/dev/null Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 Let's windfall tax 'em! http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CN...;show_article=1 do-do-do-da-do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 Why not. got to pay for that trillion dollar stimulus plan somehow. if we tax the poor people they won't be able to eat that fatty Mcdonalds food, that will cause bad health and even more cause for government funded universal healthcare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 McDonalds and Wal-Mart were the only two companies in the Dow to have positive returns in 2008. The US...fat, stupid and ugly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 I though we already were. Isn't there a 'trans-fat' tax now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EndZoneCrew Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 McDonalds and Wal-Mart were the only two companies in the Dow to have positive returns in 2008. The US...fat, stupid and ugly. So you are saying we are the John 'Bluto' Blutarsky society? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 I have always said that you get a lot of caloric bang for your buck with fast food and with the MONEY YOU HAVE IN HAND. Sure it is unheathly... But that is why the junk food industry flourishes in the poor parts of town. Where can you get the caloric intake for 2 bucks cash in hand? Just check out the KFC commercial (which is true)... Where can you get that for 10 bucks? Sure it isn't the wisest way to spend you money... But where are you going to pack on the calories during lean times. The cash in hand surely burns a whole in the pocket when the stomach gets hungry. And... Historically, it would have been no different during different eras if the system was in place like it is today. See what I am saying? Giving the choice, people will make bad choices. Economically, it makes a lot of sense to "super size" a meal. Given that one is poor... What would they raher be, poor and skinny or poor and fat? Most are not thinking about their future and eating healthy when they are sctaching to get buy... They are looking for the most bang for their buck and belly calorie-wise. No? There is a reason why people at the way they did during the industrial revolution in England... It filled them up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 McDonalds and Wal-Mart were the only two companies in the Dow to have positive returns in 2008. The US...fat, stupid and ugly. I agree. Yet, like I said. Say you have 4 bucks cash in hand. You have two choices: 1. Save it and go hungry and buy better when you have more. 2. Spend it on the most calories you can for that amount. Obviuosly, choice #1 is the smarter choice... But, it flies in the face of human nature. when you are hungry and get a ton of calories over traditional eating habits (that may take other ways to prepare and preserve the food over a time span.). That is another twist... One can buy a huge bag of rice... Then one has to keep it. Again.. I am agreeing with you... But, there are many dynamics that go into the analysis of this conundrum. This is a great topic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 I have always said that you get a lot of caloric bang for your buck with fast food and with the MONEY YOU HAVE IN HAND. Sure it is unheathly... But that is why the junk food industry flourishes in the poor parts of town. Where can you get the caloric intake for 2 bucks cash in hand? So what you're saying is that McD's exploits the poor even worse than the oil companies do? Shiv the mofos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 I agree. Yet, like I said. Say you have 4 bucks cash in hand. You have two choices: 1. Save it and go hungry and buy better when you have more. 2. Spend it on the most calories you can for that amount. Obviuosly, choice #1 is the smarter choice... But, it flies in the face of human nature. when you are hungry and get a ton of calories over traditional eating habits (that may take other ways to prepare and preserve the food over a time span.). That is another twist... One can buy a huge bag of rice... Then one has to keep it. Again.. I am agreeing with you... But, there are many dynamics that go into the analysis of this conundrum. This is a great topic! With $4 you can also buy a meal's worth of fruits and veggies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 With $4 you can also buy a meal's worth of fruits and veggies. Love the irony of this post... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 I agree. Yet, like I said. Say you have 4 bucks cash in hand. You have two choices: 1. Save it and go hungry and buy better when you have more. 2. Spend it on the most calories you can for that amount. Obviuosly, choice #1 is the smarter choice... But, it flies in the face of human nature. when you are hungry and get a ton of calories over traditional eating habits (that may take other ways to prepare and preserve the food over a time span.). That is another twist... One can buy a huge bag of rice... Then one has to keep it. Again.. I am agreeing with you... But, there are many dynamics that go into the analysis of this conundrum. This is a great topic! Those are the only two choices? That's the problem with America they always take the fast and easy way out. How about doing some research or cooking at home. 3.50 LB Foster Farms Chicken Whole Fresh -$5.92 Fresh Broccoli - $1.99/lb Russet potatoes - $1.28 / lb Total would be $9.19 and it would feed probably three people with some chicken left over which would be about $3.06 per serving. Having to eat at a fast food joint is a huge cop out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 With $4 you can also buy a meal's worth of fruits and veggies. I agree... But I did say CALORIC bang for one's buck. Of course what you stated is the sensible choice. Just saying... Where can you get 1,000 calories for 89 cents and you can nurse it all day? Soda... Kinda yucky, but it works... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 So what you're saying is that McD's exploits the poor even worse than the oil companies do? Shiv the mofos. No, not at all. The offer healthy choices. Now Burger King may be another thing? They are more in your face. Again... No... All I am saying is that people will inexplicably make a bad choice and go for more bang... Whatever gets you through the day. What McD's is expoiting... Is your freedom of choice... They just tell themselves that people will make the right choice and look the other way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 Those are the only two choices? That's the problem with America they always take the fast and easy way out. How about doing some research or cooking at home. Total would be $9.19 and it would feed probably three people with some chicken left over which would be about $3.06 per serving. Having to eat at a fast food joint is a huge cop out. You get no argument from me. I did also say people actually got to stop being lazy and find a way to preserve and keep the leftovers. Again, I am agreeing with you. Yet, when one is poor and beat after a day of usually manual labor... The last thing they want to do is cook. IMO, food today is an escape... Not unlike alcohol was earlier on... Food is more of an innocuous escape unlike any other generation has known. Quite different today. The rich are thin and the poor are fat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 Yet, when one is poor and beat after a day of usually manual labor... The last thing they want to do is cook. Yeah because us rich people who sit behind a desk all day just love to spend two hours in the kitchen after work. Oh those sad manual labor poor people. I'd love to compare the amount of down time they have each week compared to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,482788,00.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 Yeah because us rich people who sit behind a desk all day just love to spend two hours in the kitchen after work. Oh those sad manual labor poor people. I'd love to compare the amount of down time they have each week compared to me. Not looking for an argument. I do agree with you. Society has really changed in 100 years. You still don't want the dude with the actual means of obtaining "fun tools" start having his stomach grumbling. There is an old joke: A lady goes to the contractor... "Take your time, do a good job and do it like you were remodling your house." The contractor starts to pack up his tools and leave. The lady says: "Where are you going?" The contractor replies: "I will be back in 20 years!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,482788,00.html Unreal. Where are the conspiracy theory fans on this one? More manufactured 'evidence' so we can have fatties all claim to be 'disabled' by their 'disease'. Of course, it's amazing how this didn't exist 30 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 Unreal. Where are the conspiracy theory fans on this one? More manufactured 'evidence' so we can have fatties all claim to be 'disabled' by their 'disease'. Of course, it's amazing how this didn't exist 30 years ago. No sh--. Next thing you know they'll be tying in Global Warming with obesity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 Unreal. Where are the conspiracy theory fans on this one? More manufactured 'evidence' so we can have fatties all claim to be 'disabled' by their 'disease'. Of course, it's amazing how this didn't exist 30 years ago. Again... Not disputing your claims. I do contend it is easier to curtail the system of food delivery than leave it to people's choice... NOT that I think that should actually be implemented... Just saying. Just like peanut allergy's... Children suffer more and more of that in the US than say Asia... Maybe it is the way we have changed the dry roasting process in this country the last 30 years?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts