Jump to content

7th Dem 2020 Debate (last before Iowa)

bad_teammate

By bad_teammate
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

RomaVicta

RomaVicta 29,907

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, hornhorn said:

You sound like AOC just threw up on surly. 

You think corporations didn't or don't pay taxes? Apple in 2015 paid half of the amount in corporate taxes that Bottom fifty percent of ALL Americans put together. 

You're the one gunning for THEIR money and they're the greedy ones? 

And y u mad bro? Its already Wednesday, two more days. 

Hmmm. First, you reveal much by assuming that evoking AOC will be found generally insulting. It's not. She has a much keener mind for these things than I do.

Next, your statistics all speak in general fractions of what is paid without the context of what percentage of the wealth of your poor victims are being taxed.

You name Apple who has indeed paid taxes. They cheat, but the do pay. 15% rate for the Forbes #1. Horribly exorbitant.

I wonder why you chose Apple? Oh, here's a possible reason:

 

60 of America's biggest companies paid no federal income tax in 2018 (CBS News).

Quote

Big companies have long relied on strategies to reduce their tax bills. But the new tax law is making it even easier, with a new analysis finding that 60 profitable Fortune 500 companies paid no taxes on a total of $79 billion of profits earned in 2018.

The companies, which include tech giants such as Amazon and Netflix, should have paid a collective $16.4 billion in federal income taxes based on the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act's 21 percent corporate tax rate, according to the left-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. Instead, these corporations received a net tax rebate of $4.3 billion. The analysis is based on the corporations' annual financial reports, which were filed earlier this year to report their 2018 results. 

So, yea, I'll take the comparison to AOC. You can carry on being a GOP/Rush vomit-eating shill for the poor victims like the top 1% and the Forbes 500 whom you defend through half-lies and lame sophistry.

I'm sure you'll embrace these facts and context to reach new conclusions. I sure you won't continue to spew narrow slices of data to support rhetoric that doesn't stand up to analysis.

Now run along, amateur operative. Maybe you'll stumble into your integrity.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hornhorn

hornhorn 100

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Hmmm. First, you reveal much by assuming that evoking AOC will be found generally insulting. It's not. She has a much keener mind for these things than I do.

Next, your statistics all speak in general fractions of what is paid without the context of what percentage of the wealth of your poor victims are being taxed.

You name Apple who has indeed paid taxes. They cheat, but the do pay. 15% rate for the Forbes #1. Horribly exorbitant.

I wonder why you chose Apple? Oh, here's a possible reason:

 

60 of America's biggest companies paid no federal income tax in 2018 (CBS News).

So, yea, I'll take the comparison to AOC. You can carry on being a GOP/Rush vomit-eating shill for the poor victims like the top 1% and the Forbes 500 whom you defend through half-lies and lame sophistry.

I'm sure you'll embrace these facts and context to reach new conclusions. I sure you won't continue to spew narrow slices of data to support rhetoric that doesn't stand up to analysis.

Now run along, amateur operative. Maybe you'll stumble into your integrity.

Let's talk specifics, do you know why Amazon didn't have a tax bill? 

And Apple did pay every single penny in taxes for their US earned income. Why should they have to pay taxes on income earned in foreign countries that are kept in foreign countries? 

Look into it, maybe you'll learn something instead of parroting what you read on vox.com.

Edited by hornhorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
immortal13

immortal13 4,059

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Hmmm. First, you reveal much by assuming that evoking AOC will be found generally insulting. It's not. She has a much keener mind for these things than I do.

Next, your statistics all speak in general fractions of what is paid without the context of what percentage of the wealth of your poor victims are being taxed.

You name Apple who has indeed paid taxes. They cheat, but the do pay. 15% rate for the Forbes #1. Horribly exorbitant.

I wonder why you chose Apple? Oh, here's a possible reason:

 

60 of America's biggest companies paid no federal income tax in 2018 (CBS News).

So, yea, I'll take the comparison to AOC. You can carry on being a GOP/Rush vomit-eating shill for the poor victims like the top 1% and the Forbes 500 whom you defend through half-lies and lame sophistry.

I'm sure you'll embrace these facts and context to reach new conclusions. I sure you won't continue to spew narrow slices of data to support rhetoric that doesn't stand up to analysis.

Now run along, amateur operative. Maybe you'll stumble into your integrity.

AOC...keen mind?

 

giphy (1).gif

  • Fuck You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RomaVicta

RomaVicta 29,907

Posted
Posted
Just now, hornhorn said:

Let's talk specifics, do you know why Amazon didn't have a tax bill? 

Look into it, maybe you'll learn something instead of parroting what you read on vox.com.

Make an actual case. You toss out narrow facts and then expect me to remain in your phony lane. 

How does the fact that 60 of the most profitable companies in the US didn't pay corporate tax impact your view that you've chosen to base on Amazon and the amount rather than the percentage Apple pays?

I'll not bother with you until you have generated some substance. So far you've muffed an insult by comparing me to AOC and now you toss out something called 'vox' in attachment to me which I know nothing of. Do I feel good about that or bad about that? What is your aim other than distraction?

Or are you so low-level in your sophistry that you must imagine me to be a stereotype described to you by voices on the radio in order to feel that, no matter what, you are right and good while I am a poor misguided libtard hiding an agenda under my cloak as I hate America?

Until you write something of substance, have a nice day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hornhorn

hornhorn 100

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Make an actual case. You toss out narrow facts and then expect me to remain in your phony lane. 

How does the fact that 60 of the most profitable companies in the US didn't pay corporate tax impact your view that you've chosen to base on Amazon and the amount rather than the percentage Apple pays?

I'll not bother with you until you have generated some substance. So far you've muffed an insult by comparing me to AOC and now you toss out something called 'vox' in attachment to me which I know nothing of. Do I feel good about that or bad about that? What is your aim other than distraction?

Or are you so low-level in your sophistry that you must imagine me to be a stereotype described to you by voices on the radio in order to feel that, no matter what, you are right and good while I am a poor misguided libtard hiding an agenda under my cloak as I hate America?

Until you write something of substance, have a nice day.

I didn't bring up the companies, you did. Apple paid their income taxes, so we'll leave them well alone. 

To talk about this intelligently we have to be specific, since YOU were the one complaining about them I ask do you know why Amazon's tax bill was zero? 

I'll wait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skipper

Skipper 6,135

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, hornhorn said:

So you want to ask that mother/father who pays $1500/month in heatlhcare as a self employed person for their family to continue doing so and get extended wait times in return because she needs to realize her privilege?

Yeah, like I said good plan! 

The more nuanced part is that employees with really good private health insurance probably don't appreciate how much their employers subsidize the cost for them.   For example, I'm a partner at a law firm.  Employees making less than $75K/year pay $542 per month for the same EXACT insurance coverage that I pay $1912 for a month.   I'm not bitching about that, I think it's completely fair, but stating it as a fact as I doubt the staff actually realize the premiums they are paying for good health insurance is not representative of the actual cost.   So I 100% agree that if M4A is ever implemented, many employed middle class Americans will receive significantly worse medical service.  Hell, you have already seen the influx of concierge practices from doctors not wanting to deal with Medicare in the current structure.  There is absolutely already a "first class" of medicine out there most don't have access to.   

But M4A would absolutely result in a significantly enhanced multi-tier medical services structure.   Presumably it wouldn't impact me or my family as I already pay "more" and would continue to do so under whatever upper tier developed under the new system.  Hell, I might even come out ahead stripping it out of the current arrangement depending on how much taxes increase.  But your analogy that many that are currently riding in "coach" would be forced to drop down to "Greyhound premium" is dead on and I wonder how many employed, middle class supporters of M4A appreciate that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hornhorn

hornhorn 100

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Skipper said:

The more nuanced part is that employees with really good private health insurance probably don't appreciate how much their employers subsidize the cost for them.   For example, I'm a partner at a law firm.  Employees making less than $75K/year pay $542 per month for the same EXACT insurance coverage that I pay $1912 for a month.   I'm not bitching about that, I think it's completely fair, but stating it as a fact as I doubt the staff actually realize the premiums they are paying for good health insurance is not representative of the actual cost.   So I 100% agree that if M4A is ever implemented, many employed middle class Americans will receive significantly worse medical service.  Hell, you have already seen the influx of concierge practices from doctors not wanting to deal with Medicare in the current structure.  There is absolutely already a "first class" of medicine out there most don't have access to.   

But M4A would absolutely result in a significantly enhanced multi-tier medical services structure.   Presumably it wouldn't impact me or my family as I already pay "more" and would continue to do so under whatever upper tier developed under the new system.  Hell, I might even come out ahead stripping it out of the current arrangement depending on how much taxes increase.  But your analogy that many that are currently riding in "coach" would be forced to drop down to "Greyhound premium" is dead on and I wonder how many employed, middle class supporters of M4A appreciate that.

And that's exactly the point, M4ALL supporters don't really know how much will it cost, or how will it be implemented or how they will tier it or how it will impact the people that already have healthcare or how we will find jobs for those hundreds of thousands of employees that work in reimbursement that are now unemployed but they want it and they want it now!

They sound like JG Wentworth commercials.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hornhorn

hornhorn 100

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, BradInATX said:

I see today is one of those random days where Republicans and Trump voters pretend they care about fiscal responsibility.

Because you think giving tax cuts of $100 billion dollars/year = spending $3.2 trillion/year. Your math as usual is off, by about 32 times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hornhorn

hornhorn 100

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Imagine the first guy that came up with the idea to use tax dollars to build roads.  If some of you people back then were the majority we’d be traveling on dirt paths today and foraging for groceries because the sticker shock of the cost of roads would have been out of the question.

But its remotely not the same. Did we have private roads that citizens paid for? Did that guy ask those citizens to stop paying for those private roads and direct that payment to govt instead in a promise that it will cost the same and will be of similar quality without really knowing if its going to be? Did we have models of govt build roads in other countries that had more traffic and congestion because they didn't have enough lanes as opposed to our privately built roads? 

And most importantly, did that person say that he has no idea how much it would cost or how wide or how many lanes or interstates or streets they would have but we should dump the private model because some cannot use it? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RomaVicta

RomaVicta 29,907

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Incredulity said:

nope, outlawed along with soft drinks.

Cotton candy and soft drinks! They can take away my checks and balances, but, by GAWD, I have every right to consume my weight in sugar every month! We're the healthiest country in the world!

I wonder how much of our health costs are related to obesity. But advertising-pushed cheese burgers, pizza, sugar drinks, and corn sucrose in everything must be protected because we don't have any problems here!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rougarou

Rougarou 594

Posted
Posted (edited)

IDK about you guys, but I only drive on Toll roads. Can't be bothered to be backed up in traffic with a bunch of Nissan Sentra's, ya know? But as a normal human being I don't cry about paying the taxes for the side streets I use, etc. As most normal people don't. If there was a way to submit NTTA receipts and get a rebate for the taxes spent on roads, do you think people Libertarians would do it though?

Edited by Rougarou
Link to comment
Share on other sites
immamac

immamac 42,850

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Skipper said:

The more nuanced part is that employees with really good private health insurance probably don't appreciate how much their employers subsidize the cost for them.   For example, I'm a partner at a law firm.  Employees making less than $75K/year pay $542 per month for the same EXACT insurance coverage that I pay $1912 for a month.   I'm not bitching about that, I think it's completely fair, but stating it as a fact as I doubt the staff actually realize the premiums they are paying for good health insurance is not representative of the actual cost.   So I 100% agree that if M4A is ever implemented, many employed middle class Americans will receive significantly worse medical service.  Hell, you have already seen the influx of concierge practices from doctors not wanting to deal with Medicare in the current structure.  There is absolutely already a "first class" of medicine out there most don't have access to.   

But M4A would absolutely result in a significantly enhanced multi-tier medical services structure.   Presumably it wouldn't impact me or my family as I already pay "more" and would continue to do so under whatever upper tier developed under the new system.  Hell, I might even come out ahead stripping it out of the current arrangement depending on how much taxes increase.  But your analogy that many that are currently riding in "coach" would be forced to drop down to "Greyhound premium" is dead on and I wonder how many employed, middle class supporters of M4A appreciate that.

 

preventative care and well managed medical conditions are so much fucking cheaper than paying for catastrophic care. This isn't even specific to medical usecases, it applies to many many industries.

I don't understand why people aren't talking about this part of it more - most of the bills that everyone is griping and bitching about are things that in large part are significantly reduced by proper preventative and active care if it was affordable. Unfortunately for many it's not affordable for them to BE healthy, so they are unhealthy until they are DYING then they go seek medical care.

1 hour ago, hornhorn said:

But its remotely not the same. Did we have private roads that citizens paid for? Did that guy ask those citizens to stop paying for those private roads and direct that payment to govt instead in a promise that it will cost the same and will be of similar quality without really knowing if its going to be? Did we have models of govt build roads in other countries that had more traffic and congestion because they didn't have enough lanes as opposed to our privately built roads? 

And most importantly, did that person say that he has no idea how much it would cost or how wide or how many lanes or interstates or streets they would have but we should dump the private model because some cannot use it? 

 

LOL despite being one of the worst possible analogies to make (I know it's not your original analogy) this is a horrible take. I think the one logical fallacy trap that most people who discuss this topic fall into is they aren't arguing the correct premise.

1) Privatized healthcare is not what you are claiming it is - it's a profit machine the sole outcome that is being pursued by all non individuals in the system is profitability. It IS NOT a private industry funded by private citizens who get everything they pay for back. It would actually be closer to private citizens paying for toll roads and then getting fucked into paying a monthly subscription for the privilege to use them and a per use fee when they do exercise their privilege. All those subscription fees and per use fees also aren't profit sharing and don't necessarily fund improvements to said road. They go into a small groups pockets.

2) Healthy citizens don't necessarily equate to more profit - even in the insurance scenarios. While preventative care and ongoing treatment in the long term is cheaper in the terms of profitability it eats into how much is going out of the bank. So if a road in the cold harsh midwest needs a coating applied to it every 4 weeks so that it doesn't fall apart after a big freeze vs fixing a tract of the road that catastrophically fails. Overall it will be cheaper to fix the small patch of road when it catastrophically fails, however the rest of the road is still at risk of also catastrophically failing. Instead of limiting the amount of those catastrophes you just use statistics to maximize the profit formula. Except you know - each one of those failures isn't a road it's a fucking human being who is dying.

3) Public healthcare is also not what you are claiming it is - it is designed to provide full medical coverage (including drug development and disbursement) with a balanced budget. That doesn't mean unfair and low wages for Doctors, facilities, drug makers etc. That means that there's only a certain pool of money available and people get paid according to the funds that are available instead of arbitrary numbers decided by premiums (again mainly driven by profitable scenarios). You know the cool thing about being profitable? you can dip into a cash reserve and then charge back for it to make that money back. In a balanced budget you can't just have the costs ever rising for no reason other than profitability so there's less incentive for people who are driven strictly by dollars to provide care.

4) Healthy/Unhealthy citizen balance presents an issue in macro economic Public healthcare because it's difficult to run a balanced budget based on largely unknown factors.  The most predictable and best way to give healthcare to EVERYONE is to provide services and drugs designed to keep the EXPENSIVE stuff from happening. The downside is that when the expensive stuff does happen - it's often delivered in a cost conscious way (which means less doctors, facilities, etc etc - which means "longer time to get care" or "lines") 

The argument that the system isn't broken is fucking fundamentally unsound. It's absolutely broken - it's not even pretending to serve the needs of the people who pay into it.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
immortal13

immortal13 4,059

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Cotton candy and soft drinks! They can take away my checks and balances, but, by GAWD, I have every right to consume my weight in sugar every month! We're the healthiest country in the world!

I wonder how much of our health costs are related to obesity. But advertising-pushed cheese burgers, pizza, sugar drinks, and corn sucrose in everything must be protected because we don't have any problems here!

 

Don't worry, the government will take care of you when you get the diabetes 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hornhorn

hornhorn 100

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, immamac said:
 

preventative care and well managed medical conditions are so much fucking cheaper than paying for catastrophic care. This isn't even specific to medical usecases, it applies to many many industries.

I don't understand why people aren't talking about this part of it more - most of the bills that everyone is griping and bitching about are things that in large part are significantly reduced by proper preventative and active care if it was affordable. Unfortunately for many it's not affordable for them to BE healthy, so they are unhealthy until they are DYING then they go seek medical care.

LOL despite being one of the worst possible analogies to make (I know it's not your original analogy) this is a horrible take. I think the one logical fallacy trap that most people who discuss this topic fall into is they aren't arguing the correct premise.

1) Privatized healthcare is not what you are claiming it is - it's a profit machine the sole outcome that is being pursued by all non individuals in the system is profitability. It IS NOT a private industry funded by private citizens who get everything they pay for back. It would actually be closer to private citizens paying for toll roads and then getting fucked into paying a monthly subscription for the privilege to use them and a per use fee when they do exercise their privilege. All those subscription fees and per use fees also aren't profit sharing and don't necessarily fund improvements to said road. They go into a small groups pockets.

2) Healthy citizens don't necessarily equate to more profit - even in the insurance scenarios. While preventative care and ongoing treatment in the long term is cheaper in the terms of profitability it eats into how much is going out of the bank. So if a road in the cold harsh midwest needs a coating applied to it every 4 weeks so that it doesn't fall apart after a big freeze vs fixing a tract of the road that catastrophically fails. Overall it will be cheaper to fix the small patch of road when it catastrophically fails, however the rest of the road is still at risk of also catastrophically failing. Instead of limiting the amount of those catastrophes you just use statistics to maximize the profit formula. 

3) Public healthcare is also not what you are claiming it is - it is designed to provide full medical coverage (including drug development and disbursement) with a balanced budget. That doesn't mean unfair and low wages for Doctors, facilities, drug makers etc. That means that there's only a certain pool of money available and people get paid according to the funds that are available instead of arbitrary numbers decided by premiums (again mainly driven by profitable scenarios). You know the cool thing about being profitable? you can dip into a cash reserve and then charge back for it to make that money back. In a balanced budget you can't just have the costs ever rising for no reason other than profitability so there's less incentive for people who are driven strictly by dollars to provide care.

4) Healthy/Unhealthy citizen balance presents an issue in macro economic Public healthcare because it's difficult to run a balanced budget based on largely unknown factors.  The most predictable and best way to give healthcare to EVERYONE is to provide services and drugs designed to keep the EXPENSIVE stuff from happening. The downside is that when the expensive stuff does happen - it's often delivered in a cost conscious way (which means less doctors, facilities, etc etc - which means "longer time to get care" or "lines") 

The argument that the system isn't broken is fucking fundamentally unsound. It's absolutely broken - it's not even pretending to serve the needs of the people who pay into it.

Like you said, not my analogy. I just played along.

1. Agreed.

2. Agreed.

3. Uh what? Balance budget? We don't even know what the costs are going to be within tens of billions of dollars in ball park over a span of a decade. So how do you know how you're going to have cash reserves? I suppose you've never worked with public institutions that use federal dollars. For instance when public clinics that offer HIV treatment on Ryan White funding have X amount of dollars available at the end of the year, they test patients on tests that are not needed so they use up all their funds. If they don't then their funding gets decreased by that amount next year. You can bet your house that anything that the govt spends money on is going to have more inefficiencies than one can imagine. So please stop with this drivel.

The system is meh at best. But the problem is that the solution you're proposing is more expensive, worse experience and we haven't even discussed the possible disappearance of discoveries due to absence of a profit motive. There's a reason why America files for more medical patents than rest of the world combined.  But that's an unknown and unlike you I won't make claims about an unknown as a certainty that it will disappear. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
immamac

immamac 42,850

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, hornhorn said:

Like you said, not my analogy. I just played along.

1. Agreed.

2. Agreed.

3. Uh what? Balance budget? We don't even know what the costs are going to be within tens of billions of dollars in ball park over a span of a decade. So how do you know how you're going to have cash reserves? I suppose you've never worked with public institutions that use federal dollars. For instance when public clinics that offer HIV treatment on Ryan White funding have X amount of dollars available at the end of the year, they test patients on tests that are not needed so they use up all their funds. If they don't then their funding gets decreased by that amount next year. You can bet your house that anything that the govt spends money on is going to have more inefficiencies than one can imagine. So please stop with this drivel.

The system is meh at best. But the problem is that the solution you're proposing is more expensive, worse experience and we haven't even discussed the possible disappearance of discoveries due to absence of a profit motive. There's a reason why America files for more medical patents than rest of the world combined.  But that's an unknown and unlike you I won't make claims about an unknown as a certainty that it will disappear. 

the transition plan is whats FUBAR and makes #3 seems insane and stupid - I also think that's the reason M4ALL is going to fail, it's not because after it's up and running it will suck, it's because the transition to get there will be so expensive and painful people are just not willing to do it. 

I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with your post either - I was just saying that logically the argument should be presented a bit differently from a conceptual and practical level. 

I personally wouldn't vote for M4ALL as it is, but I do believe that localized regional single payer type systems and a broader national single payer type system need to exist in tandem to achieve what the american public needs for healthcare and there's a way to do that while being inclusive of the privatized healthcare system (insurance, pharma, facilities, etc). I'm actually OK with healthcare being more expensive in the USA as you said it's the leader in many medical advances. However it can't be an unlimited money grab, people will bankrupt themselves trying to stay alive it's not like any other situation available in business. I think well thought out policies that limit profit or mandate investment can potentially be a solution, but thats extremely difficult to actually put into practice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hornhorn

hornhorn 100

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, immamac said:

the transition plan is whats FUBAR and makes #3 seems insane and stupid - I also think that's the reason M4ALL is going to fail, it's not because after it's up and running it will suck, it's because the transition to get there will be so expensive and painful people are just not willing to do it. 

I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with your post either - I was just saying that logically the argument should be presented a bit differently from a conceptual and practical level. 

I personally wouldn't vote for M4ALL as it is, but I do believe that localized regional single payer type systems and a broader national single payer type system need to exist in tandem to achieve what the american public needs for healthcare and there's a way to do that while being inclusive of the privatized healthcare system (insurance, pharma, facilities, etc). I'm actually OK with healthcare being more expensive in the USA as you said it's the leader in many medical advances. However it can't be an unlimited money grab, people will bankrupt themselves trying to stay alive it's not like any other situation available in business. I think well thought out policies that limit profit or mandate investment can potentially be a solution, but thats extremely difficult to actually put into practice.

I don't disagree with any of your points either. Who wouldn't love for healthcare to be possible for all too but not currently as they are packaging it. 

They want the UK system without the UK taxes on the middle class and poor. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
immamac

immamac 42,850

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, hornhorn said:

I don't disagree with any of your points either. Who wouldn't love for healthcare to be possible for all too but not currently as they are packaging it. 

They want the UK system without the UK taxes on the middle class and poor. 

My god - it's almost like we had a good conversation

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RomaVicta

RomaVicta 29,907

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

Don't worry, the government will take care of you when you get the diabetes 

Or we could go for the cheap options of big warning labels, restrictions on advertising for high fructose foods, and regulation of the overuse of high fructose corn syrup that encourages bad eating habits, addiction, obesity in the consumer, and increased likelihood of obesity in offspring of the consumer.

Or we could just let the moneyed interests shovel lobby dollars to our corrupt political system to protect the profits to be gained by flooding the consumer with ingredients either hidden or intentionally puzzling.

Lot of money in selling poison and then selling the antidote/palliative.

I'm in this whirlpool of bad habits and I hate it.

I sometimes look at replays of old Texas games on TV. Up until the late 70s, look at how slender the fans are. They were not nutrition nazis. They were just regular people. Then they became a market. Then they became fatted cows. Their habits were changed by indirect forces of legislators failing to look out for the common good and advertising blitzes urging deadly habits that taste fantastic.

Idiot World is a fabulous market when the people they entrust to look after their interests don't give a rat's ass about them. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skipper

Skipper 6,135

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Or we could go for the cheap options of big warning labels, restrictions on advertising for high fructose foods, and regulation of the overuse of high fructose corn syrup that encourages bad eating habits, addiction, obesity in the consumer, and increased likelihood of obesity in offspring of the consumer.

 

To keep this on topic, I remember laughing at the time about Bloomberg wanting to tax sodas.   Now that I'm actually educated regarding the disaster sugar(among other things) is with respect to the health of the public as a whole, he's actually dead on.   Tax that shit just like tobacco .  

Edited by Skipper
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hornhorn

hornhorn 100

Posted
Posted
Just now, immamac said:

My god - it's almost like we had a good conversation

Right? If you notice my posts initially have been nothing but Math or asking questions met with fuck you, this is a Dem thread, GTFO you GOP supporter. 

I had similar questions in 2015 when Trump suggested cutting taxes. Met with similar responses.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
immortal13

immortal13 4,059

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, hornhorn said:

Right? If you notice my posts initially have been nothing but Math or asking questions met with fuck you, this is a Dem thread, GTFO you GOP supporter. 

I had similar questions in 2015 when Trump suggested cutting taxes. Met with similar responses.

 

Welcome to the cloak room

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Incredulity

Incredulity 11,671

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, RomaVicta said:

Or we could go for the cheap options of big warning labels, restrictions on advertising for high fructose foods, and regulation of the overuse of high fructose corn syrup that encourages bad eating habits, addiction, obesity in the consumer, and increased likelihood of obesity in offspring of the consumer.

Or we could just let the moneyed interests shovel lobby dollars to our corrupt political system to protect the profits to be gained by flooding the consumer with ingredients either hidden or intentionally puzzling.

Lot of money in selling poison and then selling the antidote/palliative.

I'm in this whirlpool of bad habits and I hate it.

I sometimes look at replays of old Texas games on TV. Up until the late 70s, look at how slender the fans are. They were not nutrition nazis. They were just regular people. Then they became a market. Then they became fatted cows. Their habits were changed by indirect forces of legislators failing to look out for the common good and advertising blitzes urging deadly habits that taste fantastic.

Idiot World is a fabulous market when the people they entrust to look after their interests don't give a rat's ass about them. 

Image result for historical percentage of income spent on food

 

Food has gotten more and more affordable and readily available.  

 

It's not some evil twisted plot by corporations to fatten morons and then sell them insulin.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RomaVicta

RomaVicta 29,907

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Incredulity said:

Image result for historical percentage of income spent on food

 

Food has gotten more and more affordable and readily available.  

 

It's not some evil twisted plot by corporations to fatten morons and then sell them insulin.  

 

You're right. Everything is fine. Your graph totally destroys my post. I mean, it's a graph and it is presented as an answer. That's enough for some people, so way to go!

Thanks for your contribution.

To review:

Americans are getting fatter. They've been consuming less nutritious food that tastes great and is addictive.

Your answer: The percentage of income spent on food has declined.

Sequitur all the way, baby!

(Oh, to stay off topic, food profits have gone from 1% to 5%! Everybody benefits under your standard! Hooray!)

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Incredulity

Incredulity 11,671

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, RomaVicta said:

You're right. Everything is fine. Your graph totally destroys my post. I mean, it's a graph and it is presented as an answer. That's enough for some people, so way to go!

Thanks for your contribution.

To review:

Americans are getting fatter. They've been consuming less nutritious food that tastes great and is addictive.

Your answer: The percentage of income spent on food has declined.

Sequitur all the way, baby!

(Oh, to stay off topic, food profits have gone from 1% to 5%! Everybody benefits under your standard! Hooray!)

Will the government please save us from plentiful and affordable food!!!

 

better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
staboner

staboner 4,969

Posted
Posted (edited)

It has always amazed me how half of America gets hives from thinking about public good. Deflect left and right, ignore, money, be responsible, etc. Meanwhile ignoring that shitloads of people are suffering - all the while supporting tons of other shit that violates their limited worldview and inhumane ideologies

Meanwhile the number of suffering grows.

And here we are. Human as ever. Hold your nose over the carcasses while you turn out the lights guys. 

Edited by staboner
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RomaVicta

RomaVicta 29,907

Posted
Posted
40 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Will the government please save us from plentiful and affordable food!!!

 

better?

With your crowd. We had plentiful and affordable food in the 1970s and the decades before that. We weren't thinner because we were starving, we were thinner because consumers could eat fast food, buy groceries and make other normal choices that didn't inflate them.

You deny a self-evident truth seemingly because you can't stand the notion that profit seekers may not always act in the best interest of consumers. 

Open your eyes. Corporate marketeers don't care about you. They don't give you the information or even means to exert demand control on the market. 

Or keep 'em closed and whistle through life naively thinking the super rich and profit seekers are looking out for you. You probably think I'm the naive one. That's just straight up weird.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Incredulity

Incredulity 11,671

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

With your crowd. We had plentiful and affordable food in the 1970s and the decades before that. We weren't thinner because we were starving, we were thinner because consumers could eat fast food, buy groceries and make other normal choices that didn't inflate them.

You deny a self-evident truth seemingly because you can't stand the notion that profit seekers may not always act in the best interest of consumers. 

Open your eyes. Corporate marketeers don't care about you. They don't give you the information or even means to exert demand control on the market. 

Or keep 'em closed and whistle through life naively thinking the super rich and profit seekers are looking out for you. You probably think I'm the naive one. That's just straight up weird.

I don’t. 

Besides making a safe product, it’s not a corporations responsibility to “care about me” or “make decisions in my best interest”. 

It’s my job to make decisions about products to consume and be responsible for those decisions.

Exactly the reason I am opposed to socializing the cost of providing insulin(pay the medical expenses)to people who won’t stop eating ringdings for breakfast, lunch and dinner. (Substitute eating ringdings with drinking, basejumping, doing drugs, driving like a maniac, sticking roman candles in their ass... at your pleasure)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...