Doesn't work that way.

You give one person $10 and they will spend it.

You give another person $10 and they will make $15 with it.

Wealth is created, it isn't a 0 sum game.

I said *I* don't know anyone who does. I didn't say nobody actually likes doing it. If someone wants to paint their walls themselves or fix cabinetry, then good for them. The point is that having money gives people the option on what to spend their time on.

Good point, I never considered the fact that *I* have a choice and I choose to do the work because I think it makes sense to save the money. For a lot of people, they can't make the CHOICE so they end up doing things they don't want to do.(or not doing them at all - look at their houses in a state of disrepair) But I had exception with the statement that people just did it because they were forced to. For example yesterday I hired an electrician to do some custom work in my home, I could have done it, but I don't want to die and the chance of dying when you open up your box is pretty high unless you have 20 years experience doing it. The economy is so bad I can hire 25 year electricians for $30.00 an hour these days, most seem unemployed. Anyway thats a different subject.

I don't think that's ridiculous at all. I used to mow the lawn with one like that too. Good excercise, out in the sun. No noise. BTW I pay $25 per week for my lawn to be mowed. I stopped doing it mainly because I'm lazy and just found other things I preferred to do.

No oil to change, no gas to buy, no pollution beyond my body odor. I have every good reason in the world to mow my own lawn, saving thousands of dollars over the years doing it. But $25 a week is cheap, either you are hiring illegals or you have a doggon small yard!

But taking the money away from the people who have demonstrated a knack for creating wealth to give it to people who have proven that they simply consume is not good for a society IMO.

The problem is how do you differentiate between people that actually need help because of real circumstances, and lazy losers that just want a free ride? There really is a big difference, a lot of people get into troubled times from being laid off or whatever, and need a "Boost" for awhile. I am all for divertting money to give them a boost that certainly won't come from the businesses in depressed areas. But I have a problem giving free money to a minority family where they have 11 kids and keep having more and the man of the house is too lazy to put on a pair of work boots.

I think it is virtually impossible to make a distinction with entitlement programs, isn't it?

I agree. If you enjoy it and you are saving money and not polluting then it's all good.

My lawn is pretty small. It's still $100 per month. Not done by illegals, done by someone I know actually who lived in our old neighbhorhood.

That is indeed a challenge. My answer is that charities are more efficient with money than the government. The government is not answerable enough.

For example last year we spent $206 billion in aid to poor families in the United States (just federal spending).  That's not Medicaid or anything like that. It's food stamps, school lunches, and other such programs.   When obesity is a major problem with the poor, I can't help but think that this is not as good of a system.

There really isn't a great answer to that.  But the problem is, there are plenty of people out there who see no problem with "the rich" paying 80% of their income in taxes. Over in Europe there's been talk in various countries in having a 100% tax on income over a certain level.  That's slavery IMO.

If my taxes are 35%, then I am literally enslaved to the government for over 4 months just to the federal government. What are we getting back for that? It's destructive to society for the government to coercively take income away from one man to give to another man who did nothing to earn it.

I'd rather see the states handle this kind of thing as a first step. The more local the better. (I'd prefer if it were just private charities doing it but one step at a time).

 

When obesity is a major problem with the poor, I can't help but think that this is not as good of a system.

This is because cheap food is the worst food for you, back years ago poor were skinny because poor people were eating the same food as everyone else - just much much less of it. People of advantage these days, tend to eat much healthier, organic, and no saturated fats. Ever go into Whole Foods? You'll find nothing but extremely healthy looking people that shop there. Ever go into Walmart? A bunch of obese poor people pushing around 5 kids playing in a shopping cart.

I'd rather see the states handle this kind of thing as a first step. The more local the better.

Move to New Hampshire, seriously. Pack up your company and family and head over there. New Hampshire has NO sales tax, NO income tax, and lower property taxes than most people pay anywhere else. Their business taxes last I checked were miniscule. Not to mention the state is listed as the best state to live in these days on most every chart. You won't find much of entitlement there, and I might add it is also one of the safest states to live in.

I often tell people there aren't any taxes other than property tax, and the first reaction is "That isn't possible, we have to have all of these taxes!".. WTF??? If we are at the point where people already accept the fact that we HAVE to have taxes we've already lost the battle. What the heck is wrong with people?

Yes and no, Yarby. We eat inexpensively and I am the ONLY member of my family that is obese. My wife and kids are all WELL within established weight guidelines.

You can eat well and eat cheaply, despite the claims of others. In fact, a hearty meal of beans and cornbread can be put together for a couple bucks to feed a small army. Yeah, you still need fruits and vegetables to balance it out, but you've got the core of your meal covered right there.

The problem is, nobody COOKS anymore. We all buy PROCESSED food. And the poor cannot afford to buy good quality processed food.

"But $25 a week is cheap, either you are hiring illegals or you have a doggon small yard!"

hiring illegals, street kids?

"The government is not answerable enough."

$10 billion MISSING IN IRAQ! You are making lots of sense here Brad.

"This is because cheap food is the worst food for you, back years ago poor were skinny because poor people were eating the same food as everyone else - just much much less of it. People of advantage these days, tend to eat much healthier, organic, and no saturated fats."

That is such stereo-typical crap. It's not like healthy food is hundreds of dollars a lb. The obesity crisis is about portion size, 24/7 mass marketing in every medium, and pop cultures / societies acceptance of fast food as acceptable weekly consumption. In addition to this myth, that everybody must be on-the-go, or live the on-the-go lifestyle. Soups in a cup, cupholders in every automobile, laws against eating while driving. There are plenty of factors contributing to obesity, and people's changing eating habits, not the price of food.

"You can eat well and eat cheaply, despite the claims of others"

Yes you can. Unless you let society/media/and word on the street give out your facts.

Look a vast majority of cheap food is;

1) Overprocessed.
2) High in saturated fats.
3) High Calories

You don't see poor people eating raw foods, sushi, or organic meats and fruit. You see them eating the same old garbage over and over again, a box of macaroni and cheese with some hotdogs and a soda or whatever. I've seen how poor people eat first hand, I have read the stories, and I see the nutritional reports.This is the reason for obesity among the poor, NOT because they have a lot of welfare money and are being overfed by the system.

Foodstamps should only work at farmer markets and whole food, or other organic stores. Then in 10-15 years you won't see nearly as many obese poor people. Seriously, 50 years ago poor people had virtually identical diets to everyone else - they just ate less and were skinnier because of that. Today they have diets that don't even come close to resembling the rest of us - NOT EVEN CLOSE - and they eat far far more of it because it is cheap.

The cheapest foods aren't actually the ones that are bad for you.  The cheapest instant-meals and cheapest restraunt foods are.

I would suggest that the issue is that most (key word is most as in most not all) people who are poor are poor because they are lazy or unmotivated. And it's a lot easier to pick up bags of chips and eat at McDonalds than pay cents on the dollar for healthy foods that can be cooked.

My wife chooses to cook healthy foods that are largely from scratch.  We don't stock up on Hot Pockets or whatever. 

As for moving the company, that's not a practical thing to do at this point even if I could get my wife to go along with it.

We agree but the question is - why are they eating pre-made macaroni and cheese with pre-made hot dogs and soda?

My kids aren't allowed to drink soda. They usually choose water or lemonade -- both which are cheaper. 

Most poor people, and I know people don't like admitting this but it's true, are losers. Not all. But most. They are unmotivated and lazy. And when it comes time to eat, they just do whatever is easiest for them.

Even if they had more money, they would still be obese because they'd still just gobble down whatever was easiest to cram down their throats. And potato ships and hot pockets and soda are a lot easier to stuff into ones mouth than picking up a chicken and roasting it for hours or buying a roast and cooking that and then turning the left overs into stew.  The obese poor don't do that.  For the same reason they can't be bothered to work or live responsibility, they don't eat responsibly.

And why should they be responsible when daddy government is going to take care of them anyway? And even as they take their free money from the government, they would spit on and curse the very producers who are paying for them and call them greedy and uncompassionate because we live in an age where compassion is now based on accepting an absence of personal standards in others.

Kinda negative in that last one knocking poor people, fat people, and people who rely on the government. LOL.

When I am feeling ambitious in the kitchen, which occurs about 3 times a week, I create wonderfully delicious gormet meals from scratch. They consist of decadently flavorful sauces of cheese, wine, or truffles. Sometimes a rich curry is my fancy with mounds of raisan filled cous-cous. Heaping helpings of my self-prepared penne, spaghetti, fettucine and linquine with rich red sauces infused with lots of red wine are often my choice. And my homemade desserts....mmmm, don't get me started; custards, puddings, pastries, etc.


When I'm feeling too lazy to cook I just toss a Lean Cuisine into the microwave.

I can't, for the life of me, figure out why I'm overweight?     

I disagree. I don't know if you're aware of this, but ALL "organic" is is a label. There is plenty of food on the market that is just as nutritious that does not bear the "organic" label. Even the food out of your garden cannot be labelled "organic" unless it meets a strict certification process.

Foodstamps as we know it should be completely eliminated, actually. If we're going to encourage people to eat healthy, it should be replaced with a voucher system. But barring one of those two choices, we need to cut food stamp expenditures.

I honestly am offended at Noumenon's suggestion that because my family saves money I am neglecting my children's nutrition. Know what kind of bread my kids eat? Whole grain, all the time. But the same bread YOU pay $3.99 a loaf for I buy for 85 cents because you're too snooty to buy at thrift stores. As for fresh produce, we buy on sale and in season. If it's not in season at a fair price, we buy something else. I shop for FAR cheaper than most people in America, and, while we don't always eat the best foods, we eat better foods than many people who spend 2-3 times as much.

"Organic" also is what they think the Spinach E-Coli came from - trying to be organic and instead poisoning half a nation.

"If my taxes are 35%, then I am literally enslaved to the government for over 4 months just to the federal government."

You could choose to not pay taxes, or to make less then your tax bracket, or setup shop in a country that doesn't have an income tax. You were telling us that because of your affluence you are able to decide to do things, that the rest of us fat losers, I mean people can't, so have you looked into flying to another nation and becoming a citizen in perhaps the tropics?

Certainly you can find a climate better then Michigan to live in.

It must be nice to be able to pretend the world is a different place than what it actually is in order to feel smuggly morally superior.

The obesity rate amongst the poor is higher than any other segment. This is a fact. It's not opinion.

And if you don't see the moral issue of men with guns (the government) confiscating the property (income) that someone makes in order to hand it over to someone who has done nothing at all to earn it then perhaps it is you that should go to some banana republic.