADE before any deductions or after all deductions. I made around 30k before but after i write off my miles it knocks me down to 18k

if its 30 k if i go here im looking at

2532 with only a write off of 24 bucks what gives me the middle plan for 2512 with no limit on out of pocket

IF i do 18k

2532 with a write off of 1760 what gives me the middle plan for 775 per year... with no limit on out of pocket

REMEMBER THE FIRST YEAR THERE IS NO LIMIT ON OUT OF POCKET ITS NOT FIXXED YET

also you noticed it says

You could receive a government tax credit subsidy of up to: 1760

MEANING YOUR GOING TO HAVE TO PAY THE ENTIRE 2600 bucks and then AT THE END OF 2014 you get to write off 1760 on your taxes. THIS IS NOTHING NEW PEOPLE WHO BUY THEIR INSURANCE NOW GET TO WRITE IT OFF ALREADY. (UNLESS THIS IS SOMETHING NEW AND IM TAKING IT FOR SOMETHING ELSE)

also how many people are really going to put their SS number into an system what is not even protected

sorry but have my own plan for 3000 with max out of pocket 1500

or buy the goverment plan for 2600 with no max out of pocket

i stick with my own plan if i can come up with the rest of the cash.

ALSO I wonder why the goverment plans your allowed to pay YEARLY YET if you go buy your own your FORCED INTO MONTHLY

 

[UncleBob]

Your first question is a misdirect. You are saying that if any abuse occurs (even 1%), it must be reformed? No system will be perfect.

Your question is a misdirect. It doesn't matter how much abuse there is - the system should be set up to strongly discourage and punish abuse. Any amount of abuse is unacceptable, as every dime of abuse not only harms those who legitimatly need help, but also encourages other folks to abuse the system.

You show a lot of disdain for the poor with your comments. I don't think their lives need to be more difficult, you don't care. Takes all kinds.

Not sure what makes you think I have "distain" for the poor. I have distain for those who abuse the system.

We need to increase the accessibility of healthy food before we force people to buy it. Nice small government mindset you have there BTW.

I purpose a system where manufacturers and stores are given a 100% choice on what foods to make and sell.

You propose a system where the government forces legislation that makes it illegal for them to make/sell certain foods.

Which one of those two options is "small government"?

As for increasing the amount of healthy foods, obviously, the requirements wouldn't be hardcore from the outset. It'd be something akin to gas mileage regulations - The best of the best would be approved from the start, with announcements made that starting Jan 1st, 2015, only food that meets X requirements will be accepted. Then, on Jan 1st 2017, Y requirements will be in place. It's that simple.

I don't think cost is a reason to freak out about helping people. You are the one who cares so much about saving taxpayer money with regard to food stamps.

You're putting words in my mouth. Where did I say that?

I would also like to subsidize small and organic farmers who use sustainable practices.

That's what we need... more farm subsidies...

None of my policies would eliminate the choices of consumers

Really?

Seriously I am all for limiting sugar and crappy ingredients in food.

Because this guy would beg to differ with you.

 

[willardhaven]

Your question is a misdirect. It doesn't matter how much abuse there is - the system should be set up to strongly discourage and punish abuse. Any amount of abuse is unacceptable, as every dime of abuse not only harms those who legitimatly need help, but also encourages other folks to abuse the system.

What are you arguing here? If you abuse SNAP (retailer or consumer) you face legal repercussions (felony or misdemeanor). Any amount of abuse is unacceptable? Do you think you're being realistic?

Not sure what makes you think I have "distain" for the poor. I have distain for those who abuse the system.

Not worried about "stress and embarrassment". Your hurt feelings are not my concern.

I'm sure we could dig up more instances from the other threads... Forgive me for possibly mixing up your comments with the other conservatives ranting in this thread.

You're putting words in my mouth. Where did I say that?

It's not so much making people behave more wisely. It's not wasting taxpayer funds on Pepsi and Sugar Smacks.

That's what we need... more farm subsidies...

Or replace existing subsidies with ones for those who actually need them.

None of my policies would eliminate the choices of consumers

Really?

willardhaven, on 26 Sept 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

Seriously I am all for limiting sugar and crappy ingredients in food.

Because this guy would beg to differ with you.

I'm actually going to push back at you on this one. Would limiting certain ingredients and setting limits on sugar really eliminate choices for customers?

 

[mrsilkunderwear]

Oh you mean those sources that only espouse conservative views?

If you had an iota of intellectual honesty, you'd realize that jumping face first into an abyss of conservative ideology is the action of an uncritical thinker. You're an ideologue. There is absolutely no evidence that would ever change your mind, so explain to me why in the hell I should go through the effort of writing an essay with citations when you're not even versed or care to be well versed in the issues to begin with?

Do you think that the Daily Mail, Huffington Post,and DailyKos are legitimate sources of unbiased information? Would you accept them as unbiased factual analyses? Of course you wouldn't, so why should I accept your sources? Do you believe in vampires because a book called Twilight says that they exist? You're such a joke, dude. Make sure you talk about praxeology when you go back to school. Good luck and the last word is yours cause I'm going to marathon Real Time.

Oh.. I am sorry I guess I won't quote HuffPo or CNN anymore. In all seriousness though just because the info is from a conservative website does not mean it is false. Believe it or not but sometimes they actually report the news.

Maybe I cannot convince you and thats ok but let me tell you a little bit more about myself. I come from a country that used to belong to a Soviet Union. I was a socialist until 2008 or 2009 but I have been becoming more conservative/libertarian ever since 2006. So I used to share your views and solutions but now it boils down to just views. Me and you agree on many things like helping the poor or gay marriage but in the end the approach is different. I turned because I actually started paying attention that current policies do not work and have not worked in other countries. Hence the change.

As I mentioned above I have quoted those sites before and will probably do so in the future. Are they biased? Of course, but once in a while they actually post some good things. I think HuffPo did a great piece on Rand Paul when he doing his fillibuster against drone use and many people in the comments completely supported him on the issue. What does that say about us, the people? We are not all different.

Good luck on your marathon, hope your thumbs are not too sore.

 

[Rasen]

Slidecage:

I figure there must be a limit on out-of-pocket, just that they haven't set it yet. Otherwise, there's no difference between being insured and not being insured.

As for the write-offs, I'm not sure how they'll play out yet. But if a person signs up in October and pays for the months of October through December, I'm not seeing a large problem with them at least being able to write off a portion of that, based on what they did pay. 

As for why a salary of $25000 can only cover 12%, versus 85% if at $24,999, that is one of the problems when a central authority tries to plan things. They simply set different tiers for different levels of coverage, and how close you are to the borders does not matter. It's the same way they define poverty levels or tax brackets. It's not even close to perfect, but that is how it works. 

 

[UncleBob]

What are you arguing here? If you abuse SNAP (retailer or consumer) you face legal repercussions (felony or misdemeanor). Any amount of abuse is unacceptable? Do you think you're being realistic?

Yes, any amount of abuse is unacceptable and yes I'm being realistic.

However, I think you're looking at this differently than I am. Just because it's "unacceptable" doesn't mean I think that there's an alternative that will eliminate it. It simply means that we should make every reasonable effort to minimize it. Period. Now, you and I may disagree on what's "reasonable", but in my humble opinion, spending $20 to stop $10 worth of fraud is worth it if it helps to both act as a deterrent ("Hey, so-and-so got caught for this, I better not!") and helps to prevent it in the future ("So, we know *this* is how they cheat the system. Let's not do *this*.").

I'm sure we could dig up more instances from the other threads... Forgive me for possibly mixing up your comments with the other conservatives ranting in this thread.

Not caring about your hurt feelings doesn't mean I have disdain for you. It means I don't care about your hurt feelings. That's all.

And because I don't like waste doesn't mean I want to eliminate spending. I've said it a hundred times on this forum - it's not about expanding or eliminating, it's about smarter, targeted and effective changes. If our government spends $1 Million a year on Pepsi for 10 year olds, then I'm going to be irked with the spending. If our government spends $1 Million a year on fresh water, milk, and juice for 10 year olds (in particular, 10 year olds that *need* it), then I'm going to be okay with it.

Or replace existing subsidies with ones for those who actually need them.

Or, how about we replace the subsidies all together, and let the consumers spend the money on the products they want - and let that money go towards the farms that provide that?

I'm actually going to push back at you on this one. Would limiting certain ingredients and setting limits on sugar really eliminate choices for customers?

You're seriously asking "If the government passes a law that says Ingredient X or Quantites of Y are illegal, then how does that stop consumers from making the choice to purchase products that use Ingredient X or Quantities of Y?"

 

[willardhaven]

Yes, any amount of abuse is unacceptable and yes I'm being realistic.

However, I think you're looking at this differently than I am. Just because it's "unacceptable" doesn't mean I think that there's an alternative that will eliminate it. It simply means that we should make every reasonable effort to minimize it. Period. Now, you and I may disagree on what's "reasonable", but in my humble opinion, spending $20 to stop $10 worth of fraud is worth it if it helps to both act as a deterrent ("Hey, so-and-so got caught for this, I better not!") and helps to prevent it in the future ("So, we know *this* is how they cheat the system. Let's not do *this*.").

How is switching to WIC a fraud deterrent?

And because I don't like waste doesn't mean I want to eliminate spending. I've said it a hundred times on this forum - it's not about expanding or eliminating, it's about smarter, targeted and effective changes. If our government spends $1 Million a year on Pepsi for 10 year olds, then I'm going to be irked with the spending. If our government spends $1 Million a year on fresh water, milk, and juice for 10 year olds (in particular, 10 year olds that *need* it), then I'm going to be okay with it.

I hear this a lot from politicians (including Obama). Smarter, targeted and effective changes? What changes? Switching to a WIC-like system will not stop retailers who are already ignoring the rules. You want to expand nutritional assistance enforcement with harsher penalties? Do you want to do this for every criminal activity? What is the limit? Do you want a 1 to 1 police tail for every person using SNAP?

Or, how about we replace the subsidies all together, and let the consumers spend the money on the products they want - and let that money go towards the farms that provide that?

Replace or eliminate? I've heard good arguments for the elimination of subsidies altogether. It would probably increase prices at first... so we would need to expand nutritional assistance. Wouldn't an increase in staple crop prices affect the middle class disproportionately? Are you okay with that?

You're seriously asking "If the government passes a law that says Ingredient X or Quantites of Y are illegal, then how does that stop consumers from making the choice to purchase products that use Ingredient X or Quantities of Y?"

Cute picture. Setting a ceiling on added sugar or banning certain junk ingredients would just lead to reformulation. Look at Europe, the same products exist there and lack certain junk ingredients and dyes. Why not start requiring an accurate ingredient list? Tartrazine instead of the innocent sounding "yellow #5." Let's see all the components of a flavor instead of just "natural flavor" or "artificial flavor."

 

[Rasen]

The problem with government restricting something is that if there is a genuine demand for it, it only causes different problems. 

Look at Prohibition, cocaine, crack, and marijuana.

Sure, it limits the output. But because people really want to get drunk/high, it drives up the price of the illegal item. Which then makes becoming a bootlegger/dealer more profitable. And because it is illegal and they can't count on the government to protect their rights, it only encourages the use of violence between each other. And of course, because there is no government regulating quality, you get lower quality goods which may(or may not) be more dangerous. Like when they cut cocaine with baby powder.

As much as I would like to see a better world, the thing to consider when setting public policy is "what is the likely reaction/outcome" instead of "what would we wish happen?"

 

[willardhaven]

Banning an ingredient would lead to a black market? Is there a BHT black market I don't know about in Japan and the EU?

I'm not an absolutist. I'll admit that banning sugar is not practical for the time being.

Sugar limits in packaged food/drinks would be completely different from drug and alcohol regulation though as you could still buy as much sugar as you want in the store. I recognize that this is an impractical idea since we're all addicted to sugar (myself included).

 

[UncleBob]

How is switching to WIC a fraud deterrent?

Already discussed one major way above - selling specific items is harder than selling general credit.

Also, with the way WIC works (at least in Illinois), it's a lot harder to just hand you WIC vouchers to a random person for them to redeem. An EBT Card? I could take five people's cards and check out five different times with no issues.

I hear this a lot from politicians (including Obama). Smarter, targeted and effective changes? What changes? Switching to a WIC-like system will not stop retailers who are already ignoring the rules. You want to expand nutritional assistance enforcement with harsher penalties? Do you want to do this for every criminal activity? What is the limit? Do you want a 1 to 1 police tail for every person using SNAP?

Sure, dirty stores could still cheat the system, which is where the harsher penalties come in. An example - if your business is caught purposely cheating the system (something like cash for credit), then you lose your business license and face pretty stiff penalties. Fun bonus - set up a reward system for individuals who successfully report a dirty business.

Replace or eliminate? I've heard good arguments for the elimination of subsidies altogether. It would probably increase prices at first... so we would need to expand nutritional assistance. Wouldn't an increase in staple crop prices affect the middle class disproportionately? Are you okay with that?

I said "replace", as I'm thinking that part of the money would be shifted elsewhere - but eliminate would be the basic idea.
And yes, I am okay with the price increase.

Currently, the system is payday -> taxes -> farmers and cheap food. Let's switch the system so that it's payday -> food. Instead of part of your pay going into some kind of hidden system that keeps your food prices artificiality low, let people know the real cost of their food. This has the added bonus of making it a little harder for high rollers to hide their income. If I can go buy staples for pennies on the dollar, then I'm not likely to revolt against the fat cats in charge. If I'm paying twice the price so they can afford three houses, two planes and a yacht, then there's more likely to be something said.

Cute picture. Setting a ceiling on added sugar or banning certain junk ingredients would just lead to reformulation. Look at Europe, the same products exist there and lack certain junk ingredients and dyes. Why not start requiring an accurate ingredient list? Tartrazine instead of the innocent sounding "yellow #5." Let's see all the components of a flavor instead of just "natural flavor" or "artificial flavor."

I can support more rules regarding product labeling (and some kind of legal definition for phrases like "All-Natural" and such). But, really - do you think 99% of the population has the slightest clue what Tartrazine is and what the side effects are? And do you think they care enough to look at the list of ingredients?

But to answer the first part of your question, it's still limiting choice. It's like Canadian Mountain Dew... no caffeine (unless something has changed) due to a law that prevents caffeine in "juice". Here in the states, we have Caffeine Free Mountain Dew and "regular" Mountain Dew. Choices. Land of the Free!

 

[Rasen]

Banning an ingredient would lead to a black market? Is there a BHT black market I don't know about in Japan and the EU?

I'm not an absolutist. I'll admit that banning sugar is not practical for the time being.

Sugar limits in packaged food/drinks would be completely different from drug and alcohol regulation though as you could still buy as much sugar as you want in the store. I recognize that this is an impractical idea since we're all addicted to sugar (myself included).

I dunno about BHT, but here's the thing. If they can find a substitute that gets around regulations, they will. And the substitute may be worse than the original (Go cancer-causing sugar substitute!) If they can't, a black market forms.

So long as there is demand from something, people will try to get it. To take a particularly morbid example: we forbid the sale of organs under the argument that then the organs will go to the people with the most money. So what do the people with the most money do? They either use their money to bribe their way ahead on the transplant list OR they fly to some country where organ harvesting occurs and they get a transplant there. People with the most money get the organs anyway.

I suppose there is a moral argument against it, and I can't argue against that. Economics doesn't have a lot to say about morality. However, it can make statements about what are the possible or likely results, and whether it may actually make things worse. A lot of plans and proposals seem to be made assuming the best of people. A better way would be to make a plan that works when assuming the worst of people.

 

[willardhaven]

Already discussed one major way above - selling specific items is harder than selling general credit.

Also, with the way WIC works (at least in Illinois), it's a lot harder to just hand you WIC vouchers to a random person for them to redeem. An EBT Card? I could take five people's cards and check out five different times with no issues.

Sure, dirty stores could still cheat the system, which is where the harsher penalties come in. An example - if your business is caught purposely cheating the system (something like cash for credit), then you lose your business license and face pretty stiff penalties. Fun bonus - set up a reward system for individuals who successfully report a dirty business.

We have enforcement already. Tell me specifically where you think the problem is.

I said "replace", as I'm thinking that part of the money would be shifted elsewhere - but eliminate would be the basic idea.
And yes, I am okay with the price increase.

Okay but how do we aid farmers during drought years? Are you okay with the historical advantage these subsidies have given to corporation that do not need subsidizing? Shouldn't we give the little guys a boost before we say "government out!" and drop the mic?

I can support more rules regarding product labeling (and some kind of legal definition for phrases like "All-Natural" and such). But, really - do you think 99% of the population has the slightest clue what Tartrazine is and what the side effects are? And do you think they care enough to look at the list of ingredients?

If it won't affect people then why oppose accurate labeling? Food producers clearly disagree with you.

But to answer the first part of your question, it's still limiting choice. It's like Canadian Mountain Dew... no caffeine (unless something has changed) due to a law that prevents caffeine in "juice". Here in the states, we have Caffeine Free Mountain Dew and "regular" Mountain Dew. Choices. Land of the Free!

Great so don't ban caffeine. Do you think taking BHT or azodicarbonamide out of food is really limiting choice? Is banning rat poison or chalk in food limiting choice?

 

[willardhaven]

I dunno about BHT, but here's the thing. If they can find a substitute that gets around regulations, they will. And the substitute may be worse than the original (Go cancer-causing sugar substitute!) If they can't, a black market forms.

So long as there is demand from something, people will try to get it. To take a particularly morbid example: we forbid the sale of organs under the argument that then the organs will go to the people with the most money. So what do the people with the most money do? They either use their money to bribe their way ahead on the transplant list OR they fly to some country where organ harvesting occurs and they get a transplant there. People with the most money get the organs anyway.

I suppose there is a moral argument against it, and I can't argue against that. Economics doesn't have a lot to say about morality. However, it can make statements about what are the possible or likely results, and whether it may actually make things worse. A lot of plans and proposals seem to be made assuming the best of people. A better way would be to make a plan that works when assuming the worst of people.

Are you talking about black market junk food? I'm a little confused by your first point.

Of course new policies can have adverse effects.

Ingredients like BHT or brominated vegetable oil are just omitted from the reformulated products in other markets. There is already a precedent for these kinds of regulations in Europe and Japan.

 

[UncleBob]

We have enforcement already. Tell me specifically where you think the problem is.

Oh, hey, President Bush also assured us that his programs were awesome. I'm sure going directly to SNAP to have them tell you how awesome their program is isn't biased at all.

Look, all I have is anecdotal evidence based on my experiences dealing with this. I know it's out there. I don't know how big of an issue it is and sure don't have the resources to do an unbiased study.

Okay but how do we aid farmers during drought years?

Should we aid every business during slow times?

Should we lend a hand to Macy's because the economy is down and they aren't selling as much high-end clothing?

Are you okay with the historical advantage these subsidies have given to corporation that do not need subsidizing?

Nada. But here's the thing - I'm not okay with the government picking and choosing the winners and losers of free taxpayer money, generally based on who is friends with who.

If it won't affect people then why oppose accurate labeling? Food producers clearly disagree with you.

Why not oppose the rape and murder of 7 year old girls?

I don't oppose accurate labeling and have NEVER said anything against it. Perhaps you should ask someone that does.

Great so don't ban caffeine. Do you think taking BHT or azodicarbonamide out of food is really limiting choice? Is banning rat poison or chalk in food limiting choice?

How did we get from "setting limits on sugar" to "banning rat poison"?

 

[willardhaven]

Oh, hey, President Bush also assured us that his programs were awesome. I'm sure going directly to SNAP to have them tell you how awesome their program is isn't biased at all.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3239

If you don't trust the FNS to do this then why do you want them to expand their fraud enforcement with more money?

Look, all I have is anecdotal evidence based on my experiences dealing with this. I know it's out there. I don't know how big of an issue it is and sure don't have the resources to do an unbiased study.

Abuse is a major reason why the system is spread so thin as it is

This was where our argument started before I came down the rabbit hole with you. You are wrong. "I know it's out there" is BS and you know it.

Should we aid every business during slow times?

Should we lend a hand to Macy's because the economy is down and they aren't selling as much high-end clothing?

What do you think a stimulus is?

You are comparing food to high-end clothing now. I didn't realize eating was a luxury.

I believe (this is merely conjecture) that the idea of subsidizing farmers during drought years was to maintain the stability of food prices.

Nada. But here's the thing - I'm not okay with the government picking and choosing the winners and losers of free taxpayer money, generally based on who is friends with who.

So what's your solution? How is eliminating all subsidies immediately not "choosing the winners and losers?"

I don't oppose accurate labeling and have NEVER said anything against it. Perhaps you should ask someone that does.

Great we agree.

How did we get from "setting limits on sugar" to "banning rat poison"?

You're seriously asking "If the government passes a law that says Ingredient X or Quantites of Y are illegal, then how does that stop consumers from making the choice to purchase products that use Ingredient X or Quantities of Y?"

Limiting choice is limiting choice, right?

 

[Rasen]

Are you talking about black market junk food? I'm a little confused by your first point.

Of course new policies can have adverse effects.

Ingredients like BHT or brominated vegetable oil are just omitted from the reformulated products in other markets. There is already a precedent for these kinds of regulations in Europe and Japan.

My point is that if you regulate BHT, all that happens is a substitute is made. Which may have worse effects than the original. And if a reformulation or a substitute isn't possible, black markets form.

I guess where I'm going with this is that to just say "regulate what is bad" isn't enough. Look at what happened when Mayor Bloomberg tried to restrict the size of sodas. This is a nation of people that not only enjoy their vices, but feel entitled to them. If you really want them to stop using something bad, you have to make them want to stop.

 

[willardhaven]

My point is that if you regulate BHT, all that happens is a substitute is made. Which may have worse effects than the original. And if a reformulation or a substitute isn't possible, black markets form.

I guess where I'm going with this is that to just say "regulate what is bad" isn't enough. Look at what happened when Mayor Bloomberg tried to restrict the size of sodas. This is a nation of people that not only enjoy their vices, but feel entitled to them. If you really want them to stop using something bad, you have to make them want to stop.

You're right about Bloomberg, but saying "you can't have a 40 oz. soda" is not the same as banning producers from using TBHQ.

I don't think people are attached to junk ingredients. Replacing them with safer ingredients (as they do overseas) is clearly feasible. We can have our cake and eat it too (literally).

 

[Rasen]

You're right about Bloomberg, but saying "you can't have a 40 oz. soda" is not the same as banning producers from using TBHQ.

I don't think people are attached to junk ingredients. Replacing them with safer ingredients (as they do overseas) is clearly feasible. We can have our cake and eat it too (literally).

Again, it's not the junk ingredient in particular we're attached to. If we can find a substitute, we'll move on. But if we can't....To stick to the food argument, it's the taste. Imagine what would happen if sugar got banned and all we were allowed to drink were the low-fat, low-sugar, diet, whatever mixes. Pepsi One, or Next, or whatever it is this year.

Didn't something similar happen with Coke? Not in terms of illegality, but Coca-Cola came up with some new formula, and people went bonkers. Coca-Cola eventually had to reintroduce the original formula as "Coca-Cola Classic."

 

[dohdough]

Again, it's not the junk ingredient in particular we're attached to. If we can find a substitute, we'll move on. But if we can't....To stick to the food argument, it's the taste. Imagine what would happen if sugar got banned and all we were allowed to drink were the low-fat, low-sugar, diet, whatever mixes. Pepsi One, or Next, or whatever it is this year.

Didn't something similar happen with Coke? Not in terms of illegality, but Coca-Cola came up with some new formula, and people went bonkers. Coca-Cola eventually had to reintroduce the original formula as "Coca-Cola Classic."

Why do you think we're attached to it?

 

[Rasen]

Why do you think we're attached to it?

I'm not sure which point you're addressing, but I'm going to take a shot in the dark and say "because New Coke tasted like rat pee."

 

[dohdough]

I'm not sure which point you're addressing, but I'm going to take a shot in the dark and say "because New Coke tasted like rat pee."

So does McDonalds and beer. All of a sudden, the answer doesn't seem that simple, eh?

 

[UncleBob]

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3239

If you don't trust the FNS to do this then why do you want them to expand their fraud enforcement with more money?

Who says I want the same folks in charge of distributing the benefits to be the ones in charge of enforcing the rules?

This was where our argument started before I came down the rabbit hole with you. You are wrong. "I know it's out there" is BS and you know it.

Except that we both know it's out there. You've pointed to it multiple occasions. What we disagree on is the significance of the quantity and quality of the abuse.

You are comparing food to high-end clothing now. I didn't realize eating was a luxury.

We're not really discussing the basic necessities of life at this point. If a politician seriously suggested that our government should only provide vouchers for the most basic of staples (Bread and water, etc.), they'd get ran out of town.

So what's your solution? How is eliminating all subsidies immediately not "choosing the winners and losers?"

Did I say "immediately"? You keep trying to create an argument, put the words in my mouth, then debate against them.

Of course, our market and government are so intertwined at this point that one simply could not survive without the other sucking at their teat. It would be a slow process (and, for some, a painful), but I believe in the long run, it would be better to have a market that doesn't depend on the government to survive and a government that doesn't depend on the market (and backroom deals) to keep them in power.

Limiting choice is limiting choice, right?

I think this is one of the issues. You seem to be classifying poisons as "junk ingredients". I disagree. To me, junk ingredients would be things like fatty sugars, excess carbs, etc. Stuff that's bad for you in excess.

Do I want it to be illegal to pee in a soda and call it "natural flavoring"? Hell yes.
Do I want it to be illegal to put twice the amount of sugar the average person needs in a single day inside a 20 ounce bottle of soda... No. That's the difference.

 

[Rasen]

So does McDonalds and beer. All of a sudden, the answer doesn't seem that simple, eh?

No, the answer is still pretty much the same. Restricting people's choices is difficult, and bound for failure unless you make them want to change.

And for whatever reason, people like their beer pee-flavored.But not their coke. Because that's just wrong.

If people were consistent and logical, it would be easier to legislate them. But they're not, and that's why legislation has so many problems.

 

[willardhaven]

Who says I want the same folks in charge of distributing the benefits to be the ones in charge of enforcing the rules?


Except that we both know it's out there. You've pointed to it multiple occasions. What we disagree on is the significance of the quantity and quality of the abuse.



We're not really discussing the basic necessities of life at this point. If a politician seriously suggested that our government should only provide vouchers for the most basic of staples (Bread and water, etc.), they'd get ran out of town.


Did I say "immediately"? You keep trying to create an argument, put the words in my mouth, then debate against them.

Of course, our market and government are so intertwined at this point that one simply could not survive without the other sucking at their teat. It would be a slow process (and, for some, a painful), but I believe in the long run, it would be better to have a market that doesn't depend on the government to survive and a government that doesn't depend on the market (and backroom deals) to keep them in power.



I think this is one of the issues. You seem to be classifying poisons as "junk ingredients". I disagree. To me, junk ingredients would be things like fatty sugars, excess carbs, etc. Stuff that's bad for you in excess.

Do I want it to be illegal to pee in a soda and call it "natural flavoring"? Hell yes.
Do I want it to be illegal to put twice the amount of sugar the average person needs in a single day inside a 20 ounce bottle of soda... No. That's the difference.

I'm not doing ninja quotes with you anymore. It's getting annoying.

I'm creating arguments for you because you are not making any.

There is no "major abuse" with regard to SNAP. You want enforcement and there is enforcement. You want rules and there are rules. You are not happy because enforcement isn't perfect and that's ridiculous.

What is your "slow process"? Do you want to gradually decrease all subsidies annually? Why is it painful for some and not others? Isn't that "choosing winners and losers?" While I don't think it's perfect, at least my idea to end subsidies for large farms and replace them with subsidies for small farms is an idea.

Carbs and fat are not ingredients. Plus your body needs them to stay alive.

I agree with your last point. No sugar limits. Okay? Although I don't think anyone would want soda with 150 grams of sugar in a 20 oz.

 

[dohdough]

No, the answer is still pretty much the same. Restricting people's choices is difficult, and bound for failure unless you make them want to change.

And for whatever reason, people like their beer pee-flavored.But not their coke. Because that's just wrong.

If people were consistent and logical, it would be easier to legislate them. But they're not, and that's why legislation has so many problems.

I think you're misunderstanding the question.

You made two assertions: we're not chemically dependent on the "junk ingredients" and that we're dependent on "the taste."

I think we both can agree that Mcdonalds is shitty food that doesn't taste that great, so I'm asking you to explain why it's so popular and then expand that explanation into a broader analysis of why we like what we like. I'm not asking about "choice" or people being "consistent" and "logical" when there are so many things that happen before we buy and shove our first Big Mac down our gullets on our own.

 

[Rasen]

I think you're misunderstanding the question.

You made two assertions: we're not chemically dependent on the "junk ingredients" and that we're dependent on "the taste."

I think we both can agree that Mcdonalds is shitty food that doesn't taste that great, so I'm asking you to explain why it's so popular and then expand that explanation into a broader analysis of why we like what we like. I'm not asking about "choice" or people being "consistent" and "logical" when there are so many things that happen before we buy and shove our first Big Mac down our gullets on our own.

I have made no such assertions about dependency. Dependency implies the inability to do without. People most certainly can do without. They choose not to.

My only assertion (on this issue, at least) is merely that people want what they want, for whatever reason matters to them. People want to indulge in their vices. They want their food to taste a certain way, they want their drugs to get them sky-high, etc.etc...

Regarding the issue of consistency, it's part of what makes regulation difficult. Because people are different and inconsistent, and regulations count on people being more or less the same. Let's go back to the pee-flavor example.

If people don't like diet soda because it tastes like rat-pee, then logically they should hate any and everything that tastes like rat-pee. However, if your assertion that beer also tastes like rat-pee is also true, then logically they should also hate beer. But they don't (or a lot of people don't, at any rate.)

 

[dohdough]

I have made no such assertions about dependency. Dependency implies the inability to do without. People most certainly can do without. They choose not to.

My only assertion (on this issue, at least) is merely that people want what they want, for whatever reason matters to them. People want to indulge in their vices. They want their food to taste a certain way, they want their drugs to get them sky-high, etc.etc...

Regarding the issue of consistency, it's part of what makes regulation difficult. Because people are different and inconsistent, and regulations count on people being more or less the same. Let's go back to the pee-flavor example.

If people don't like diet soda because it tastes like rat-pee, then logically they should hate any and everything that tastes like rat-pee. However, if your assertion that beer also tastes like rat-pee is also true, then logically they should also hate beer. But they don't (or a lot of people don't, at any rate.)

Now you're just making a semantic argument about the use of "dependency" versus "attached." Semantics aside, you also seem to have forgotten your initial post that I responded to where you clearly state that it's not about the chemical composition, but the taste that's important. Please re-read it:

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/topic/317506-this-country-is-so-fcked-up-its-not-even-funny/?p=11093688

I'm not sure whether there's a reading comprehension problem here or what, but all you did was address a question that I specifically said I'm not asking and reworded my actual question as your answer(and turned it into a non sequitur at that).

Lemme try this again:

If diet soda and beer tastes like rat piss(rat piss being a stand in for something that tastes bad in general and not that they both literally taste like one kind of piss), explain WHY people WON'T drink that diet soda, but WILL drink beer considering they both taste terrible albeit not the same.

If you have no other answer besides using "choice" as some deus ex machina or poor impulse control, then explain what informs those choices ie how are they influenced. If they "taste good," explain WHY they taste good.

Or let's go with your example and make the comparison between non-alcoholic and alcoholic beer because it's a better semantic analogy(since you seemed concerned about semantics despite being operationally the same) than diet soda versus beer. I think it's safe to assume that non-alcoholic beer is far more popular than alcoholic beer. You're saying that I'm saying that since the two taste the same, that if someone dislikes either one, then they should dislike the other, which is the exact opposite of what I'm saying. I'm saying that there's a significant reason why in this specific case, one is more favored than the other despite tasting the same or very similar.

edit: Ok, so my tone is a little harsh, but I just want to see some critical thought into this.

 

[Rasen]

Now you're just making a semantic argument about the use of "dependency" versus "attached."

I have to argue semantics, because otherwise I can't tell if you're misunderstanding what I said, or what my purpose is.

Regarding beer vs. diet soda, I don't have to explain it, I just have to know how people react when something they like for whatever reason is taken away from them. The argument applies as much to beer and soda as sex and drugs. You read my post as though I'm making a tautological statement of fact, and I apologize if it came across that way. But the point I was trying to convey, which you seem to have missed, is that if people can find a legal acceptable substitute, they will. If they cannot, they'll find other, less-legal ways to get what they want.

But let's put that aside, and address your restated question. First, the thing to keep in mind is WHY do people drink soda or beer? You can't just focus on taste and ignore everything else.

1. Why do people who don't like a poor tasting soda not drink it? Because they can find substitutes. Why do people drink soda in the first place? My GUESS is for taste and caffeine.

Now, let's be generous and assume the diet-soda has the same amount of caffeine, but a worse taste. Thanks to the nature of markets, there are plenty of other sodas out there that cost the same, have the same amount of caffeine, but a good taste. In short, to buy the diet soda is to pay the same amount of money for an inferior product. Do you pay $1 for (caffeine+good taste) or $1 for (caffeine+bad taste)?

2. Why do people who don't like the taste of beer drink it? Because they're drinking it to get drunk, or socialize, or look cool. They're.not drinking it for the taste. Also, because they can't find an appropriate substitute.

What are the possible substitutes for beer as a method of getting drunk? Wine? Whiskey? The problem is that they cost more, or perhaps they're too strong. So if the person is a lightweight who wants to get drunk on a budget, he's stuck with beer.

To be fair, there MAY be taste issues regarding beer. I imagine that's why there are beers which taste of oranges, or whatever. And in those situations, if a person doesn't like the taste of a Miller's, they might go for the marginally less bad Blue Moon. Or vice versa, because taste is subjective.

---

Now, to get back to your demand that I explain why something tastes good, the short answer is: I cannot, at least not for everyone. Everyone has their own preferences. People who drink wine claim they can taste "a hint of cedar, apples, this is a full-bodied drink." Whereas to someone like myself, it all tastes like burning rat pee. Are they lying, or am I? Neither. Taste is a purely subjective issue.

---

Lastly, on what grounds do you claim that non-alcoholic beer is more popular than alcoholic beer? To me, non-alcoholic beer seems like a total waste of money, and could only appeal to the very small group of people who like the taste of beer, but don't want to get drunk.

 

[UncleBob]

Let's get back to square one.

There is no "major abuse" with regard to SNAP. You want enforcement and there is enforcement. You want rules and there are rules. You are not happy because enforcement isn't perfect and that's ridiculous.

First, I did not say "major abuse". I said "abuse" But, let's look at that. Let's take your 1% number. We will pretend that it's wholly accurate.

In 2012, FNS nearly spent 78.5 BILLION Dollars.

One percent of that is $785,000,000.

At the average benefit of $4.80/day, that would be enough benefits for 448,059 additional individuals in need for an entire year.

So... nearly half a million people are denied benefits because of abuse in the system. But it's not a major concern.

 

[Msut77]

I'm not doing ninja quotes with you anymore. It's getting annoying.

I'm creating arguments for you because you are not making any.

There is no "major abuse" with regard to SNAP. You want enforcement and there is enforcement. You want rules and there are rules. You are not happy because enforcement isn't perfect and that's ridiculous.

What is your "slow process"? Do you want to gradually decrease all subsidies annually? Why is it painful for some and not others? Isn't that "choosing winners and losers?" While I don't think it's perfect, at least my idea to end subsidies for large farms and replace them with subsidies for small farms is an idea.

Carbs and fat are not ingredients. Plus your body needs them to stay alive.

I agree with your last point. No sugar limits. Okay? Although I don't think anyone would want soda with 150 grams of sugar in a 20 oz.

It's not that you aren't doing a great job. But you will never win no matter how good your argument is. The point of the exercise is to attack the concept of benefits obliquely with not very plausible deniability . Nothing is argued in good faith.

 

[slidecage]

Slidecage:

I figure there must be a limit on out-of-pocket, just that they haven't set it yet. Otherwise, there's no difference between being insured and not being insured.

As for the write-offs, I'm not sure how they'll play out yet. But if a person signs up in October and pays for the months of October through December, I'm not seeing a large problem with them at least being able to write off a portion of that, based on what they did pay.

As for why a salary of $25000 can only cover 12%, versus 85% if at $24,999, that is one of the problems when a central authority tries to plan things. They simply set different tiers for different levels of coverage, and how close you are to the borders does not matter. It's the same way they define poverty levels or tax brackets. It's not even close to perfect, but that is how it works.

no they said they have no way to set up an out of pocket limit for the first year. ALSO dont see why they would have to pay for oct-dec since none are covered till Jan 1

wow they took everything off that site and now added a 4th plan. going to be fun come tuesday what they cost

 

[willardhaven]

Let's get back to square one.


First, I did not say "major abuse". I said "abuse" But, let's look at that. Let's take your 1% number. We will pretend that it's wholly accurate.

In 2012, FNS nearly spent 78.5 BILLION Dollars.

One percent of that is $785,000,000.

At the average benefit of $4.80/day, that would be enough benefits for 448,059 additional individuals in need for an entire year.

So... nearly half a million people are denied benefits because of abuse in the system. But it's not a major concern.

Your exact words were "abuse is a major reason why the system is spread so thin." It's not. The sequester cut $4.5 billion and the house just passed $40 billion in cuts.

Your math/logic doesn't work either. Based on your estimate, more people would be denied benefits if we increased the budget of SNAP. Try again?

 

[dohdough]

I have to argue semantics, because otherwise I can't tell if you're misunderstanding what I said, or what my purpose is.

Regarding beer vs. diet soda, I don't have to explain it, I just have to know how people react when something they like for whatever reason is taken away from them. The argument applies as much to beer and soda as sex and drugs. You read my post as though I'm making a tautological statement of fact, and I apologize if it came across that way. But the point I was trying to convey, which you seem to have missed, is that if people can find a legal acceptable substitute, they will. If they cannot, they'll find other, less-legal ways to get what they want.

But let's put that aside, and address your restated question. First, the thing to keep in mind is WHY do people drink soda or beer? You can't just focus on taste and ignore everything else.

1. Why do people who don't like a poor tasting soda not drink it? Because they can find substitutes. Why do people drink soda in the first place? My GUESS is for taste and caffeine.

Now, let's be generous and assume the diet-soda has the same amount of caffeine, but a worse taste. Thanks to the nature of markets, there are plenty of other sodas out there that cost the same, have the same amount of caffeine, but a good taste. In short, to buy the diet soda is to pay the same amount of money for an inferior product. Do you pay $1 for (caffeine+good taste) or $1 for (caffeine+bad taste)?

2. Why do people who don't like the taste of beer drink it? Because they're drinking it to get drunk, or socialize, or look cool. They're.not drinking it for the taste. Also, because they can't find an appropriate substitute.

What are the possible substitutes for beer as a method of getting drunk? Wine? Whiskey? The problem is that they cost more, or perhaps they're too strong. So if the person is a lightweight who wants to get drunk on a budget, he's stuck with beer.

To be fair, there MAY be taste issues regarding beer. I imagine that's why there are beers which taste of oranges, or whatever. And in those situations, if a person doesn't like the taste of a Miller's, they might go for the marginally less bad Blue Moon. Or vice versa, because taste is subjective.

---

Now, to get back to your demand that I explain why something tastes good, the short answer is: I cannot, at least not for everyone. Everyone has their own preferences. People who drink wine claim they can taste "a hint of cedar, apples, this is a full-bodied drink." Whereas to someone like myself, it all tastes like burning rat pee. Are they lying, or am I? Neither. Taste is a purely subjective issue.

---

Lastly, on what grounds do you claim that non-alcoholic beer is more popular than alcoholic beer? To me, non-alcoholic beer seems like a total waste of money, and could only appeal to the very small group of people who like the taste of beer, but don't want to get drunk.

No, people make semantic arguments like yours when they don't really know all that much about what they're talking about, which you've demonstrated. If you're going to make a semantic argument, you need to define how you're using the term, why you're using the term in that way, and why we should use the term in the way you want us to use it.

My question about non-alcoholic beer being more popular than alcoholic beer was a typo and should've said the opposite. Either way, you've already answered the question like I thought you would: caffeine and alcohol play an important role in our decision to choose items with those two components rather than something that tastes about the same without those components. Which means that our choices ARE influenced by things more important than taste and if taste is subjective, the critical question to ask is what makes things taste "good" and this is an answerable question that has seen tons of research. You might not know, but believe me, we know exactly why people prefer certain types/brands of food products over others. To go back to my McDonalds example, they're not a multi-billion dollar international corporation because their food is good and they know it. You briefly hint on this socialization aspect of it, but then drop it.

Taste has less to do with it than the effects we get from it, whether it's to satiate hunger or induce intoxication. Your brain will literally trick you into liking something that you didn't like before if what you're ingesting triggers a certain part of if that releases chemicals that make you feel pleasure.

Using "taste" as an answer has it's place, but I don't think this is a good application of it when addressing a more complex issue.

 

[Rasen]

For whatever reason, you've chosen to pick away at my example of food, when the bigger argument was about preferences and substitutes. Could I have worded it more carefully, or picked a more precise example? Sure, my bad. I just wanted to throw out something that most people would immediately relate to. (Incidentally, your picking away at my soda example and ignoring the larger argument is a semantic argument. Take from that what you will.)

So let's immediately decide on which definition of "taste" we're going to use from this point on. "Taste - as a measure of flavor" instead of the more economic "taste - as a measure of preference."

To me, I get zero caffeine boost from soda. (And before you claim addiction, I drink about one can a month, for about the past 12 years. But my tolerance is skyhigh from years of chugging it down like water.) So let me ask you: why do I drink it now? Furthermore, let me ask you: do you get a caffeine boost from soda? 

Next: if you can claim to know why one tastes better than the other, I ask of you to explain to me why does Coke taste better to me than Pepsi? Or Sprite better than Sierra Mist? And if these corporations know the answer to this, why does Pepsi continue to use the inferior formulation?

I don't know why you keep bringing in McDonalds, or some "socialization," so here's all I have to say on the subject: I LIKE McDonald's food. I even like the "taste - as a measure of flavor." I do not think of it as quality food.  

 

[UncleBob]

Your exact words were "abuse is a major reason why the system is spread so thin." It's not. The sequester cut $4.5 billion and the house just passed $40 billion in cuts.

Your math/logic doesn't work either. Based on your estimate, more people would be denied benefits if we increased the budget of SNAP. Try again?

I guess this is part of the reason we will never see eye-to-eye on this.

I don't equate budget cuts due to rabid overspending in our government to folks cheating the system and, basically, stealing money from it.

It's like "Oh, man... my hours got cut this week. It's just like that time someone broke into my house and stole my stuff."

 

[detectiveconan16]

Less than five hours left and how dare our President say Great Congress is demanding ransom to do its job.

 

[slidecage]

Less than five hours left and how dare our President say Great Congress is demanding ransom to do its job.

i want them come out screaming i go CRAZY FOR COCOA PUFFS

love how the president goes congress is holding the country ransom yet he admited he will not talk to anyone about changing anything its his way or nothing .

these fools who are holding signs up that say IMPEACH OBAMA are the same fools who voted for him last year. TOO BAD YOU GET WHAT YOUR DESERVE

 

[detectiveconan16]

Congress writes and passes the laws, they've had plenty of time to write something that could either go his way or change his way. Besides according to the news, Obama doomed us all for not writing the bills and passing the laws that prevented a government shutdown.

 

[slidecage]

Congress writes and passes the laws, they've had plenty of time to write something that could either go his way or change his way. Besides according to the news, Obama doomed us all for not writing the bills and passing the laws that prevented a government shutdown.

wrong he even said If they passed any law that messed with obamacare he would veto it and he was not talking to anyone about changing anything. It was his way or nothing

 

[willardhaven]

I guess this is part of the reason we will never see eye-to-eye on this.

I don't equate budget cuts due to rabid overspending in our government to folks cheating the system and, basically, stealing money from it.

It's like "Oh, man... my hours got cut this week. It's just like that time someone broke into my house and stole my stuff."

"Rabid overspending" is what is keeping the economy afloat right now. People are not spending money. Businesses are not spending money. If the government stops spending money, who do you expect to generate the activity necessary to increase employment?

To get back to the topic, let's continue with your analogy:

"Oh man... my hours got cut this week. It's just like that time someone stole a box of cereal out of my house. The cereal was a major financial hardship."

I'm not saying SNAP fraud is desirable. However, the House is doing much more harm than the abusers. SNAP is considered one of the best government programs because it provides a direct benefit to citizens and the economy with little overhead.

I was thinking of another problem with your voucher solution. Using SNAP as it is, you can still take advantage of everyday coupons and bargain-hunting to stretch your benefits further. It's much more flexible. Vouchers cost the program more money because when a retailer raises their price, the cost to the program would have to increase. If the budget were cut, they couldn't cut your milk voucher by 10%. The current system allows for less bureaucracy, isn't that what you want?

 

[slidecage]

"Rabid overspending" is what is keeping the economy afloat right now. People are not spending money. Businesses are not spending money. If the government stops spending money, who do you expect to generate the activity necessary to increase employment?

To get back to the topic, let's continue with your analogy:

"Oh man... my hours got cut this week. It's just like that time someone stole a box of cereal out of my house. The cereal was a major financial hardship."

I'm not saying SNAP fraud is desirable. However, the House is doing much more harm than the abusers. SNAP is considered one of the best government programs because it provides a direct benefit to citizens and the economy with little overhead.

I was thinking of another problem with your voucher solution. Using SNAP as it is, you can still take advantage of everyday coupons and bargain-hunting to stretch your benefits further. It's much more flexible. Vouchers cost the program more money because when a retailer raises their price, the cost to the program would have to increase. If the budget were cut, they couldn't cut your milk voucher by 10%. The current system allows for less bureaucracy, isn't that what you want?

talk about jacking up prices. I been buying tons of boxes of CLUB CRACKERS (they are 4 per box and coupons and sales that gave them to me for around 1.50 a box so i have like 20 boxes). went to walmart the last few weeks and noticed all of them were gone. Well last friday they were back and noticed something funny about them. the boxes are now 11.9 oz they used to be 16 oz for the same price

 

[dohdough]

For whatever reason, you've chosen to pick away at my example of food, when the bigger argument was about preferences and substitutes. Could I have worded it more carefully, or picked a more precise example? Sure, my bad. I just wanted to throw out something that most people would immediately relate to. (Incidentally, your picking away at my soda example and ignoring the larger argument is a semantic argument. Take from that what you will.)

So let's immediately decide on which definition of "taste" we're going to use from this point on. "Taste - as a measure of flavor" instead of the more economic "taste - as a measure of preference."

To me, I get zero caffeine boost from soda. (And before you claim addiction, I drink about one can a month, for about the past 12 years. But my tolerance is skyhigh from years of chugging it down like water.) So let me ask you: why do I drink it now? Furthermore, let me ask you: do you get a caffeine boost from soda?

Next: if you can claim to know why one tastes better than the other, I ask of you to explain to me why does Coke taste better to me than Pepsi? Or Sprite better than Sierra Mist? And if these corporations know the answer to this, why does Pepsi continue to use the inferior formulation?

I don't know why you keep bringing in McDonalds, or some "socialization," so here's all I have to say on the subject: I LIKE McDonald's food. I even like the "taste - as a measure of flavor." I do not think of it as quality food.

I'm picking on your example because what tastes "good" to you is largely a product of the environment you grew up in and the food you have access to. Part of that environment is the marketing that Coke and McDonalds spends billions of dollars on. If you grew up in another part of the world, you'd be loving certain delicacies that would currently make your stomach turn.

If you like Coke more than Pepsi, what makes you think that Pepsi naturally has the inferior formula? Are your taste buds the the benchmark that all food should be judged by? As for your predilection to Coke products, that's probably just what you were used to growing up.

You're asking me why you drink soda now? Regardless of your choice and frequency, your body still recognizes the effects it has on your body and triggers the rewards-center of your brain everytime you have a can, which is the same thing as what McDonalds' marketing and chef's want to happen. It's one giant Pavlov experiment and you're the dog. We all are. If they can't socialize us into buying their product, then they'll do it through chemistry.

"Taste" isn't some nebulous concept that just happens in a vacuum.

talk about jacking up prices. I been buying tons of boxes of CLUB CRACKERS (they are 4 per box and coupons and sales that gave them to me for around 1.50 a box so i have like 20 boxes). went to walmart the last few weeks and noticed all of them were gone. Well last friday they were back and noticed something funny about them. the boxes are now 11.9 oz they used to be 16 oz for the same price

You should be blaming Walmart, not the government. In case you've forgotten or never learned, Walmart has the purchasing power to dictate to the manufacturer what goes on their shelves and at a particular unit size and price point. Even if Keebler has decided to decrease the packaging size, it has absolutely nothing to do with the government, but with these corporations fleecing you.

 

[slidecage]

I'm picking on your example because what tastes "good" to you is largely a product of the environment you grew up in and the food you have access to. Part of that environment is the marketing that Coke and McDonalds spends billions of dollars on. If you grew up in another part of the world, you'd be loving certain delicacies that would currently make your stomach turn.

If you like Coke more than Pepsi, what makes you think that Pepsi naturally has the inferior formula? Are your taste buds the the benchmark that all food should be judged by? As for your predilection to Coke products, that's probably just what you were used to growing up.

You're asking me why you drink soda now? Regardless of your choice and frequency, your body still recognizes the effects it has on your body and triggers the rewards-center of your brain everytime you have a can, which is the same thing as what McDonalds' marketing and chef's want to happen. It's one giant Pavlov experiment and you're the dog. We all are. If they can't socialize us into buying their product, then they'll do it through chemistry.

"Taste" isn't some nebulous concept that just happens in a vacuum.

You should be blaming Walmart, not the government. In case you've forgotten or never learned, Walmart has the purchasing power to dictate to the manufacturer what goes on their shelves and at a particular unit size and price point. Even if Keebler has decided to decrease the packaging size, it has absolutely nothing to do with the government, but with these corporations fleecing you.

obama wife said we are eating too much junk food that is why the sizes went down

What is up with all the bigger size food being made in MEXICO . family size Oreos , toothpaste ect ect ect .. normal size says made in USA someplace Jumbo size MADE IN MEXICO LOL

 

[slidecage]

LOL  just heard on the news the congress is going to send a bill saying   they are going to pass a  bill that  fund certain parts of the goverment or  states  and obama goes he would  veto  it cause they  just cant go  picking  out  stuff they like and passing it and cutting out the rest  and that is not fair. 

HEY OBAMA   TAKE A LOOK IN THE  MIRROR THAT IS THE SAME THING YOU DID WITH OBAMACARE 

 

[mrsilkunderwear]

LOL just heard on the news the congress is going to send a bill saying they are going to pass a bill that fund certain parts of the goverment or states and obama goes he would veto it cause they just cant go picking out stuff they like and passing it and cutting out the rest and that is not fair.

HEY OBAMA TAKE A LOOK IN THE MIRROR THAT IS THE SAME THING YOU DID WITH OBAMACARE

You better take that back. Obviously our president is not playing politics and just wants to take care of our well being.

 

[UncleBob]

I was thinking of another problem with your voucher solution. Using SNAP as it is, you can still take advantage of everyday coupons and bargain-hunting to stretch your benefits further. It's much more flexible. Vouchers cost the program more money because when a retailer raises their price, the cost to the program would have to increase. If the budget were cut, they couldn't cut your milk voucher by 10%. The current system allows for less bureaucracy, isn't that what you want?

I disagree - you seem to be unfamiliar with how WIC works. WIC tells the retail they'll pay $X for ProductY. Period. If the retailer raises the price of the product 300%, WIC still pays them $X.

However, with both WIC and SNAP, as prices increase, spending power will decrease. WIC will eventually have to start looking into raising the amount given to the retailers or risk losing their participation in the program. With SNAP, they have to start looking at increasing the amount given to folks so they do not starve. However, the awesome thing is, a voucher for a gallon of milk gets you a gallon of milk. $3 worth of SNAP credit may or may not get you a gallon of milk, depending on where you go. You'll have a more stable food budget month-to-month.

And, again, with the putting words into my mouth. I have never said "less bureaucracy." As I've said before, I understand that chanting "more" or "less" doesn't fix anything.

 

[willardhaven]

I disagree - you seem to be unfamiliar with how WIC works. WIC tells the retail they'll pay $X for ProductY. Period. If the retailer raises the price of the product 300%, WIC still pays them $X.

However, with both WIC and SNAP, as prices increase, spending power will decrease. WIC will eventually have to start looking into raising the amount given to the retailers or risk losing their participation in the program. With SNAP, they have to start looking at increasing the amount given to folks so they do not starve. However, the awesome thing is, a voucher for a gallon of milk gets you a gallon of milk. $3 worth of SNAP credit may or may not get you a gallon of milk, depending on where you go. You'll have a more stable food budget month-to-month.

And, again, with the putting words into my mouth. I have never said "less bureaucracy." As I've said before, I understand that chanting "more" or "less" doesn't fix anything.

I was under the impression that the limits were higher than most retail prices to encourage participation. So WIC sets a limit which is arguably higher than the price of the item in question. This also encourages retailers to raise the price of WIC-eligible items.

I'll restate: beneficiaries can't take advantage of pricing or coupons. A voucher will get you one gallon of milk, even if the voucher limit is $8 and the sale price is 2 gallons for $8.

You're right that the vouchers have some advantages with regard to limiting unhealthy choices and ensuring a defined minimum of staples with short-term cost protection. They're both good programs which compliment each other. That's why a lot of families are eligible for both.

 

[slidecage]

was a lady on tv   tonight  complaning about not  having enough money to  make ends meet. Lives in wis,

its  hard to live on 1200 a month   when  a loaf of bread and a gallon of milk cost over 10 bucks.

Where the hell is this lady buying  milk and bread at 

Gallon of milk  2 to 3 bucks.

Bread   a  buck   tops  

thats 3 to 4 or even 5. No where near  10.   Now if your buying top of the line deans milk at 6 per gallon then  maybe you should  NOT BE ON FOOD STAMPS 

 

[RedvsBlue]

was a lady on tv tonight complaning about not having enough money to make ends meet. Lives in wis,

its hard to live on 1200 a month when a loaf of bread and a gallon of milk cost over 10 bucks.

Where the hell is this lady buying milk and bread at

Gallon of milk 2 to 3 bucks.
Bread a buck tops

thats 3 to 4 or even 5. No where near 10. Now if your buying top of the line deans milk at 6 per gallon then maybe you should NOT BE ON FOOD STAMPS

This whole thread started because you wanted to get on public assistance, were denied, and then bitched and moaned about it not being fair. So kindly, shut the up about others on public assistance because that was something you ascribed to do not that long ago.