Phi for All

No. insane_alien meant buy a whole new plasma ball. I don't think they sell just the vacuum chambers by themselves.

Sure, those stores have the distribution power to push perishables further out right now. As fuel prices increase and the climate changes, the mega farm model may lose out due to higher shipping and spoilage costs. I have a couple of local grower grocery chains near me, Sunflower Farmer's Market in particular, that aren't that expensive at all. Their organics aren't any more than my local Kroger affiliate, and some of their other produce is cheaper. If they do have some things at higher price, I don't find them incredibly higher. This is changing. President Obama supports legislation that's aimed at curtailing some of the detrimental practices perpetrated by the mega farms. They're horrible polluters, whether it's a growing farm or a factory farm (Confined Animal Feeding Operation), and recent studies have shown there are many hidden costs that are being caused but not accounted for in large scale farming. It's a falsely profitable model that shifts liability from the business to the consumer and taxpayers. Sure, but we're trying to get people to eat healthier while still allowing them choices. I don't think it's just the overall price of healthy foods that keeps people from buying them. I see a tax on unhealthy foods to subsidize lower prices on healthy foods as a viable way to reach that goal. This will help people who are being responsible while penalizing those who aren't. But there are obviously people who don't shop at the grocery for other reasons than price. Lack of cooking expertise, or a perceived lack of time to prepare healthy meals are some other factors. I heard about a concept a while back where vacant commercial buildings (there are a few of those around me, even some vacant grocery stores) are leased for farmer's markets where you can buy produce that's just been freshly chopped up for you and bagged with simple instructions to make stews, soups and casseroles. They only prep the raw food there, they don't cook it, which saves a ton on inspections and venting and all the costs involved in operating an oven. I'm curious to know, from some of the members who DON'T cook or use the grocery store much, what it would take to get you to start? What are your biggest obstacles and drawbacks? Would you like to start eating healthier?

When your eating habits start to infringe on the rights of others, they become fair game for regulation and taxation. That part's really no different from your driving habits or your walking habits or your going-to-the-bathroom habits. You live in society with other people and your freedom to do as you please can't interfere with the rights of others. Not wearing your seat belt causes unnecessary deaths and higher costs to others, walking against the traffic lights is also not allowed for the same reasons, you can't defecate in public because of the unnecessary dangers and costs to others, and eating a preponderance of food that is known to be unhealthy for you also passes unnecessary dangers and costs along to other people in your society. The slippery slope leading down to your sleeping habits example is a fallacious one unless you can show how those habits might infringe on the rights of others. OTOH, if your snoring keeps enough townspeople awake at night and you fail to do anything about it.... You're bringing business into my example to make it less... better. And then you're arguing against my examples rather than the original point. A system that taxes all vehicles (personal and commercial) by their impact on existing resources (roads, in this case) by using the vehicle's weight as the parameter is almost exactly like taxing foods based on their impact on existing resources (healthcare insurance pools, in this case) by using the food's nutrition ratings as the parameter. For starters, I'd subsidize the local growers and farmers who bring produce to the grocery stores. These are the businesses that are providing the most sustainable, freshest, healthiest alternative to fast food in most communities. I'd have to think about the rest. Overall, my goal would be to make healthy food less expensive to attract more demand, increasing supply and lowering costs further.

! Moderator Note Personal attacks are still against the rules. See Maturity.

! Moderator Note homie12, your reaction here is wildly disproportionate to the situation, leading me to think you read something into swansont's post that wasn't intended. And at no point does anyone assume anything about your feelings. If you feel you've been personally attacked, please report any such posts. Please refrain from personally attacking any other members. We discuss ideas here, not the people who have them.

If they're using the insurance risk pool more often than the average person for a problem they could overcome with more responsible eating habits, then we either need to change the way they pay for healthcare or change their eating habits. Some of the other examples were just breaks, but there are plenty of examples of measures that are subsidized by a tax so the government doesn't have to make up the slack of the tax break elsewhere. States often penalize heavier vehicles because of the extra wear and tear they cause. Isn't it right that a big rig should pay more in licensing and road taxes than you in your compact car? How are you going to pay for it? Can we have some of that defense budget? Care to penalize something else that isn't to blame? What if I put it to you this way: I want to eliminate the tax on healthy foods and double the tax on fast foods to compensate. In my community, this would mean a savings of about $0.80 on my $10 purchase of produce/grains/lean meats, and it would cost me an extra $0.80 on my $10 purchase at Mooseburger's. I wasn't thinking of the alternative cigarette as a single company, but more of an industry. I don't like it when one company is set apart for lots of government consideration. *cough* Halliburton *cough* No, but it's often a good place to start. I'd rather the government use real incentives through economic means rather than spending money on advertising. There's enough spin going on in the corporate world. And again, I favor a break AND a hike. Both. You trivialize the impact by making it sound like it's just a few poor fat people. It's a big problem now that's getting bigger, literally. So yes, obviously, healthy foods could use a subsidy. Indulgence is easier to sell than wisdom. We subsidize oil and you have few choices when it comes to NOT using it. Why not subsidize a better choice of foods, where you can decide to do whatever you want as long as you're willing to pay for it?

Let me guess, homosexuals and atheists will wear red shirts, right? Set gaysers on "Shun". Enrage!

Taxes are used quite frequently as incentive programs. If the government wants to give some aid to emerging energy products, a tax break encourages people to take a chance. You get tax credits for fixing up your home or buying energy-efficient appliances. The Junk Food Tax is an example of a credit that's paid for by a balancing tax. Rather than just take money from consumers as a tax, it takes the tax from people who are abusing the healthcare system and gives it to people who aren't. Let me ask you this: If someone came up with a type of cigarette that satisfied smokers but didn't cause all the health problems, would you be against a government program that taxed regular cigarettes and gave that tax money as a subsidy to the new type of cigarette so it could compete? If health studies five years later confirmed that smoking-related health problems were declining, don't you think that program (which only came out of the pockets of those who insisted on smoking the old, known-carcinogen cigarettes) would be justified? If you read back, you brought up the nutrition label when I had said, "If it's known that a certain type of food causes health problems if too much is consumed, don't you think that knowledge is part of what a consumer should get before they are given their free-willed right to choose?" This type of information is NOT on the nutrition label. People in general have probably heard that eating too much fast food is bad for you, but they hear the company's advertising a LOT more often, telling them it's OK and available 24/7 and delicious and full of good things for you and cheaper if you buy the supersized value meal. For years it's been OK for a company to take advantage of people if they're stupid enough not to see the dangers. Now we have rampant obesity and attendant health problems. At a certain point, you're either going to have to allow for some type of publicly-funded solution, a solution from the private sector (good luck, they're making all kinds of money as it is) or better nutrition education. I'd actually prefer the education, but taxpayers don't seem to want to pay for schooling these days, and the fast food companies won't be thrilled about having their products actively challenged intellectually. A fast-food tax seems almost like the easiest solution. You argue against this incentive only as manipulation of people's behavior, but you don't see it as a counter to the manipulation of advertising. You argue against this incentive as an attempt to remove choice from the people, yet you don't seem to have the same problem with The Patriot Act. This isn't about the government MAKING your choices for you; it's about making some of the choices more/less attractive than others to influence your choice. Corporations get to do it with advertising, but you're arguing that it's not right for the government. Why is that? If you were going to do a fast food tax, it would have to be for end products, not ingredients. Sugar might be bad for you in a soft drink, but not so bad in something else. But you're correct, it's not right. And no one can tell me why the US has to charge double in order to use a system "designed to put U.S. manufacturers of sugar-containing products on a level playing field in the world market", as the US Dept of Agriculture puts it. It's also keeping us from using sugarcane as biomass for ethanol. Sugar ethanol is eight times more efficient than corn ethanol. Brazil uses sustainable sugar ethanol and they have many cars that run on nothing but, AT HALF THE PRICE OF GASOLINE! But you do have a choice not to pay this tax. Buy healthy food and you won't be charged. In fact, it could cost you less if your veg and whole grains were subsidized by the fast food eaters.

Great sound bite about the wet nurse and your arse, but inaccurate. It would be more of an incentive program paid for by a tax on the products that are causing the problem. You're so keyed on the "behavior regulation" aspect that you're ignoring the fact that people like you, who eat healthy, would have lower food bills the majority of the time. Your veg and whole grains would be subsidized by the extra tax on the half-pound fried chili-cheeseburger supermeals, encouraging you to eat healthy while preserving your right to have a half-pound fried chili-cheeseburger supermeal once in a while. Arsenic isn't listed on those labels. I didn't make an analogy here, I asked you why it's OK to give oil tax money back as subsidies but not OK to give fast food tax money back as a subsidy. It actually makes more sense to encourage healthy eating rather than giving money to already wealthy oil companies, doesn't it? Who is taxing sugar? I think the tax was for the end junk food product, not ingredients. Of course, if we were to stop subsidizing sugar companies, our price for domestic sugar might go down by half, to where the rest of the world is. There are plenty of companies waiting for that to happen so they can start using real sugar again instead of synthetics. Corporations are very big on claiming to be pro free market, but the truth is they would all jump in bed with a no-bid government contract in a heartbeat. They also want consumers to think they have complete choice, but you're only fooling yourself if you think their marketing and advertising don't work on you. Nearly every person on the planet will claim they can see through the bogus claims made by advertisers, but virtually every one of us is manipulated on a daily basis. There's a reason why US corporations spend more than most country's GNP on advertising. As a matter of fact, there are only 35 countries in the world that have a bigger GNP than what America spends on advertising alone. You may think your choice is your own but it's being tampered with psychologically, constantly.

In the picture I linked to, the ladder part is connected by toothpicks. If you build it first, then twist it, the toothpicks will help it keep its shape. If you use hard candies, you can still glue them to a piece of toothpick to stick into the licorice ladder. I think the toothpicks allow the strands to twist with the ladder and hold its shape.

We're going to start executing people as soon as our space-based laser is operable.

Business creates some natural conflicts of interests. No matter how much you level the field to create a free market, there will always be some areas where business conflicts with something of equal or greater value, such as your health or well-being. In most instances like that, when business is favored, the result is a poor one for the individual. An example is fireworks. Most places I know prohibit individuals setting off fireworks, resulting in heavy fines and even jail if you're caught. But it isn't illegal to sell them to you in the first place. The potential for skin burns, loss of sight, loss of digits, structural fire damage and more is enough to outlaw their use, but not their sale. When we see evidence that supports the idea that many businesses thrive at the expense of our overall health and well-being, what options do we have? We can let the business flourish but continue to harm us, we can shut them down, we can modify their products or we can tax the bad effects to help offset the cost of the damage done. Don't you think a portion of every penny you spend on gasoline goes to pay for their next oil spill? If it's known that a certain type of food causes health problems if too much is consumed, don't you think that knowledge is part of what a consumer should get before they are given their free-willed right to choose? And if it's OK to tax consumers and give some of that tax money to oil producers or tobacco or corn or sugar growers to subsidize their investments, why isn't it OK to give the money from a fast food tax to farmers who grow fresh produce? Business is essential to the economy, but unregulated business is NOT stronger than regulated business, no matter what businesses would like you to believe. The government isn't so much a hypothetical parent as a means to shape regulation so as to minimize the conflicts of interest. Lots of poisons already carry their own special taxes, like liquor and tobacco. It only affects those who actually use the products, unlike subsidies that tax everyone. I don't perceive it that way. I see evidence that a certain market's products are causing health problems for the consumers that use them. It's not a "You can't be trusted to make the right choice" argument, it's more of a "We let the market have it's way and it's gotten unsafe now" argument.

Anything else? How long do you have? What country, what school year? Any other requirements or restrictions?

Here's a photo.

Packaged perishables can cost more than fast food if you don't cook very often because a lot goes bad before you can use it. For people who want to eat less processed food, I recommend investing in a big pot, a casserole pan and some plastic containers for freezing, so you can take advantage of sales, and pick a day each week to cook a couple of stews or soups or casseroles for the rest of the week. The key here is to do as little actual cooking/cleaning as possible, while being able to buy thrifty bunches of fresh food, and use them all up at once so nothing goes bad. If you do it all on one day and make one mess, it'll be less hassle. I don't know about anyone else, but I think working people spend too much money on lunch, and end up eating too much at a time when being really full is counterproductive to their work. Unless your job is super physical, having a big processed lunch from a restaurant might make you feel more like napping than finishing that project. Eating a decent portion of one of your homemade casseroles or a mug of your soup might be a better, more economical choice most days.

Move quickly. Men are idiots where you live.

I find this hard to believe. Is it just because you haven't been in the US very long? Absolutely. And put a little cologne on it. Anything that engages the senses is a nice attention to detail your valentine will really appreciate. The outer planets give me gas.

If you're going to that extent, it would be easier to tie in food purchases with your healthcare program. Not all foods have the same benefits for all people. Everyone should have a physician-approved menu, and food purchased from that menu would be at the lowest cost possible (subsidized the most by foods that are bad for you, and taxed the least). You could still have anything you wanted, but some foods are going to have a stiff tax (for you) based on how healthy they are (for you). This way the best choices will always be the most affordable, or at least the best deal. You could make a system like this work in either a publicly-funded medical insurance program or a private one. The private insurance would probably want to track the purchases and charge higher rates to people who deviate from their diet menu a lot, but as long as there is a publicly-funded alternative, competition would keep them in line.

The very first Tea Party protest was on a measure NY state wanted to implement, imposing an extra tax on any soda sold in the state that wasn't diet. Count on a huge portion of the country to object, with the inevitable dogpile from the corporate super PACs. It's funny, when cigarettes were connected with health problems, it seemed like a no-brainer to add tax to them to offset the costs of care. But now it's food that's the culprit, food that probably the majority eat, and suddenly people want to gripe about unfair taxation, and how it's just not right to try and legislate what people eat. Never mind that we already legislate what you drink, smoke, pop or chew, now they're after your DORITOS!!! I'm intrigued by the idea of using a tax on junk food (who determines THAT classification?) to subsidize the distribution of lower-cost fresh fruits and vegetables as an encouragement to lower income citizens to eat healthier. Definitely something to think on.

I've always seen my two favorite signs separately, but once I saw "Slow Children Playing" together with "$1000 Fine For Littering" and I thought to myself, "Hey! Maybe those children aren't so slow after all".

Hey, I moved the thread from the Lounge to Brain Teasers & Puzzles, don't I get a cookie?

For a long time, whenever I would read the word "boson", my mind would unconsciously play the little three-note call they use on navy ships when the bosun pipes aboard officers. It actually took me a while to figure out why stories about the LHC made me think about the ocean. I was never in the navy but when you say Higgs, I salute.

In the US, yes. Children born in the US of illegal immigrants are automatically citizens and are entitled to welfare legally.

So you like to smoke but don't like the taste of tobacco? Have you tried any flavored pipe tobacco? I like the smell of cherry, vanilla and amaretto, but I don't know how well they taste. I wonder if it would be easier to find some other legal herb you like to smoke that would taste better to you. Trying to neutralize a flavor is hard.

Define "big", please.