pygmy said:
Wow, I'm sorry-- But you're really clueless. There are over 36 million people living in poverty in the United States, and that's by the definition "lacking the resources to meet the basic needs for healthy living; having insufficient income to provide the food, shelter and clothing needed to preserve health"
If that's the definition provided by the census bureau, can't you see how things just don't add up, that maybe it's not just laziness that causes people not to take care of themselves the way you think they should?
I grew up poor, but not as direly as I could have-- $10 would have been a stretch for dinner. I knew plenty of people that lived on less than that. I'd get fresh fruit as a special treat instead of candy bars. And, so you know, if you eat beans and rice every day, you will get malnourished. That's why processed junk is fortified with vitamins, because poverty is a fact of life even in America, and people regularly got sick before it was mandated that food manufacturers do so.
I don't mean any offense to you, because poverty is hidden from people who haven't experienced it, I hope it's not presumptuous of me to recommend you and anyone else who's curious about what poverty really is to read Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America by Barbara Ehrenreich.
I respect your opinion there, but you're wrong. My point is that if someone can afford to buy junk food to feed themselves and their family, they can also afford to buy real, healthy food. Junk food is not cheaper than real, healthy food, it's just cheaper than most real, interesting food. As many people have stated, beans and rice are extremely cheap and infinitely healthier than hot dogs and boxed mac and cheese, vitamins and mineral fortified though they may be. You give me any actual meal consisting of food like that, and I can give you a healthier alternative that a poor family could turn to with a bit more effort.
By that definition you gave me, they shouldn't even be able to afford the cheap, boxed food. In that case, I'm not really talking about them. I'm talking about the working poor who take the easy way out by buying and eating junk.
ParodyofIllusion said:
BTW...$20 a meal 3 meals a day all year is nearly $22,000. Just in groceries. Nothing else.
If you figure it as one large meal and two smaller ones costing half as much then it is, $14,600.
That is already more than MANY more people in the U.S. can afford on groceries than you can even come close to imagining. Slap a tax on that and you start hurting millions more. Working families. NOT homeless families. Clock_Nova, you are one of the most naieve posters I have seen in a long time. You need to do more research on what the MAJORITY of working, blue collar, family budgets look like.
So, yes pygmy..."clueless" was a good word choice.
No, it was a poor choice. That $20 I mentioned could feed six people, and could probably be stretched to feed several more if money is especially tight. I also said I could make the same amount of food for half of that, if necessary. Remember, I'm not talking about $20 per person. Please don't jump to conclusions and then call me clueless. I'm not naieve at all; I know exactly what I'm talking about. You've proven that you can use a calculator; now prove that you can use your brain. Do some more research and get back to me.
Also, $20 for all three meals is ridiculous. Breakfast and lunch are generally much smaller meals, and don't even have to cost half as much. With careful budgeting and intelligent food choices, anyone can eat relatively healthy food with very little money. It may not be the world's most interesting food, and it will likely have to be repetitive, but it will keep a family fed and properly nourished. As I said, all it takes is the willingness to put forth the effort. It's easier to open that blue box of faux mac and cheese than it is to make something real. But it's not cheaper. At least, not by any significant amount. And it doesn't have to take that much time, as anyone with a crock pot will tell you (at least, not that much time in actual attendace of the food while it cooks.)
Why do they try and solve everything with a tax. How about subsidizing healthier foods and offering tax breaks to restaurants who serve healthier foods? Lower the price of better foods to an affordable level rather than up the price of the unhealthy food. Even subsidize grocers who have a decent sized health foods section. As it is I have to go to 3 stores to get my groceries because there is no one store who carries enough selection of the kinds of health foods I eat. I also spend almost $800 per month on groceries for myself and my son buying organics and better quality whole foods. If I made any less money than I do there would be no way I could afford a healthy eating lifestyle. That is really sad. I know there are places I can cut back and all, but seriously it really does get costly to varry the diet and stick to health and organic foods.
And they did this snack tax thing in California already 15 years ago and it failed miserabley.
I'm more in favour of a solution that educates society to form better habits.
I lived in New York for a year, which is pretty healthy for a US city I think, but still it is pretty out of control.
Switzerland is very different- for instance, I am about to go to the gym in a few minutes.
There will be more 50+ people in the gym than younger people, but it will be pretty balanced.
Young people exercise, old people exercise.
There is culturally a big interest in health or 'wellness' as they call it, because people here know how much better you feel for exercising every few days.
It is sad to see people not exercise and use rubbish excuses like 'I have big bones' or 'I don't lose weight like other people' and such excuses.
Especially considering it is such rubbish.
Being overweight is so unnecessary and mostly environmental/consumption based.
Very, very, very few peopl ehave the often used excuse of 'thyroid' problem- even that can be regulated with diet and exercise.
I never, ever thought I would be an advocate for working out- 10 years ago I was 250lbs and probably about 35% body fat and I felt and looked like I was 40 (when I was 24).
Now at 34 (and 185lbs - 13% body fat) I look younger than I did back then but more importantly I feel mch better in my body. I don't wake up tired and exhausted all the time and I have more than enough energy-
Also exercise has definitely helped with a long standing problem with depression- that has to count for something.
Since we're so gung-ho on having government act like our moms and dads, lets not pussyfoot around with taxes. Let's just have government tell us what to eat and if we're caught snacking we get punished. Compliance will, of course, have to be monitored with in-house video surveillance, but with modern technology the cameras are so small you'll forget they're even there.
Alternatively, rather than tax junk food, why not remove the tax on cigarettes? If smoking keeps all those fashion models thin, I say we remove the disincentive.
cato said:
Since we're so gung-ho on having government act like our moms and dads, lets not pussyfoot around with taxes. Let's just have government tell us what to eat and if we're caught snacking we get punished. Compliance will, of course, have to be monitored with in-house video surveillance, but with modern technology the cameras are so small you'll forget they're even there.
Good idea.
I have one also- borrowing from Hitchhikers Guide- we could have monthly weigh-ins for everyone and people who gain weight have that weight surgically removed immediately after the weigh-in.
The removed body weight could be frozen and shipped to Africa.
MrStitches
Brooklyn, NY
November 2003
JAN 18, 2006 05:07 PM