Ohio Chatter
Ohio Chatter

Forums

All Threads Serious Business Sports Politics Archive Pick 'ems
Log In Create Account

Disgusted With Obama Administration.

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Politics ▸ Disgusted With Obama Administration.
jhay78's avatar

jhay78

Senior Member

1,917 posts
Sep 16, 2011 4:16 PM
QuakerOats;898688 wrote:http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1366055&srvc=rss


obama's government edict: you need permission if you want french fries.


change we can believe in ...........
Does Mrs. Obama know that no one in the history if our nation has been forced at gunpoint to drive to a fast-food restaraunt, buy french fries, and then consume them? Does she know that in close proximity to many restaraunts are these things called grocery stores, most of which have produce departments, most of which contain fruits and vegetables?

Has she or anyone else on the left heard of concepts like individual liberty, personal responsibility, and self-governance? It's not that hard to figure out- if I want my kids to eat fruits and vegetables, I go to the produce department, the local farmers market, or grow them myself. If I want my kids to eat french fries, we go to a fast food place and eat them.
Sep 16, 2011 4:16pm
A

Altor

Member

62 posts
Sep 16, 2011 4:35 PM
To be fair, unless there is some political arm twisiting being done here, all that is happening here is the restaurants exercising their rights to serve fruits, vegetables, and skim milk as the default. They aren't taking french fries and soft drinks off the menu. They just aren't pushing them.

On the surface, this doesn't appear to be some mandate from-on-high. Even though she is using the office of the First Lady to encourage it, I just don't see a problem here unless there is some back room quid pro quo or other shenanigans that isn't being reported.
Sep 16, 2011 4:35pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Sep 16, 2011 10:58 PM
QuakerOats;898688 wrote:http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1366055&srvc=rss


obama's government edict: you need permission if you want french fries.


change we can believe in ...........
Oh no a private company decided to make a policy that they want to make healthier food the standard and the President's wife supports this move! THE HORROR, THE SOCIALISM! GET YOUR GUNS!!!

Calm down.
Sep 16, 2011 10:58pm
jhay78's avatar

jhay78

Senior Member

1,917 posts
Sep 16, 2011 11:19 PM
I Wear Pants;899081 wrote:Oh no a private company decided to make a policy that they want to make healthier food the standard and the President's wife supports this move! THE HORROR, THE SOCIALISM! GET YOUR GUNS!!!

Calm down.
I'll acknowledge that the companies making this move as well as the First Lady are not completely whacked out here. But the idea that this will curb childhood obesity is naive. When parents (not the government, not restaraunts, not schools) take responsibility for what and how much their children eat, as well as how much activity they engage in, then the issue will take care of itself. In the meantime, hungry families uninterested in fruits and veggies will gravitate toward places that offer greasy fries, and the fast food market will adjust accordingly.

But I have a feeling (not proof) that these particular companies were extra willing to get on the good side of this administration, given their proclivity to pick winners and losers in the free market.
Sep 16, 2011 11:19pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Sep 16, 2011 11:23 PM
Perhaps but who cares if it doesn't lowere obesity. I think the idea isn't to have each of these things change obesity by themselves but that it's to change the culture. IE: Kids and parents get used to having healthier foods and then make those choices by themselves more regularly.

Not saying it will work but that's probably the idea and I'm fine with it as long as no one is forced to do anything. Which they aren't in this case.
Sep 16, 2011 11:23pm
jhay78's avatar

jhay78

Senior Member

1,917 posts
Sep 16, 2011 11:40 PM
I Wear Pants;899110 wrote:Perhaps but who cares if it doesn't lowere obesity. I think the idea isn't to have each of these things change obesity by themselves but that it's to change the culture. IE: Kids and parents get used to having healthier foods and then make those choices by themselves more regularly.

Not saying it will work but that's probably the idea and I'm fine with it as long as no one is forced to do anything. Which they aren't in this case.
Yeah I agree. Although one big step in solving the obesity epidemic would be to curb or eliminate the massive subsidization of corn (which is found in some form in basically every cheap, unhealthy food out there) from the federal government. The obvious consequence of that is that food prices will go up at least temporarily, until families figure out that maybe it's cheaper and healthier to frequent the produce/farmers markets instead of fast food places. And when people demand healthier food our farmers would be more than able to meet that demand.

But again when the government picks winners (in this case corn) and losers in free markets, then we can usually expect negative consequences.
Sep 16, 2011 11:40pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Sep 16, 2011 11:42 PM
Try ending farm subsidies though and you get the Republicans in an uproar.
Sep 16, 2011 11:42pm
Cleveland Buck's avatar

Cleveland Buck

Troll Hunter

5,126 posts
Sep 17, 2011 12:54 AM
Food prices would go down without subsidies. The reason the government subsidizes food is to keep prices up artificially. Everything the government subsidizes drives up the price.
Sep 17, 2011 12:54am
majorspark's avatar

majorspark

Senior Member

5,122 posts
Sep 17, 2011 1:28 AM
I would add to this that federal subsidies given to farmers to basically have their crops burned for energy is the most asinine idea to come down the pike. What form of idiot burns food? It decreases the supply of edible use of the product on the market and drives up the price. Everyone needs to eat so the demand is not diminished. Who gets the shaft? The poor. The very group the left feigns compassion for. While people in this world starve we arrogantly burn food. Why? Because of a climate change hoax. The poor can starve while we feign saving the planet.
Sep 17, 2011 1:28am
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Sep 17, 2011 1:37 AM
majorspark;899278 wrote:I would add to this that federal subsidies given to farmers to basically have their crops burned for energy is the most asinine idea to come down the pike. What form of idiot burns food? It decreases the supply of edible use of the product on the market and drives up the price. Everyone needs to eat so the demand is not diminished. Who gets the shaft? The poor. The very group the left feigns compassion for. While people in this world starve we arrogantly burn food. Why? Because of a climate change hoax. The poor can starve while we feign saving the planet.
While I disagree about climate change I will agree that corn based ethanol does not seem like a very good solution for our oil dependency. Just looking at the costs to produce it makes that obvious.

I'm a much larger fan of transitioning to electric cars while at the same time diversifying our energy production (this means using wind, solar, tidal, piezoelectric, nuclear, coal, etc where it makes sense). Obviously we should try to minimize the use of more pollution heavy energy production (because even if you feel climate change is a hoax you should want good air and water quality) but should not overtly avoid methods like coal altogether because frankly, they're really easy to use right now.

But yeah, corn ethanol seems dumb. Because it is.
Sep 17, 2011 1:37am
tk421's avatar

tk421

Senior Member

8,500 posts
Sep 18, 2011 2:50 AM
It's pretty sad that the people on the OC are smarter than the Obama administration. Have we not gone over and over the numbers towards the conclusion that it is impossible to tax the rich enough to pay for all the spending in D.C., not to mention future spending?

Good ol' Obama is going to introduce a new tax rate for millionaires, called the "Buffet Rule" (I fucking hate Warren Buffet, wish he would shut his fucking mouth about his damn secretary). This has no chance at all of passing the House, I don't even see the point.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/17/national/main20107811.shtml
Sep 18, 2011 2:50am
Writerbuckeye's avatar

Writerbuckeye

Senior Member

4,745 posts
Sep 18, 2011 11:45 AM
The problem with Obama wanting to tax "millionaires" more is that he isn't sticking to a $1 million threshold. In the past, he's talked about taxing those making $250,000 or more, which would incorporate a lot of small businesses. Hell, even the $1 million is likely going to hit a lot of small business folks heavily, and kill jobs in the sector that typically produces more jobs than anywhere else.

Oh and this Republican has no problem with killing farm subsidies. In fact, do away with the Dept. of Agriculture at the same time you get rid of Education. Neither is needed at the federal level.
Sep 18, 2011 11:45am
BGFalcons82's avatar

BGFalcons82

Senior Member

2,173 posts
Sep 18, 2011 12:37 PM
Taxing millionaires, eh? That's such a new idea!! Does that mean individuals making $200,001 are classified as millionaires? Oh...I forgot. They all make a million, then write off 80% of it.

Oh wait a minute. I forgot that in the late 60's, it was deemed that anyone making over $99,999 would be classified as an evil rich scum-sucker and be obligated to pay something called, "The Alternative Minimum Tax". This is a/k/a AMT. Heck, it only affected less than a few hundred folks, so who would have been against that? What's that you say? There are over 10,000,000 Americans subject to it today. They chose NOT to index it to inflation because they kinda sorta...well, they EXACTLY knew it would get to be like it is today. Another shining example that taxes, once enacted, NEVER go away. Ever. Forever.
Sep 18, 2011 12:37pm
iclfan2's avatar

iclfan2

Reppin' the 330/216/843

6,360 posts
Sep 18, 2011 2:39 PM
jhay78;897522 wrote:There you go. Sounds like the musings of a moderate to me . . .
Why is he talking to La Raza in the first place, they are basically a hate group.
Sep 18, 2011 2:39pm
Writerbuckeye's avatar

Writerbuckeye

Senior Member

4,745 posts
Sep 18, 2011 8:47 PM
iclfan2;901800 wrote:Why is he talking to La Raza in the first place, they are basically a hate group.
Because he shares their view that illegals should be allowed to just stay in the country and jump to the head of the line ahead of those immigrants who actually followed the law and waited their turn.

Like most of his views on issues, he's picked the wrong side.
Sep 18, 2011 8:47pm
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Sep 19, 2011 4:21 AM
Writerbuckeye;901464 wrote:The problem with Obama wanting to tax "millionaires" more is that he isn't sticking to a $1 million threshold. In the past, he's talked about taxing those making $250,000 or more, which would incorporate a lot of small businesses. Hell, even the $1 million is likely going to hit a lot of small business folks heavily, and kill jobs in the sector that typically produces more jobs than anywhere else.

Oh and this Republican has no problem with killing farm subsidies. In fact, do away with the Dept. of Agriculture at the same time you get rid of Education. Neither is needed at the federal level.
You should change your username to "The Seer". One thing great about living in Asia, we get news before anyone:

"—$1.5 trillion in new revenue, which would include about $800 billion realized over 10 years from repealing the Bush-era tax rates for couples making more than $250,000. It also would place limits on deductions for wealthy filers and end certain corporate loopholes and subsidies for oil and gas companies."

I thought this would just be a tax on the millionaires. Unbelievable. Most of the folks in this category are small business owners just struggling to get by, and it is the crux in his plan? I'm at a loss, truly.
Sep 19, 2011 4:21am
believer's avatar

believer

Senior Member

8,153 posts
Sep 19, 2011 5:34 AM
Manhattan Buckeye;902732 wrote:Yahoo pulled it off the main page since it got so many negative hits, go figure.
That's OK....Drudge has plastered it on the front page.

November 2012 can't get here soon enough.
Sep 19, 2011 5:34am
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Sep 19, 2011 5:51 AM
^^^

LOL Drudge is quick, that barely hit the Asian feed before it had it up on its main page.
Sep 19, 2011 5:51am
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Sep 19, 2011 6:18 AM
Manhattan Buckeye;902731 wrote:...
I thought this would just be a tax on the millionaires. Unbelievable. Most of the folks in this category are small business owners just struggling to get by, and it is the crux in his plan? I'm at a loss, truly.
Fantastic way to create the desperately needed jobs.
Sep 19, 2011 6:18am